I also believe the Fencer sale is a hoax. 28th december is the "dia de los inocentes" in the spanish speaking world - their equivalent to april fools day.

Having said that, i have absolutely no doubt that The Soviets were providing satellite intelligence to the Argentine Air Force during the war, and there is also the Invincible torpedo incident from the 5th May that has yet to be fully explained. I have spoken to eye witness of this, and they were pretty sure the saw a torpedo wake, and Brillants sonar operator was very convinced by what he heard......no argentine subs were in the vicinity of the CBG at the time.

As I commented in an earlier post....

Surely the point of a hoax is for it to be funny, no? Where's the joke in this?

So why is the post entitled "Baghdad glazed". Or have they renamed Buenos Aires!

LJ :cool:

We don't exactly have a stellar record of such high jinx, not since '67 anyway.

1) It pokes fun at the British by boasting about a new and powerful ally
2) creates disinformation which has to be considered at high level - possibly divert funds
3) keeps on-message about retaking the Malvinas (and forgetting domestic issues).
4) Ingratiates yourself to your new powerful best friend by creating mischief for the British in retaliation for their meddling over Ukraine

What could be funnier? :E

On the subject of the Falklands, when the Sea Kings are retired next year, will anything replace them? I'd imagine CSAR would be beneficial considering the potential of it actually being required, or will it just get privatised as well?

They fooled parts of the British media (including Jane's) so whoever started it probably had a larf.

Humour is in the eye and ear of the beholder. Some people think clowns are funny and some think they are creepy, and Russell Brand has made squillions allegedly being funny. So, just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean it's not a hoax, or that you have no sense of humour.

would you buy a used airplane...
 

The Argentinians did not have much luck when buying a used cruiser from the Americans, even if it had a good pedigree from surviving Pearl Harbour..... maybe they threw away the lucky rabbit foot.
History is littered with large countries selling arms to small countries, then charging exorbitant prices for spare parts. Given the Russian need for currency of any sort, wonder how much it would take to keep Fencers airworthy!!
Rules of war... don't mess with the Balkan countries, do not try land assaults on Moscow, and do not buy anything from the Russians except Kalashnikovs

Including all civil airfields? I don't think so.

The UK media is reporting that the MOD is to hold a review of Falklands defence on the back of these reports. Not sure how that means they have been 'fooled'.

They're being replaced by Bristows aircraft. The FI SAR requirement forms part of the newly, completely civilianised, SAR contract being let by the DfT, administered by the MCA and won by Bristows. Military SAR in the FI and the UK is due to end in 2017 (I think).

Wrt CSAR, the UK has no CSAR capability (as discussed many times on this forum) although it has 'dabbled' in the past.

Sun.

Sorry Sun

You've got that completely wrong. The FI SAR requirement will be nothing to do with MCA/Bristow. The contract to replace the MPA SAR Sea Kings was recently won by BIH, due to start in 2016.

Inputshaft,

Apologies, I made an assumption based on partial knowledge. You are of course right, thanks for the correction.

I guess my main point stands though, it's being civilianised.

Sun.

No problem.

There's an ongoing confusion about this because there actually IS a Bristow SAR cab heading down there at this very time. But it's part of a short-term oil exploration contract that Bristow has for the next year or so. It will be there specifically to support the offshore operation, in simple terms due to expanded range and payload requirements, with no overland commitment, then removed with the rest of the operation at the end of 2015.

Inputshaft

melmoth,
Like you, I'm not sure how funny this is - considering that both the Ruskies and Argies are fiscal basket-cases.

Remember "birds of a feather......"!

Just changed the original a little.

Streetwise Professor: Will Bomb for Food

Russia is leasing 12 SU-24 swing wing Fencer fighter-bomber aircraft to Argentina. Argentina is paying with . . . food, specifically beef and wheat. The 1970s-era SU-24 was, um, very similar to the US’s 1960s-era F-111, which the US retired in 1996. (Seriously: look at pictures of the Soviet SU-24 and the American F-111 and it’s hard to tell the difference.)

The UK is unsettled by the transaction, because the jets could threaten the Falklands. And of course Argentina is in such great shape that it can easily afford a few wars of choice. After all, the last one went so, so well.

But look at it this way. If Argentina prevails this time over an emaciated British military, it will conquer islands with 500,000 sheep. Just think of how many weapons the Argentines will be able to lease from Russia in exchange for all that lamb, hogged, mutton and wool. Chile, look out!

I have another suggested trade between the two countries. They should just exchange their currencies. That way, each can obtain more varied wallpaper.

So no, Russia is not isolated. It is a fully paid member of the Drowning Men’s Club, whose desperate members grab onto one another for dear life as they go under once, twice, and yet again. Look at its economic and political allies, such as they are. Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Syria. Decrepit losers, every one. Hell, even Belarus is looking for ways to escape the embrace of a drowning Russia.

