Falklands - one to watch, Argentina gets Russian jets

W

Warbler

At the Start
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
8,493
I don't believe it's been widely reported, but I recently caught an item that suggested that Russia has agreed to supply Argentina with 12, SU-24's (broadly comparable to a Tornado I guess) in return for beef and wheat? True?.

Ah, the unintended consequences of sanctions hey Cameron? Well the bottom line is if they get enough of these, they can bomb RAF Port Stanley leaving is with what? Well an aircraft carrier that won't come into service until 2017 (something which Cameron tried to scrap but luckily the Labour government anticipated this from the nuclear obsessed Tories, and inserted so many penalty clauses into the contract against the government that they concluded they had to build them). Having said that, Cameron did scrap the Harrier fleet which could conceivably have flown off the carrier in an emergency, so we'll have to wait until mid 2020 when she should have some F35's. Until then, she ain't much more than a container ship. Argentina could have their airforce in place next year. Cameron has successfully decommissioned both of Britains aircraft carriers (Ark Royal and Illustrious) and its aircraft now, leaving it with a helicopter platform to take on fast jets with (not a very equal match up)

I can't think that the Argies have any real need for SU-24's other than to bomb targets (that's pretty well all they can do). Know you of any targets that they might be interested in? The next escalation of course would be if they could get hold of SU35's as these could easily prove more than a match for the Typhoon in aerial combat. If they've able to disable the airfield for 48 hours or cut of the supply of fuel etc then Britain has a problem defending it. Submarine fired cruise missiles at airfield hangers look like the best bet that I can foresee, but that wouldn't stop a airborne assault, alebit that would be easier to repel on the ground than a fully fledged amphibious landing

Cameron did of course announce that he'd signed an entente with the French to use their carrier in between the capability gap of getting ours ready. Yeah right. Does anyone seriously think for one second that the French will put their ships, aircraft, and personnel in harms way fighting Britains colonial wars for them? I suspect the aircraft carrier will be in for a mysetrious MoT the day we need it, and I doubt that supporting them with a couple of heavy lifting aircraft in Africa (one of which broke down within 24 hours) and the other took a week to deliver, will be considered a fair swap by the French. Forget it.

Anyway, one to watch. Between now and 2017 we are potentially vulnerable to being caught with our trousers down, and if we continue to alienate Brazil they might be persuaded to support Argentina yet. I think we'll need to have to give America exploration and drilling rights on any oil fields at this rate, unless the Indians can be persuaded to defend us
 
Last edited:
Did you know....we keep 3 fighters in the air 24 x 7 over the Falklands. Was talking to one of my mates I see infrequently and his lad has just been stationed at Port Stanley for 6 4 months on refuelling duties. The Argies haven't a pot to **** in so how exactly are they paying for these planes Warbs?
 
Well spotted that it was Cameron who imposed the sanctions, Warbler, and not the EU or the US.

Jeezus. Your anti-Tory blind-spot is so obvious, I'm surprised even you can't see it.
 
Grasshopper said:
Well spotted that it was Cameron who imposed the sanctions, Warbler, and not the EU or the US.

Jeezus. Your anti-Tory blind-spot is so obvious, I'm surprised even you can't see it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, so long of course you're able to recognise your own sympathy for the Tories which is becoming equally transparrent Grasshoper, but it was well documented that the EU weren't that interested in issuing economic sanctions, particularly Germany who resisted it orignally and scuppered the first meeting where the UK tried to introduce them, and drastically watered down the measures at the second. In this case it was very much the UK (who had to enlist American and French help) who brought the pressure on the EU, so despite the fact that it might not sit comfortably with your admiration for the him, yes Cameron was instrumental in drawing up this one. But then he's made some howling errors of judgement on the international stage since coming to power and whether you like it or not this one could easily become another
 
No. He could not say im against sanctions because of Ukraine because the Russians might supply planes to Argentina. Or could he take that stance. How do we know that Russia wouldn't have supplied them regardless? They were not exactly a friend before the crisis.
 
