It must be remembered that Argentina pretty much protests anything that the UK does about the Falklands especially millitarily. So very much a non story.
Have the Tornado’s returned to the UK? If not, Is it worth flying them back for them to be scrapped? Are any argentine scrap metal dealers due on the island anytime soon???
Actually the fact that the Tornado are being sent back to the UK is an interesting consequence of the Saudi Typhoon purchase.
The previous Phantoms bar one used as a gate guardian at MPA were pushed into a hole rather then flown home. With the Tornado F3’s life in UK service being extended because of the shortfall of Typhoon due to UK production being transferred to the Saudi’s I suppose it makes more sense to send the airframes home.
Posturing really by the Argentines, they have known for years that Typhoon would be based on the Falklands due to Tornado retirement.
They probably protested the Tornado’s and the Phantoms when they were deployed south.
Out of curiosity does anybody know what the material state of Polands Kilo class sub is? Fairly handy in its own right so interesting that they might be interested in the 214 class.
For that matter it will be interesting if Poland goes for the VLS upgrade that the Aussie Perry’s got and the Turkish Perry’s will get…
Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Terminates Greek Submarine Order
TKMS to put the dispute on unpaid submarines into arbitration
08:57 GMT, September 22, 2009 defpro.com | The turbulence in Greece’s submarine procurement programme which, for months, has hampered further progress, has now reached its climax: After having accumulated arrears exceeding €520 million ($762 million), the Greek Ministry of Defence was informed on Monday by Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) that the contract for construction of four submarines has been terminated.
As ThyssenKrupp summed up on Monday, “The Greek state has long ceased to honour its contractual obligations.” Although the submarines have been completed and are ready for delivery to the Greek Navy, the state refused to pay for the submarines due to technical shortcomings which were allegedly discovered by the Greek Navy during sea trials in 2006.
As defpro.com reported in late May (see: http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/320/), the refusal to meet its contractual obligations may also be due to the fact that Greece is facing a huge budget deficit and obviously decided to enter a sort of a complex “waiting game” in order to not meet all of its current payment obligations at the same time. Now, TKMS has decided to bring to an end this waiting game and announced that it wishes to put the dispute with Greece into arbitration.
TKMS has been involved in two contracts with the Greek state. The first of the contracts, dubbed “Archimedes Project”, was for the purchase of four 214-class boats, which are also successfully operated by the German Navy. Those boats are fitted with a state-of-the-art fuel-cell technology, allowing it to operate submerged for extended periods of time. According to TKMS, all four were ready for delivery to Greece. The second contract has been completed for retrofitting three 209-class submarines with fuel-cell propulsion technology.
The first 214-class submarine, christened Papanikolis, was laid down in Kiel as far back as February 2001 and launched in April 2004. The contract called for the manufacturing of the remaining three boats at the Hellenic Shipyards near Athens which, as HDW, is now part of the German ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) group. However, as soon as the Papanikolis began her sea trials the Hellenic Navy found a veritable host of major and minor problems with the vessel, which until today has resulted in the refusal to accept her.
The Hellenic Navy declared that the submarine suffered from insufficient stability while sailing in rough sea conditions, heeling by as much as 35-58°. Beyond that, they found that the AIP system became inoperable after a few hours and noted problems with the ISUS battle system. The official report of the Navy also said that sea water was leaking into the hydraulic systems and that the submarine was not quite as expected. Therefore, Papanikolis has been docked in Kiel since 2006.
German industry accepted some of the shortcomings’ liabilities and claims to have finally fixed these problems, however, payment has still not been made. Some expert suggested that Greece has been intentionally protracting the problem in order to delay payments and renegotiate the price. In fact, Greek Defence Minister Evangelos Meimarakis said in January he would try to renegotiate the contract.
Since the delivery of the Papanikolis, TKMS insisted that the submarine “met all standards” and, subsequently, engaged in long and fruitless talks with the Greek government on the issue. In addition to the production of the submarines, TKMS has largely invested in modernising and expanding the Hellenic Shipyards site, after purchasing it in January 2005. According to TKMS, it has provided Greece with the most modern yard to build non-nuclear submarines in the entire Mediterranean.
Back in May, a ray of hope had appeared when the Chief of the Hellenic Navy General Staff, Vice Admiral Giorgos Karamalikis, was quoted as saying that the technical problems with the Type 214 submarine were being solved and that Greece could soon be in a position to accept the three follow-on vessels. According to the quote, HDW had been willing to keep the Papanikolis and would try to sell it to another interested buyer, possibly Poland.
Although recent reports do not refer to this earlier development, it seems this alternative has not been successful, as TKMS has now clearly decided to terminate the contracts and to see that payment will finally be made by the Greek government.
Well that will place four new Diesel AIP submarines onto the market, it will be interesting who will snap them up!
Related News:
Russian defense min. confirms talks on purchase of French warship
MOSCOW, September 19 (RIA Novosti) – A senior Russian military official confirmed on Saturday that the country’s Defense Ministry was currently in talks with France to buy a Mistral class amphibious assault ship.
A Russian source close to the negotiations hinted on Tuesday that technical bilateral discussions should be completed soon.
“We are holding talks, but no purchases have yet been made,” Vladimir Popovkin, in charge of the ministry’s department for armaments, told the Ekho Moskvy radio.
