I meant interferrometry , it goes without saying I suppose .

And the new DASS antennas aren’t capable of it?

Spectra detection and identification range is twice the range of DASS (200km vs 100km) .

How can the range of a system be independent of the power of the hostile emitter?

Spectra also has the unique capability to lower the RCS of Rafale through clever stealth jamming which was highlighted by the pilots themselves when they said that Lybian radars tried for hours to get a lock on the fighter , without luck .

Sounds like an application of DRFM. No reason why it should be unique to the Rafale.

Apparently not everybody agrees…

According to them its just routine rotation in the naval deployment to region.

I saw this as a bit of a slap in the face for the lady.
As I stated, this is only an observation.

They didn’t attend a war commemoration but barred all Falkland flagged shipping from their ports. That was an act of substance, while attending the former might have been interpreted as an endorsement of a violent means to achieving a goal, and was therefore rightly avoided.

Really, you have to ask?

Argentina is demanding something that they have never had by denying something that the UK has historically had access to…. aka extortion.

In simpler terms, give me something you own or I will hurt you (economically). It does not get any simpler than that.

Historic access to something doesn’t make it a right. Historically, Falklanders did not have British citizenship either, they do today. South America was historically a disunited squabbling group of countries in no position to support Argentina. Today they are united and are led by a future world power. Circumstances change. Argentina doesn’t acknowledge British ownership of the Islands. I see no reason why they should have normal relations with it as a matter of course.

Your position appears to be – the Argentinians should stop their diplomatic actions against the UK, should concede their position and withdraw from the dispute, and normalize trade relations with the Falklands. In return for? Well…. Britain getting to enjoy the rightfully earned fruits of its victory.

That’s not how disputes are resolved.

“Fact is”, appeasing bullies has had dire consequences for humanity in the past.

Its a pity the Chagos Islanders were never give the opportunity to appease their bullies and are still denied the same rights that Britain is willing to go halfway across the world to protect.

There is no “middle ground” where people’s lives are concerned. The Argentinians are going to have to swallow their pride and get on with solving more pressing internal issues.

Opting for a middle ground does not entail disrupting people’s lives. Ceding the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and allowing the Argentinians some degree of access to the EEZ while getting access to South American ports and markets in turn, is hardly a radical concession for either side.

Paradise cleansed

There are times when one tragedy, one crime tells us how a whole system works behind its democratic facade and helps us to understand how much of the world is run for the benefit of the powerful and how governments lie. To understand the catastrophe of Iraq, and all the other Iraqs along imperial history’s trail of blood and tears, one need look no further than Diego Garcia.
The story of Diego Garcia is shocking, almost incredible. A British colony lying midway between Africa and Asia in the Indian Ocean, the island is one of 64 unique coral islands that form the Chagos archipelago, a phenomenon of natural beauty and once of peace.

Newsreaders refer to it in passing: “American B-52 and Stealth bombers last night took off from the uninhabited British island of Diego Garcia to bomb Iraq (or Afghanistan).” It is the word “uninhabited” that turns the key on the horror of what was done there. In the 1970s, the Ministry of Defence in London produced this epic lie: “There is nothing in our files about a population and an evacuation.”

Diego Garcia was first settled in the late 18th century. At least 2,000 people lived there: a gentle creole nation with thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a prison, a railway, docks, a copra plantation. Watching a film shot by missionaries in the 1960s, I can understand why every Chagos islander I have met calls it paradise; there is a grainy sequence where islanders’ beloved dogs are swimming in the sheltered, palm-fringed lagoon, catching fish.

All this began to end when an United States’ rear-admiral stepped ashore in 1961 and Diego Garcia was marked as the site of what is today one of the biggest US bases in the world. There are now more than 2,000 troops, anchorage for 30 warships, a nuclear dump, a satellite spy station, shopping malls, bars and a golf course. The Americans call it “Camp Justice”.

During the 1960s, in high secrecy, the Labour government of Harold Wilson conspired with two US administrations to “sweep” and “sanitise” the islands: the words used in American documents. Files found in the National Archives in Washington and the Public Record Office in London provide an astonishing narrative of official lying all too familiar to those who have chronicled the lies over Iraq.

To get rid of the population the Foreign Office invented the fiction that islanders were merely transient contract workers who could be “returned” to Mauritius, 1,600km away. In fact many islanders traced their ancestry back five generations, as their cemeteries bore witness. The aim, wrote a Foreign Office official in January 1966, “is to convert all the existing residents…into short-term, temporary residents”.

What the files also reveal is an imperious attitude of brutality. In August 1966, Sir Paul Gore-Booth, permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote: “We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will remain ours. There will be no indigenous population except seagulls.”

