It would depend on how many F-35Bs the RAF and FAA will order, though the figure is said to be in double digits there’s no solid information on the actual number. Four Typhoons, a Class 45 Destroyer and an Astute Class Sub (as well as other forms of Sea/Land/Air assets) would most certainly be the maximum amount deployed to The Falklands at any one time. After all, they’re not threatening Argentina.

That’s rather optimistic in a number of senses, I agree on some points but… Very similar was thought pre-’82, yet Argentina still managed to give the UK a bloody nose and resulted in being, I quote a British superior, ‘A close run thing!’

Falklands were defenceless in 1982, and Britain had to operate a naval task force thousands of kilometres from home.

Also the Argie force was not that obsolete compared to capabilities deployed by Britain.

Now it’s 2013 and Britain operates a 21st century force with 21st cenutry doctrine, tactics etc.

Argentina’s force is now for the most part a 1960s/70s vintage force with poor readiness, spares shortages and lack of modern doctrine (e.g. you can’t be practicing BVR intercepts assisted by AWACS when you have no BVR fighters or AWACS).

On anther point, the loss of the Tigershark if seen as a consequence of the Lavi program, might be seen in regard to the crying lack of T38 substitute today.

Lack of T-38 replacement is not due to loss of Tigershark – it’s more due to lack of US interest in a replacement since 1990s.

T-38 is an advanced trainer in USAF service and it doesn’t just train fighter pilots but bomber, attack and reconaissance aircraft as well.

Effectively USAF use F-16 as LIFT and in particular those assigned to 5 out of 6 sqaudrons (6th squadron is ROCAF dedicated 21 FS) of 56 Fighter Wing, AETC at Luke AFB.

I’m saying whatever transforms into a giant robot – F-16, A-7, Concorde, F-15, F-4, MiG-25, F-22, Space Shuttle, Tornado.

If and when Argentina gets access to J-20s, F-35B will be well and truly in service.

In fact RAF will be still be decades ahead, not just in terms of tech but training, tactics etc.

Argentina’s military seems stuck in 1982. You don’t recover capability by simply buying new toys. You need an organisational culture shift to new paradigms.

You guys missed the point of the 3 out of 8 missed snags… the hook never saw the wire not that the wire could not catch.

My point was:

Did the positioning and design of the hook contribute to those missed snags? Obviously the aircraft has to fly at a certain AoA and speed to land and it could be hook position/design that’s incompatible with landing with the flight profile or error of margin is too narrow.

Not saying it did, but simply a possibility (I’ve certainly not seen reports of landing!).

Also 8 attempts is still very, very early days to make any sort of conclusions in either direction.

I agree with TR1.

As a a purely offensive system, Su-34 a great/super power playtoy.

Smaller and even medium countries are better serviced by multi-role fighters. In this case MiG-29 is perfectly capable, especially upgraded to M/M2 standard.

I found it interesting that PAF are more concerned with under 50 Mirage 2000s that are used in a multi-role fashion than272-odd Su-30MKIs coming on line!

Interesting to see how massive a capability the C-130J brings to the table and this for an airforce that already has a sizeable fleet of An-32 and Il-76s.

As for CH-47 it has more than proven itself in Afghanistan.

Whinge as people might about cost of these systems, they do offer immense capability.