The S. designation was naval. The RAF chose not to redesignate theirs.

The Tornado followed the Jaguar (which had the same strike attack role) with its GR designation, and echoed the Phantom which had a fighter/strike attack role – hence FGR.

The real question is as to why Jaguar and Tornado weren’t B or B(I)!

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.

The fruits of Britain’s victory were a restoration of the status quo, and the expulsion of an invading force.

The Argentinians should stop their diplomatic assault because it is profoundly wrong. It is aggressive, it is immoral and it is bullying. Argentina is pressing a fundamentally unjust claim, and in doing so ignores the fundamental right of a people to self determination.

Since this is a PFI, the cost, and the cost of the delay, will or should be born by the PFI provider.

Let’s hope it doesn’t affect other type as well…

It does.

This is not really news since it’s been known for a while now that the project to assemble the remaining 48 EFT in SA would be aborted

It is news, insofaras BAE have until now been careful not to confirm that assembly of these 48 jets has already begun. It may not be surprising, but it’s certainly the first formal confirmation.

I did question once the likelihood of an additional order of EFT after the 72 already commended

I think that the additional aircraft order may even already have been placed, but not yet officially revealed. It’s certainly looking more and more likely.

When I look at world’s map, I really don’t see how is that a British territory. I could understand if Falklands were declared a sovereign state – most likely member of Commonwealth. But a British soil?

I’d agree that it’s counter-intuitive that the Falklands are British, and even a little bizarre. Just like Gibraltar choosing Britain over nearby Spain, or Ulster choosing London over Dublin (though the latter seems likely to change as the demographics shift).

But the principal of self determination is the important factor here, and the islanders themselves view themselves as British and want to stay that way.

Why should they have to accept foreign rule, or even their own sovereignty, if that’s not what they want.

Was it just the one ‘Bombphoon’ or were several involved?

The Falkland Islands were discovered in 1600 by a Dutchman and named as the Sebald Islands.

They were uninhabited.

A Brit then ‘rediscovered them’.

The French founded a settlement in 1764, and did not claim the Islands.

The Brits founded another, unaware of the French settlement, and claimed the islands for His Majesty in 1765.

This was before the Spanish took over the French settlement in 1767. Britain therefore has a prior claim even if you allow for Argentina ‘inheriting’ the claim from their former Colonial power, Spain.

Spain attacked the British settlement in 1770, briefly expelling the Brits, who returned under the subsequent treaty.

Both nations withdrew their settlements (in 1774 and 1806) but continued to assert sovereignty.

Argentina’s claim rests on an incident in 1820, when the captain of a damaged ship sought shelter in Falklands waters and claimed the islands on behalf of the United Provinces of the River Plate.

Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain, and requested protection from both countries.

The settlement was destroyed by a US warship in 1831 (suspected of being a gang of pirates!) and in 1832 Argentina attempted to found a penal settlement on the islands, but were expelled by the Brits that year.

There was no genuine settlement up to that point (it was more a temporary base for exploration/military use/etc.).

The islands have been British ever since, and have been genuinely settled since then.

Argentina claims the islands on the basis of ‘posession’ for a period of about 12 years, and on the basis of a previous 39 year period of Spanish settlement that had ended 14 years before Argentine claims began.

Argentina’s claims are no less ‘colonialist’ than Britains. Argentines are not the indigenous or natural inhabitants of the islands (and indeed have ‘ownership’ of mainland Argentina only on the basis of a bloody and brutal colonialist take-over). When are they going to hand Buenos Aires back to the indigenous Indians? When will the USA disband and give the land back to the native Americans? Long distant history cannot be the basis of today’s political reality.

Britain’s claims date back further, and British occupation has been much longer.

But most importantly, the people of the Falklands, who have occupied the islands for 180 years (more than ten times longer than any Argentine settlement) have the right to self determination, and do not want to be Argentine.