Warbler, my "sympathy" lies only with what I perceive - right or wrong - to be the truth. This often leads me to have opinions which appear contradictory in a given context i.e. someone else's, but they sit rather well with me because the world is full of contradictions.

I was once described by Dave Jay (I think it was) on TRF as a "hanging liberal" and it's about as accurate a description of my politics as I've heard to date.

That and "utter gobshite".
 
Fair enough Grassy. I had always regarded you as liberal leaning, but believe I've observed a turning towards Cameron in the last few months

I should say, that I originally picked this story up on some ticker and some minor news site. I wasn't sure if it's got any authenticity or not? But a subsequent delve into it suggests it probably has. Janes is normally regarded as being informed on suhc issues, and the fact that the article was written yesterday leads me to think it's a contemporary issue.

Their own assessment is probably similar to my own crude one. The SU24 is pretty old and a Typhoon would likely account for it, but if Russia starts supplying better kit?

http://www.janes.com/article/47293/uk-reviews-falklands-defence-as-russia-offers-su-24s-to-argentina
 
clivex said:
No. He could not say im against sanctions because of Ukraine because the Russians might supply planes to Argentina. Or could he take that stance. How do we know that Russia wouldn't have supplied them regardless? They were not exactly a friend before the crisis.
Click to expand...

What he could have done is keep out of this one in recognition of what it was about, and the fact that any sanctions will also bite both ways (the approach Germany wanted to adopt). You might recall how he used to demeen Ireland (nicely of course) by pointing out the UK did more trade with the Republic than it did with the BRIC nations combined. Well he's hated in Brazil and has now been the prime mover behind getting sanctions imposed on Russia (which will hurt Europe too, as it already has Rolls Royce)

Cameron is essentially a cold war politician in his foreign policy. He spent the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union working for Carlton Communications closing down the Cook Report for fear of what they were investigating Kenneth Clarke for (in truth he had no option but to send the 'evidence' for a legal opinion) but it disappeared (the evidence) and the programme never aired.

He then reapears on the scene seemingly oblivious to the fact that some of his former enemies are now his allies and has looked to try and pick up a 1980's torch. William Hague was every bit as bad and you might remember a Wikileaks cable from the American Ambassador communicating his bemusement at the former Foreign Secretary offering him the assurance that they were reliable allies because "we are all Thatcher's children" (it seems to have escaped Hague that he was dealing with a new generation of Democrats and not old cold war Reaganists)

The most obvious miscalculation on Cameron's part of course has been Libya, and the dreadful signal that sends to other countries in similar positions

Like it or not Clive, the former government of the Ukraine was democratically elected and was overthrown by a street mob (something which I'm sure you disapprove of). I do remember the BBC telling us they were overthrown by "pro-democracy demonstrators", which is the BBC's stock phrase now for covering opportunistic criminals all the way up to ISIS. It's a lable they slap on any movement these days when they can't diagnose it. Sadly I also recall what many of these pro democratic demonsrators looked like, the flags they carried, and the insignias on them. I think it would be fair to say that they were much more 'nationalist' in their genesis, and what you were probably witnessing is a classic right wing/ left wing putsch (only Cameron amongst the western leaders seemed to think this was truly a pro democratic movement) - but then he said the same about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the National Transitional Council in Libya, and the Free Syrian Army. Hasn't the penny dropped with him yet? Our strategic alliance should be an accommodation with Russia, not the Ukraine

Russia has been in a position to supply Argentina with military hardware for decades Clive. I'm sure you'll accept that they haven't done so until now. Equally I hope you'll accept that their trading relationship with the EU is likely to have been a reason why. Indeed, we've been able to prevent EU countries from doing so. Is it really too much of coincidence then that a few weeks after a run on the rouble they've decided now is the time to suddenly supply them? I'll leave that up to you to work out the balance of probabilities. The SU24 only really has one purpose, and Argentina only really has one enemy of note. Coincidence?
 
