Falkland Islanders to hold referendum over sovereignty

[kentonio]

Typhoons aren't the best air superiority fighter out there, the F-22 beats em by a mile*, but yeah, I think they can handle a couple dozen retrofitted Skyhawks

Justification: The Raptor can do supercruise at much greater rates and for longer than the Typhoon, it has thrust vectoring, making it more maneuverable than the Typhoon, and it's stealthier and has a better radar array.

*mild jingoism here

Might want to check out what a US Air Force Chief of Staff had to say about it..

In 2004, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."

The Typhoon's combat performance, compared to the F-22 Raptor and the upcoming F-35 Lightning II fighters and the French Dassault Rafale, has been the subject of much discussion. In March 2005, Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, talked to Air Force Print News about these two aircraft.

The Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula One car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance. …The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high g forces), very impressive. That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. — all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Dude, I'm smart. But I'm sure there is a lot of stuff happening in the world that I don't know about.

My only real point here is in imagining possibilities that are quite conceivable.

Despite over 100k troops in Iraq (at the height of deployment) and now in Afghanistan, a bunch of "insurgents" managed to, on a daily basis, lug around artillery shells, dig big holes in the ground along routes commonly used by US military vehicles and exacted quite the toll on man and machine.

Putting a missile on a boat and setting it up on a truck doesn't seem to be that difficult compared to what occurs around the world on a daily basis.

That's because the mother****ers already lived there. And the IED components they found and used were all over those ****hole countries, and much smaller than an Exocet.

BTW, the ground launch variant of the Exocet requires a launcher that is pretty specialized and huge compared to the missile itself. That launcher is larger then a small truck - it's larger than a mid-size truck, weighs a bunch, and is not something you can quickly field assemble.

The ground launch and air launch variants are totally different. For ground launch, you don't start with the forward velocity of the aircraft, nor can you accommodate the drop after separation that is designed into air launch missiles to protect the aircraft.

If you did try to launch from a truck, you'd blow your ass to smithereens and pieces of the missile might make it 100 yards or so. They're not like Estes rockets.

[Hauldren Collider]

Typhoons aren't the best air superiority fighter out there, the F-22 beats em by a mile*, but yeah, I think they can handle a couple dozen retrofitted Skyhawks

Justification: The Raptor can do supercruise at much greater rates and for longer than the Typhoon, it has thrust vectoring, making it more maneuverable than the Typhoon, and it's stealthier and has a better radar array.

*mild jingoism here

[kentonio]

According to wiki, the Argentinians have 49 fighter aircraft, all 60s-era technology. I think four eurofighter typhoons along with modern AA could probably handle that unless they all came at once or something, but whatever.

The Typhoons are incredible aircraft, and the results would be horrible. Bear in mind the islands also have a heavy AA defense system in place. Within hours of the initial contact there would also be many more planes in the air heading southwest.

[Hauldren Collider]

According to wiki, the Argentinians have 49 fighter aircraft, all 60s-era technology. I think four eurofighter typhoons along with modern AA could probably handle that unless they all came at once or something, but whatever.

[kentonio]

The fact that it's barren would make it a lot easier for it to go unnoticed. There's nobody around to see them.

You really think we aren't watching?!

For the Argentinians to effectively attack the Falklands, I think they'd probably need a couple battalions or maybe a regiment of paratroopers who would take the airport, and then reinforce by airlift. The British don't have enough jets on the island to effectively resist the entire Argentinian air force, small as it may be.

This is why you don't know what you are talking about. There is a substantial garrison of marines stationed on the Falklands for the sole purpose of ensuring that 1982 could never happen again. Any Argentine landing craft goes near the islands, it will be sunk. Any warplanes go there they will be in the sea long before they get near the islands. You need to learn about the capabilities of modern fighter jets. The Argentine airforce would be absolutely obliterated.

Once the British have carriers again, of course, game over, the Argies are never taking the Falklands, or at least never holding on to them.

We don't need carriers to hold the Falklands. The balance of force is so heavily weighed against Argentina that unless they suddenly undergo a massive modernization program, they have literally zero chance of achieving anything other than a large number of dead Argentines.