At the end of this is a handwritten note by DH Greenhill, later Baron Greenhill: “Along with the Birds go some Tarzans or Men Fridays_” Under the heading, “Maintaining the fiction”, another official urges his colleagues to reclassify the islanders as “a floating population” and to “make up the rules as we go along”.

There is not a word of concern for their victims. Only one official appeared to worry about being caught, writing that it was “fairly unsatisfactory” that “we propose to certify the people, more or less fraudulently, as belonging somewhere else”. The documents leave no doubt that the cover-up was approved by the prime minister and at least three cabinet ministers.

At first the islanders were tricked and intimidated into leaving; those who had gone to Mauritius for urgent medical treatment were prevented from returning. As the Americans began to arrive and build the base, Sir Bruce Greatbatch, the governor of the Seychelles, who had been put in charge of the “sanitising”, ordered all the pet dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed. Almost 1,000 pets were rounded up and gassed, using the exhaust fumes from American military vehicles. “They put the dogs in a furnace where the people worked,” says Lizette Tallatte, now in her 60s, “and when their dogs were taken away in front of them, our children screamed and cried.”

The islanders took this as a warning; and the remaining population were loaded on to ships, allowed to take only one suitcase. They left behind their homes and furniture, and their lives.

On one journey in rough seas, the copra company’s horses occupied the deck, while women and children were forced to sleep on a cargo of bird fertiliser. Arriving in the Seychelles they were marched up the hill to a prison where they were held until they were transported to Mauritius. There they were dumped on the docks.

In the first months of their exile, as they fought to survive, suicides and child deaths were common. Lizette lost two children. “The doctor said he cannot treat sadness,” she recalls. Rita Bancoult, now 79, lost two daughters and a son; she told me that when her husband was told the family could never return home, he suffered a stroke and died. Unemployment, drugs and prostitution, all of which had been alien to their society, ravaged them. Only after more than a decade did they receive any compensation from the British government: less than $5,400 each, which did not cover their debts.

The behaviour of the Blair government is, in many respects, the worst.

In 2000 the islanders won a historic victory in the high court, which ruled their expulsion illegal. Within hours of the judgment, the Foreign Office announced that it would not be possible for them to return to Diego Garcia because of a “treaty” with Washington – in truth, a deal concealed from parliament and the US Congress.

As for the other islands in the group, a “feasibility study” would determine whether these could be resettled. This has been described by Professor David Stoddart, a world authority on the Chagos, as “worthless” and “an elaborate charade”. The “study” consulted not a single islander; it found that the islands were “sinking”, news to the Americans who are building more and more base facilities; the US navy describes living conditions as so outstanding that they are “unbelievable”.

In 2003, in a now notorious follow-up high court case, the islanders were denied compensation, with government counsel allowed by the judge to attack and humiliate them in the witness box, and with Justice Ousley referring to “we” as if the court and the Foreign Office were on the same side.

Last June the government invoked the archaic royal prerogative in order to crush the 2000 judgment. A decree was issued that the islanders were banned forever from returning home. These were the same totalitarian powers used to expel them in secret 40 years ago; Blair used them to authorise his illegal attack on Iraq.

Led by a remarkable man, Olivier Bancoult, an electrician, and supported by a tenacious and valiant London lawyer, Richard Gifford, the islanders are going to the European court of human rights, and perhaps beyond. Article 7 of the statute of the international criminal court describes the “deportation or forcible transfer of population…by expulsion or other coercive acts” as a crime against humanity. As Bush’s bombers take off from their paradise, the Chagos islanders, says Bancoult, “will not let this great crime stand. The world is changing; we will win.”

What I meant was that once the UK shows its weakness by giving into extortion, it opens itself up to other extortion and forced “re-negotiation”.

Other extortion where? Gibraltor is already integrated into the EU, and there are no significant claims over any other British Overseas Territory.

If there is am much oil in the area as they think then they can certainly afford to ignore Argentina.

Again point is whatever they lose by giving limited rights to Argentinians within EEZ will be more than made up by logistical access to South American ports. Companies vying for drilling rights for example are likely to post lower bids if they know they’ll be prevented from operations in nearby countries.

So let me get this straight:

The Falklands have had access to SA ports for over 100 years without problems. Now you are telling them that in order to use them, they have to give up it’s sovereignty and mineral rights.

In case you are wondering, that is called extortion.

Well 100 years back, Britain had an empire and dictated terms to a large part of the world. 75 years back it was heroically fighting for freedom against tyrannical forces while denying the same to a fifth of world’s population. 50 years back it could pick and choose regimes to back, using them as puppets in the greater battle against communism. Times change.

The Argentinian claims to the islands are not new and cannot therefore be dismissed as mere opportunism. And any solution has to be above all, honorable. You cannot have an ending that leaves Argentina a loser, while still hoping to be on the best of terms with South American countries. What I propose would leave everybody relatively satisfied even if no one is ecstatic.