A Mistral class ship is capable of transporting and deploying 16 helicopters, four landing barges, up to 70 vehicles including 13 main battle tanks, and 450 soldiers. The vessel is equipped with a 69-bed hospital and can be used as an amphibious command ship.
The ship could cost between 300 and 400 million euros ($430-580 million).
Gen. Nikolai Makarov, the chief of the Russian General Staff, said in August that Russia was negotiating the purchase of one ship at present, and later planning to acquire 3-4 ships of the same class to be jointly built in Russia.
Some Russian military experts have questioned the purchase both from the financial and military standpoint.
I think if Russia does purchase a Mistral it will have a very interesting fitting out. I presume they will want Russian radar and defensive missiles/guns.
Mr. Beedall is widely known & highly respected. He sometimes posts on the Warships1 forum.
Lets face it Mr Beedall knows more about UK warship production then anyone else. He often has the inside news and access to the best pictures before anyone else!
I have is site saved as a Favorite and I regularly refer to it for information the only other site shich I think gives as much quality inside information about a particular nations armed forces is the excellent Sinodefence.com website…
So 100% hit rate doesn’t sound good to you? What would?
Sorry my Typo…that should of said 3 for 6 or 50%.
Three for three doesn’t sound too bad to me.
It sounds bad for me…anyway I question those three hits
Source please.
I will find it but I’m going out in a moment
That was the purpose of MKV. Besides you make it sound as though making effective decoys and MIRVs would be as easy as waving one’s hand for Iran. Couldn’t be further from the truth. By the time they’d have had MIRVs the US would have already had MKV deployed. Not now of course since Zero cancelled it but oh well.
I agree it is very hard but it would be a program goal of Iran and it doesn’t change my point that Iran only needs to make MORE of its single warhead missiles to defeat the GBI
You must not have been following the testing.
http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/web/page/665/sectionid/559/pagelevel/4/interior.aspx
If the target fails to launch you can’t very well hit now can you?
I have been following it, not exactly a glowing round of success!
Anyway they changed the rules so a near miss could be classed as a hit.
My main point is still it can be easily defeated by introducing decoys or MIRV technology or just making more missiles.
Those 10 missiles would have 10 warheards (Mirvs) on them after a couple of years, thats why Russia doesn’t want them there, even though they already have the advantage in SAM/ABM defences.
The GBI missile has a single Exo Atmospheric Kill Vehicle EKV, its only any use against 1 missile. If any of those missiles have a MIRV capability then forget the GBI offering any kind of defence! As I said you don’t even need MIRV to defeat it just lots of missiles … I think Russia has quite a few missiles;)
My point was all Iran has to do is make MORE missiles its actually an incentive for proliferation! For that matter Iran has a MISSILE PROGRAM meaning they are developing a more advance capability over time and at some time maybe even a MIRV capability. Even if the GBI missiles had 10 EKV each and they all worked properly Iran only needs to make 101 missiles to defeat them.
The best deterrant has always been MAD ie the threat of overwhelming counter strike.
As for Russia, it has no technical fear of the system! its to do with Russian paranoia about encirclement and America operating its percieved sphere of influence…
What do you mean “it never worked properly”? They hadn’t even dug the holes for the damn things.
The interceptor missiles of the NMD system have repeatedly failed to hit anything in test firings.
Canceling the GBI deployment in Eastern Europe was entirely sensible, it never worked properly in the first place.
Also 10 missiles were comical anyway, Iran would of had to do is build 20 missiles making the system next to useless.
Apparently Typhoon was supposed to be the replacement for Phantom, with the Tornado F3 continuing in service. However with the end of the cold war, Phantom was retired and now we have typhoon replacing Tornado rather then Phantom.
Yeah the OSD for Phantom was meant to be 2008 not 1992, the Phantoms were going through an expensive SLEP when they were retired to get them to this point.
As for a naval Tornado if CVA-01 had happened…I don’t think so.
Phantom and Bucaneer would of operated off CVA-01 until the late 90’s at least maybe even the first few years of this decade. No reason why the couldn’t, the Phantoms were fairly fresh when they were retired and when CVA-01 was on the cards they were going to be purchased in larger numbers.
I think we would of seen a E2C Hawkeye purchase in the mid 80’s and the Phantom/Buccaneer replacement would of been a single type possible the the F/A18D or some kind of Anglo/French project.
The Falklands certainly didn’t “require” AWACS, as it was fought to a successful (for one side) conclusion without AWACS being used. It did, however, require aircraft carriers for the UK to fight it at all.
Brazil has both AEW & tankers for use in its vast airspace over land, & is planning to replace its old tankers with new ones.
Argentina had, & used, tankers in the Falklands war. They were few in number & limited, & not all its fighters could use them, but they were used.
You got there ahead of me Swerve, carriers (Royal navy ones) were key in taking back the Falklands.
Without those carriers we would be talking about the Malvinas now…
But do you mind me modifying/clarifying part of your answer, whilst AEW/AWACS wasn’t used in the retaking of the Falklands it was certainly a desired capability. Many an RN officer who went down south have stated they missed the Gannets and the rushed development of the Seaking/Searchwater combination is proof of the need! Let me put it down to you rushing to correct a silly idea buddy!;)