This deal is so revealing. Russia, once the world’s breadbasket, can’t feed itself. But what does it have to trade? Decrepit military equipment from another era, and a derivative design largely lifted from the evil Americans at that. When “Will Bomb For Food” is only a slightly exaggerated characterization of a country’s comparative advantage, it says everything you need to know about Russia’s economy 23 years after the end of the Soviet Union and 15 years after the advent of Putinism.

Fantasy.

Marco just had a few much-too-warm beers and woke up remembering that he had to turn some article in before New Years Eve... so he came up with this.

Argentina is a british enemy, Russia used to be one and it appears like it´s coming back for more... 2 +2 = 4.

It always pays off well when you face "the Axis of Evil", whatever countries you choose to include in them.

Does anyone one disccuss that the real saviour of the Royak Navy was Galtieri?

Cheers!!

Helicopter for rig support may be there for a while - I think they have quite a number of wells planned and Sea Lion development is underway

Another question is will they reinstate the regular bi-weekly Gatwick- Mt Pleasant charter for the oil field trash changeout?

Norwegian rig so the boys will expect a regular (and short) shift aboard

Not if the price of oil is going the way it is at the moment.

I think this story has probably been instigated by the Russians. They are desperate to scare the West to show that they are a relevant force in the world. Some chance.

First of all, the history is a nonsense. The local MoD was contacted by the press and they denied the history at all.

Secondly, my bet is the history was originated INSIDE the UK. After the defense cuts, someone needed the excuse to buy more planes, improve ships and so on. And with this fantasy scenario (making the proper headlines), he has the excuse...

Finally, surely I could exchange a couple of cows for a Fencer.

Regards!

Peter we the Russians have much much more hardware and manpower that the UK so they can and will show their strengths.

Umm, I and others, don't see it as showing strength at all.
Poorly thought-out political game playing is closer to the mark, I think.

Good ruse though. Precisely the material that should be discussed on a Rumour Network :D

When news like this one make the headlines and discussions such as this one fire up, I wonder if the standar british reader knows that Argentina has 2/3 of UK´s population, 1/4 of its GDP and that given that GDP as a whole, it spends roughly 1/3 of what the british taxpayers commit to their armed forces.

For the FY 2010-2011, the total expenditure on the BFFI reached something like £75 million, according to this: http://www.google.com.ar/url?sa=t&rc...,d.eXY&cad=rja

Could anyone seriously think that a country that considers £2000 million to be a reasonably high figure for their Armed Forces to spend throughout a whole 12-month-year is really a threat to the islanders?

The answer, my friends, my answer at least, is not blowing in the wind, but written in the press:

Cameron: Defence Spending Could be Cut | Forces TV

To settle it straight: rumors of defense-spending cuts? Oh, well... just shake the money -maker and write a few bombastic titles on the south-atlantic islands...

Cheers.
Christian

drilling rig is contracted - cancelling the contract means you pay the same but get nothing for it

A bit like the Nimrod MRA4 then? :)

Really? How so?

I thought it was the Saudis that really brought the pain - though well done to the States for bustin' up the cartel with a bit of competition. I'm sure it had something to do with the decision.

A big difference is that the UK is a member of NATO and does not just rely on its own military for defense. The UK can rely on the entire NATO defense structure. Russia on the other hand has few friends and essentially has to go it alone.

UK Bolsters Falkland Defenses to Counter Argentine Air Ambitions

LONDON — British military capability planners are eyeing a major improvement to ground-based air defenses in the Falkland Islands amid continuing signs that Argentina is looking to update its Air Force with modern strike aircraft.

Argentina and the UK fought a short but bloody war over the British territory in 1982. The dispute received new life recently by Argentinean President Cristina Kirchener's launching a diplomatic war of words in an effort to eject the British. Now it has emerged that the British have been planning to replace the aging ground-based system on the Falklands with a package including a battle management command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (BMC4I) system, a new missile and a radar.

As recently as December, unconfirmed reports emerged that Buenos Aires was in talks with the Russians over the possible lease of a squadron's worth of Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer attack jets in a move that would threaten Britain's control of the skies locally. The reports drew a response from the UK Defence Ministry that it would adjust defense capabilities to the appropriate level to address any threats to the disputed islands, which the Argentinians refer to as the Islas Malvinas. Britain has maintained forces on the island since the war. The force includes four Typhoon jets, Rapier missiles, naval assets and around 1,200 troops. Last year, the British spent £63 million (US $95 million) for defense of the Falklands.

"We are currently assessing options to meet the requirement for future [short-range air defense, ground-based air defense]," an MoD spokeswoman said. The BMC4I system will be "linked to the FLAADS(L) [future local area air defense system (land)] missile and launcher. This includes coupling to [Giraffe-Agile Multibeam] radars," she said.