Last edited:
Dave G said:
Did you know....we keep 3 fighters in the air 24 x 7 over the Falklands.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that isn't 3 planes in a state of battle air worthiness? I'd be very suprised if we had 3 in the air 24/ 7 flying conitunal CAP's
 
What about the Rapier surface-to-air emplacements on the islands.? Would they have the capability to take down incoming Sukhoi's ?
 
Yes.

As would a Type 45 destroyer moored in the bay.

Rapier has always been talked up to be better than it's ever performed in combat mind you, but then they've had plenty of time to bed these units down and get them configured. Historically they've been very sensitive electronically. Mind you, it does assume that they're using free fall bombs. The SU24 does have a fire and forget cruise missile facility I believe

It set me thinking actually as to whether in the future you couldn't coordinate something that involves inexpensive drones flying ahead of the main aerial attack. I can certainly see (in theory) how something like that might work in terms of expending a ships arsenal of anti aircraft missiles

There is an old adage that the 'bomber always gets through' and it could become something of a numbers game if the Argies swamped the air defence.

There's only so many Typhoons down there at the moment (four I think) you'd probably fly a series of probing attacks designed to pull them out and away from the airfield. They have to be refuelled and pilots can only stay awake so long. They could easily get over-run. You could easily set up a pattern where by as soon as one target turns around another flying a different run about 10 minutes behind it, becomes the new primary threat. The RAF would presumably be having to continually hop new intercept sweeps until one of them was able to get through. It's a little bit like playing "what time is it Mr Wolf" as the Argie will need to stay outside of BVR missile range, and similarly the RAF wouldn't (one would hope) go chasing after them outside of this distance anyway as all they're doing is using up fuel trying to meet them on the edge of their range

It's all hypothetical at this stage, but Argentina has certainly been ratcheting up the rhetoric.

We know from war games that the SU35 beats a Tornado, if the Russians started supplying front line fighters than the RAF has a problem. Equally of course Russia is proving to the West that it can find new trading partners, and not only that, doing so in a part of the world that the US has always regarded as being highly sensitive in terms of stopping Russian influence. Hell America are such good committed democrats that they even overthrew and murdered South America's first democratically elected President because he was regarded as being socialist (much better to install a muderous right wing junta instead)
 
Russia is certainly keen to spread its influence. It's financial support for the French natiional front is a perfect example and I would imagine that more far right racist parties will be benefiting soon enough. Putin of course does have admirers on the hard left (pretty much the same constituency of course).

I doubt whether America gives a toss about two laughably failed economies trading their rubbish.
 
It's no more of an anathema than America supplying weapons for Islamic fighters

I also think you're likely to be under-estimating American antipathy towards growing Russian influence in South America (I also suspect you know that really too)
 
I believe those days are over. It was idealogiical in the past and that hardly works now does it? America was always far too paranoid about Russian influence during the Cold War but now it's just a small dying economy that is gradually becoming potless. Long term prospects look even worse.
 
Warbler said:
Are you sure that isn't 3 planes in a state of battle air worthiness? I'd be very suprised if we had 3 in the air 24/ 7 flying conitunal CAP's
Click to expand...
I asked the very same thing. Nope, he said there are 3 in the air at all times. How much of a waste of resources is that?
 
clivex said:
I believe those days are over. It was idealogiical in the past and that hardly works now does it? America was always far too paranoid about Russian influence during the Cold War but now it's just a small dying economy that is gradually becoming potless. Long term prospects look even worse.
Click to expand...

I'll take a different read completely Clive, and invoke last weeks move to 'normalising' relations with Cuba as evidence. I suspect that the long-term American planners are working towards in 'chilly war' scenario, and Cuba was most definitely a thorn in America's side. I can't help but believe they're trying to draw the sting a bit there in advance of a sort of return to the older days.
 
Back
Top