I think the reality is that any Venezuelan involvement would be the kiss of death for any Argentine operation. Any Venezuelan involvement would instantly transform it from a one v one conflict over some islands, to a regional conflict, into which the US would get involved. If it stayed Argentina v UK, then the US might lend quiet help to the UK, but probably would not get involved directly. If Venezuela intervenes, the US would probably send a CVBG or two, and probably an amphib ready group – i.e. make it a joint UK/US operation. That would completely destroy any advantage offered by a few Sukhois! (The other major consideration is that by the time the FAV’s Sukhois are in service, the Type 45 DDGs will be in service, giving a much better chance against such a threat, and RAM missiles could be added quickly).

Perhaps the best solution for Ireland would be to follow the Colombian method – i.e. rely on SAMs for air defense (capable of dealing with any airliner shootdown situation), and then possibly the Cessna Citation X for air escort (it is fast enough to track an airliner).

Alternatively, do a deal with Slovenia and the Baltic nations, each getting 4-6 F-16s or surplus Gripens, with training handled elsewhere. It would be the cheapest way of adding fast jet capability, without needing to support a small orphan fleet.

Vaiar is right, Argentina would not be foolish enough to have Venezuelan fighters helping – it would make it almost a certainty that the US would intervene on the UK’s side, and would destroy the Argentine economy, which is not in the best shape anyway.

If Venezuela were to hit a coast guard ship on an anti-drug operation, there would be a very rapid response. The six month figure quoted by Hammer would not apply in this case, since that figure is for the buildup (and repositioning) of ground forces – in this case, a few sorties by B-2s, B-1Bs, B-52s, F-15Es and so on, would be more than enough to flatten every airbase or military facility.

The real question is whether Chavez actually plans to do anything with the aircraft – he cannot really expect to do much with them, without getting into big trouble with the US.

I do not think it is wise to base opinions of equipment based on press releases – they have a bit of a vested interest…

I actually think the F-16 still has a lot of potential, especially with newer avionics, newer weapons, upgraded engines, the possbility of thrust vectoring etc… End of life cycle does not really have as much meaning as with older generations of fighter (a Mig-21 is always going to be a ’50s design, but an F-16 can be justifiably called ’70s, ’80s, 90s or 2000s design, because of the nature of technology integration.

In short, turning this into a ‘block 60 vs F-16I’ thread is not going to achieve anything – nobody who actually has access to the true information can comment, and anyone who does not have access can only speculate!

A single pilot can certainly designate, especially in a ‘peace-enforcement’ type scenario as in Iraq, where the threat level is relatively modest. In addition, with modern targetting systems, you can fly at higher altitudes, giving you longer to actually spot the target (also, nowadays, you can simply use the GPS coordinates to find the target). As SOC says, the F-117s fly solo, and before GPS, that was a lot more work, and they managed quite well!

Very nice! The sad thing is that, had the CVA-01 project been combined with PA-58 earlier, the Chief of the Defence Staff at the time, Mountbatten (a strong RN supporter), would probably have approved construction. The other advantage is that there would have been less messing around with trying to bolt on a huge air defence system (CVA-01 had Sea Dart mountings aft) which took up a lot of space. If the UK had adopted a similar system to the French Masurca, preferably using the American launch rail system, then Sea Dart could have been designed very differently, with possibly better export potential. Obviously, the RN would probably not have fitted the 100mm guns, but could have fitted a mix of 40mm Bofors and Sea Cat missiles in their place, and later the SeaWolf.

Sealord: the T-50 does not normally have a radar fitted, but the A-50 attack aircraft does, and they are the same apart from that (basically), but the A-50 can be used as a trainer just as easily (you do not normally carry a radar in the trainer simply because it adds maintenance and weight, but there is no other reason not to). The single seat F-50 is still just a ‘maybe’ at the moment, as a proposed F-5 replacement, since South Korea (among others) needs to keep up the numbers – 100 all singing, all dancing F-16s will not handle 1000 ’50s tech J-6s (okay, those numbers would not come up, but the point is the same), so you need to balance quantity and quality.