The spokeswoman said it was not possible to say when the Falklands system would enter service, as the project, which is fully funded, is in only its assessment phase. However, she was able to give some other key milestones for the project. "Invitation to negotiate for the BMC4I system is forecast for summer 2015 and contract award is expected in summer 2016," she said. "Our overall military posture in the South Atlantic is based on regular assessments of the threat and the Falkland Islands remain well-defended."

A BMCI system similar to the likely Falkland's requirement entered service with the British Army last October. The system, known as Land Environment Air Picture Provision (LEAPP), was built by Lockheed Martin UK in a £100 million deal the company signed with the MoD in 2008. Industry executives said the limited number of LEAPP systems delivered may be the reason the MoD is pursuing a further procurement for the Falklands.

Richard Muir, the business development director at the Lockheed Martin UK Ampthill site, which leads the LEAPP work, said the system could provide air-space management and surveillance from five kilometers to significantly beyond 100 kilometers. "The range of LEAPP is only limited by the radar," he said.

Despite LEAPP coming into service only in the last few months, the MoD spokeswoman said the BMC4I element of the system would be competed rather than just tacked on to the end of the LEAPP contract. FLAADS(L) and the Saab-supplied Giraffe are mandated though. Certainly, Lockheed Martin UK will bid. Other possible contenders include MBDA and Saab.

The Giraffe radar is already part of the LEAPP capability, although at the moment the sharp end of the system is provided by MBDA's aging Rapier missile. That's due to change around the end of the decade. The MoD spokeswoman revealed the ministry had signed a demonstration and manufacture deal with MBDA in late December for a replacement of the Rapier, which is FLAADS(L). The land weapon is a derivative of the missile company's common anti-air modular missile; a naval version known as Sea Ceptor, which uses the same missile, has already been ordered for Royal Navy Type 23 frigates. Argentina's neighbor, Brazil, and New Zealand have also ordered the naval weapon system.........

In simple terms, why is the price of oil per barrel declining now and so rapidly? The average man in the street (and I am he), thinks its because US and Canadian Oil fields are now well on line and in full production, aided by the now on line development of Shale Oil and Oil Tars. This is the cause of the very recent decline in price, yes?
Also full production elsewhere around the world (West Africa in particular).
Plus full unlimited production in Saudi and MENA.
Plus Russia.
plus a relatively mild winter in the northern hemisphere? Is it simply now supply is at maximum capacity and in healthy competition for best price for the consumer?
Any industry experts, is that it?

Streetwise Professor: The Oil Price Decline: No Conspiracy Theories Need Apply

The Su-24s-for-Argentina story is lacking three elements.

Peter Cushing, a stake and a mallet.

Argentina is not going to get strike-fighter aircraft that can mount an increased threat to the Falklands because (1) they can't afford to buy them, (2) they can't afford to maintain them and (3) most people won't provide them.

In any event, FLAADS-L + Giraffe-AMB + BMC4I is much too far out to respond to any immediate crisis. But could it possibly be that the system's advocates would like to get it solidly funded in order to catch up with IRIS-T SLM and the various Israeli offerings?

1. They won't be buying them - the story states that Russia would lease them.
2. They wouldn't have to maintain them - I'd imagine that support would be included in any leasing arrangement.
3. Most people won't have to provide them, only Russia.

Having said that, I do agree that a strike aircraft such as the Su-24 does not really fit in with Argentina's requirements for an air defence fighter.

Finding experienced WSOs could be a problem.

Saudi are purposely keeping production high as demand has waned from China; it's all an attempt to push the shale fields out of business.

Let's just imagine for a moment that the story is true:

Counter-trade for aircraft isn't new. Hawker-Siddeley sold 748s to Aerolineas Argentinas for corned beef long before most people could point to the Falklands on a map.

Most of Russia's wheat used to come from the Ukraine. The yellow in the Ukraine flag represents wheat. Vlad is probably looking for an alternative source. Their beef generally comes from the US and Australia, neither of whom are best friends with Mother Russia at the moment, so they will be looking for an alternative supply for that, too.

The Argies would welcome a (slightly) more modern addition to their geriatric air force from whatever source and they aren't going to get it from any of the usual suspects. (It might also give the western manufacturers an opportunity to sell some new(er) aircraft to their neighbours on the other side of the Andes).

If I were Vladimir Putin, I would see this as a perfect way of extracting some revenge against the UK. Give the bullets (as it were) for someone else to fire and throw up your hands if they're used in the wrong way. Even if they were never used in anger, they would provide a nuisance factor - rather like the Bears which seem to enjoy flying around the edges of NATO airspace...