UK unlikely to block Gripen sale to Argentina

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Zaphod58
Ooh, that does sound a supiciously cunning plan by Argentina, why would they want refuelling capabilities for their defence, refuelling implies attack outside of their borders.
I still think they'd be spanked on their mainland military bases in any future conflict. £800,000 a pop on the Cruise missiles, but the psychological factor of attacking their land would be supported in Britain and would make a massive difference.
I think we should have attacked their homeland in '82, one of my older brothers fought there and his stories when we are one to one are sad, a crap supply chain thousands of miles from the UK, he took the boots off a dead Argentine soldier because his were #ed.
The support in Britain for attacking Argentina would be strong if they tried it again...it is a recent memory for many.

Yes I think the UK should have laid waste to all there Air force and Navy bases as a punitive measure.
completely remove any ability for them to make war with anything expect penguins.

We had got sea and air supremacy by that point so we may as well have finished the job.

a reply to: Blackfinger

Its war, people get killed, things get damaged.

And that was in the 70;s


The sea viper airdefence system on our new ships are better than the US Aegis system

I don't want to see any of our Servicemen in active service anywhere......but we live in a real world.

The UK does not want to be a part of any war on foreign soil....we've seen enough.

But, and its a massive but.....as other's have said; The Falklands are not 'foreign soil' and the British people would almost unanimously support whatever action was deemed necessary to defend any invasion or active threat.

Personally, I would advocate sailing one or two of our nuclear class submarines up the River Plate to Buenos Aires and making a very public show of strength.

The UK has made quite conciliatory moves towards the Argentinian government in recent years whilst remaining resolute in our support of the Islanders Right to Self-Determination; the Argentinian government has rejected all such approaches much to the detriment of the Argentinian people and their well being.

I don't care if these parts are sold or not, its irrelevant - any attempt to claim The Falklands by force would result in the decimation of the Argentinian Armed Forces.

originally posted by: Freeborn
Personally, I would advocate sailing one or two of our nuclear class submarines up the River Plate to Buenos Aires and making a very public show of strength.

Haha nice thought but come come Freeborn, that's like insulting a blokes mother at the pub, just asking for a fight.

a reply to: grainofsand

Haha nice thought but come come Freeborn, that's like insulting a blokes mother at the pub, just asking for a fight.

Never been one to shirk away from something when necessary - sometimes you just got to front things out.

a reply to: Freeborn
I'm definitely drawn to the spirit of your sub idea though, but I was thinking more a major training exercise in the S.Atlantic for the Royal Navy.

HMS Ocean is only a few miles along the coast from me in Devonport after a lengthy but shiny new refit and upgrade. The Queen was there last month to rededicate her, so a nice first training exercise would send a message. A few supporting destroyers and frigates, plus submarines, good to go, the only extra costs are fuel and RFA support.
Take the piss at the border of Argentina's territorial water, test their responses, but of course claiming publicly that we are only there to train in S.Atlantic conditions.

The only concerned question I have though is would that bring them to their senses to behave, or escalate things?
I can't answer that one.

a reply to: grainofsand

The thing is, its only political posturing and chest beating from Kirchner et al.

We all know that the Argentinians have zero ability to amount an assault on anything - they are in a far worse place now militarily than they were back in '82.

But if, and it is a massive if, they do continue in the same vein then I personally wouldn't hesitate to order a show of strength....and bollocks to world opinion.

I feel genuinely sorry for the Argentinian people - all they want is to be able to get on living their lives the best they can, pretty much the same as all of us.

On a slightly different tack; there are some similarities domestically with '82.
Thatcher had committed to a programme of severe cut backs in our Armed Forces, to an extent that people were genuinely concerned about the UK's ability to both defend itself and meet its NATO commitments - sound familiar?
With an election imminent and the Tories viewed unelectable she was convinced to take a strong stance over The Falklands.....and the rest is history.

Lets hope history doesn't repeat itself.

originally posted by: Freeborn
Lets hope history doesn't repeat itself.

I agree, hopefully nothing is going to happen in international bolloxtics that will influence things so close to the election.
I registered to vote online this evening, the deadline is midnight if anyone is procrastinating still.
Register to vote @.gov.uk

Send a few tornados and storm shadows. uplift the flight of 4 or 5 to sq 12. And thats about sorted. The real problem is if the islands get cut off resupply qickly turns to a b*tch

There was virtually no military presence in 1982 so the Argentines were more like squatters than invaders. It's true, we are lacking the Vulcan, Nimrod, and Harrier from the Air Force and any Aircraft carrier in the Navy, but on the plus we now have swing role Typhoons based there (F-4 Phantoms may have dissuaded them in 82 from even starting) and the Voyager is a far more capable tanking support aircraft than the Victor ever was. A Voyager could fly from Ascension to the Falkands by itself unrefuelled, so further aircraft could be supported more effectively. We also have precision guided weapons when the aircraft get there, so attacks would be more effective. There is also the sub launched cruise missile to consider, use of this weapon would be a certainty in any future aggression and then there's the much lauded defensive capability of the Type 45 destroyer. There is also the long range lifting capacity of C-17's and A400M's to consider for rapid troop deployent. This is a capability that is growing with each new delivery and which was totally absent in 82.

On balance, Argentina would be foolish to go there.

Perhaps a silly question, but why not simply install a scant few anti-ship and anti-air missile batteries? I feel they're in a similar situation to Thaiwan where, being a nearby island nation, the easiest defense is to deny an enemy the ability to reach your shores. With so few attack/bomber aircraft, and very antiquated, it would require (relatively) very little investment to ensure nothing reached their shores unless they have more amphibious assault/transport craft than I am aware of.

HI Guys and girl,

just spotted this on janes:

www.janes.com...

No need to block something that's not going to happen. But I makes you wonder how much work would need to be done!

RAB

Nice...Wonder if that will force them to look to Soviet Block aircraft or to the Israelite Kfir..

a reply to: Blackfinger

As i understand the kfir would need usa go ahead due the engine and some of the avonics.

So back to mother russia and the chinese.

RAB