[regexcellent]

Dude, this is Jack Bauer 24 stuff. It's probably also worth mentioning that when our new carriers are ready (which they aren't presently) they aren't going to be stationed anywhere near the Falklands in normal service. Unless you're planning on sneaking an Exocet into Portsmouth, you'd have to actually start a real shooting war before we sent big stuff out there, and one Exocet isn't going to sink an Elizabeth class carrier even if all the fantasy stuff could happen.

It's also worth mentioning that the Falklands is a barren rock and a bunch of Argentinians wandering about is really not going to go unnoticed. The population of the Falklands was a grand total of 2,841 in 2012.

The fact that it's barren would make it a lot easier for it to go unnoticed. There's nobody around to see them.

For the Argentinians to effectively attack the Falklands, I think they'd probably need a couple battalions or maybe a regiment of paratroopers who would take the airport, and then reinforce by airlift. The British don't have enough jets on the island to effectively resist the entire Argentinian air force, small as it may be.

Once the British have carriers again, of course, game over, the Argies are never taking the Falklands, or at least never holding on to them.

[Sava]

There then. There's no ****ing chance our military has bought one of those in the past 20 years.

Our military is very skilled. It's amazing what they can manage with broken down equipment and no money for repairs.

In all likelihood, you are correct. But would you bet billions of dollars on this? Oh, and even if you win, you still have to pay me billions of dollars... for the cost of the war.

That's the scenario. Even if the UK puts its foot up the Argentine military's ass... they still need to pay for it. At worst, they have to pay for it and lose billions more.

[N35t0r]

They cost over $1 million.

I'm surprised to learn that Argentine government accountants are so skilled considering the ineptitude of the military.

There then. There's no ****ing chance our military has bought one of those in the past 20 years.

Our military is very skilled. It's amazing what they can manage with broken down equipment and no money for repairs.

[Dauphin]

They owe us for not invoking the Monroe Doctrine and giving them a good kicking.

Given the UK was the one effectively enforcing the Monroe Doctrine for much of its early life, that's a rather amusing statement.

[Sava]

We're all good.

No actual harm intended.

Just blowing off steam.

[kentonio]

As you seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't defend British territory and British citizens based on this stuff, yes I would expect something a little more concrete.

[Sava]

Dude, this is Jack Bauer 24 stuff.

In asymmetrical warfare, it isn't wise to fail to imagine **** that mediocre TV writers think of.

6 months before 9-11, an X-Files spin-off called "The Lone Gunman" had an episode where a plane hit the World Trade Center. The two are obviously not connected. But it happened. Planes were hijacked. They were crashed into the buildings.

So because it's on a TV show it can never happen in real life?

[Sava]

Sometimes it's the lack of sources that is telling rather than the reliability of counter sources. As I said, if you have any source to support this then I'd really like to see it.

Dude, I'm smart. But I'm sure there is a lot of stuff happening in the world that I don't know about.

My only real point here is in imagining possibilities that are quite conceivable.

Despite over 100k troops in Iraq (at the height of deployment) and now in Afghanistan, a bunch of "insurgents" managed to, on a daily basis, lug around artillery shells, dig big holes in the ground along routes commonly used by US military vehicles and exacted quite the toll on man and machine.

Putting a missile on a boat and setting it up on a truck doesn't seem to be that difficult compared to what occurs around the world on a daily basis.

[kentonio]

Without looking on wikipedia, I'm pretty sure there are vehicles the size of small trucks on the Falkland islands already. There's your weapons platform. The warhead on the Exocet is less than 400 pounds. I'm pretty sure you can tuck one in the corner of some freighter.

The other components can be disassembled and packaged separately.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do this.

Dude, this is Jack Bauer 24 stuff. It's probably also worth mentioning that when our new carriers are ready (which they aren't presently) they aren't going to be stationed anywhere near the Falklands in normal service. Unless you're planning on sneaking an Exocet into Portsmouth, you'd have to actually start a real shooting war before we sent big stuff out there, and one Exocet isn't going to sink an Elizabeth class carrier even if all the fantasy stuff could happen.

It's also worth mentioning that the Falklands is a barren rock and a bunch of Argentinians wandering about is really not going to go unnoticed. The population of the Falklands was a grand total of 2,841 in 2012.