Any-one have an idea what this was, floating around while those Typhoons were inspecting/intercepting that accidental distress signal then? Is it a flare?
Wasn’t sure, but some-one would have a good idea?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pallidcreatures/6925248826/in/set-72157629437504062

Probably a solar or mylar balloon? The UFO / Conspiracy crowd are going bananas over those images. You just have to look at the Mexican ‘UFO’ video footage over the years to see how such balloons can be completely misinterpreted. The blow up image showing the wiggle is acknowledged by the photographer as being camera shake.

Out of interest what took the high level pictures of the bombing results on Stanley airfield?

Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Michael Beetham wrote “After the first Vulcan raid, for example, we needed to know precisely what had been achieved. We kept asking for photographs but they never materialised.” He went on to state that he appreciated the constraints on the use of Harriers for purely photographic reconnaisance missions.

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2030%20-%20Seminar%20-%20The%20Falklands%20Campaign.pdf

Sometime after Black Buck 2 a reconnaisance image was taken. It is accredited to one of the Sea Harrier Squadrons.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/479504-falklands-most-daring-raid-6.html#post7082002

……also i might be wrong here but did the Canberra PR9 operate out of Chile to carry out photograhic missions …..and then the RAF left 3 behind as a thankyou to Chile, or is this this just another storey?

all the best Matt

The Chilean Air Force Commander-in-Chief, General Fernando Matthei and other Chilean Air Force personnel have provided details on the subject of RAF aircraft operating in Chile during the conflict. They revealed that Nimrod and C-130s operated inside Chile, but no mention of Canberras. It looks likely that the Canberras only ended up in Chile after the conflict as a thank you. Also no Canberra squadron received Battle Honours.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1983/oct/25/falklands-campaign-battle-honours

See following videos. Unfortunately they are in Spanish with no English subtitles.

http://www.taringa.net/posts/videos/14010236/Chile-y-su-participacion-en-Malvinas-_documental_.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smaRHDZWaAo

A Spanish speaker kindly posted an outline of the TV programme.

From Ordie on Military Photos during 2008

Very interesting comments: (Paraphrasing)
Gen Maffei: “My goal is to make sure the Argentines were defeated, if not they will seek war with Chile.”
Gen Maffei:”Between 1978 and 1980’s the Chilean military, even though superior in training, it was inferior in numbers compared with Argentina.”
Gen Maffei:”It was our intention to talk to the English first, but coincidently they approached us with the same concerns about Argentina.”
Gen Maffei:”Our intelligence was not one of spies or agents, but of signal intelligence, electronics and determining to movement of forces.”
Gen Maffei: ” We have a state of the art underground command center in Punta Areas, Chile where much of the gathered intelligence was sent to Santiago and passed to the British Embassy and on to London.”
Gen Maffei: “RAF C-130 with electronic intelligence equipment flew from the Pacific via Easter Island disgused as Chilean Air Force aircraft. This was done on the premise they had to fly between internal destinations within Chile collecting intelligence. The aircraft were noted by the misspelling of the Fuerza Area de Chile.”
Gen Maffei: “Soon after the sinking of the HMS Sheffied, our intellegence sharing was perfected to the point that we knew the daily sorties of the Argentine aircraft, number of aircraft that took off and the number that returned.”
Annoucer: “Chile had massed its forces in the south, in return the Argentine with-held its best units within the mainland.”
Gen. Maffei: ” When the Sea King helicopter crashed near Punta Arenas, the whole deal was almost off. I was emphatic that Chilean Territory was not to be used for offensive military actions into Argentina.”
Chielan Liason Officer: “RAF Nimrod electronic warfare aircraft operated from the remote San Felix island in the Pacific.”
Annoucer: “On the day of the Bluff Cove attack on the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristam, both the Chilean Radar and RAF Nimrod were out of service.”
Note: the images of the Hunter and Canberras were in reference to a deal to re-equip the Chiean Air Force with extra equipment.

From

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?107232-Falklands-30&p=3792847&viewfull=1#post3792847

Chilean Air Force Commander-in-Chief interview link. You should be able to Google translate the page?

http://www.taringa.net/comunidades/ffaa-arg/3826715/Entrevista-al-General-Fernando-Matthei-sobre-Malvinas.html

Also see following in reference to Canberra rumours.

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm

Heads-up for part 2.

Falklands Hero: Bravo November – Episode 2

Building A Legend

Mike investigates the role of the Chinook in modern warfare. How have improvements to this legendary helicopter kept it on the frontline of military action?

UK Premiere 10pm, 3rd April on the Discovery Channel 520

Also don’t forget the programme is repeated at 11pm on Discovery +1, Channel 521

The first Typhoon in 1 Squadron markings is apparently at RAF Coningsby.

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41225

Russia will decide for Syria whether to get nuclear weopons. Russia will not allow anyone else to have that kind of business there. It was Russia that writeoff $10b worth Soviet era loans to Syria. It is Russian firms that is drilling Oil there.

Yet again with the Russian chest thumping! So Syria can’t make independent decisions on its own? That is absurd. Russia has no say in any intention for Syria to go down the nuclear weapons path. Yet again you have this absurd illusion of Russian power and influence.

So where is that Strike on Syria that so called mighty Arabs/West ur babbling about it. Israel need Russia cooperation in this case. your asssessent is simply wrong.

Yet again your assessment is flawed in regard to Iran. You are making your assessment from reading press snippets. I predict you will still be scratching your head if an Israeli strike takes place on Iranian nuclear facilities and nothing happens other than a strongly worded Russian condemnation. Israel does not need Russian permission to carry out a strike. That belief of yours is simply absurd. I think we have exhausted the discussion and only end up repeating ourselves.

Believing on IAEA is same as believing on central banker telling inflation rate. and syria dont have thousands of physicts to manage effective nuclear programe. Look at rest of its industrial ability. its steel industry, its software. It is practically nothing. a few imported parts does not constitute a nuclear program.

Only in your eyes. Read the report with the claim that North Korean assistance got them to that stage.

It is not that Israel cannot start attack but it is another thing whether it will be successfull without Russia permission

They still don’t require Russian permission. You’ll still be scratching your head in puzzlement if Israel conducts a strike and all that comes out of Russia is a strongly worded condemnation. This illusion of yours is still based on your over inflated assessment of Russian power and capabilities.

my assumption are pretty reasonable.

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors come to a different conclusion. They conclude after visitng the sanitized site and taking samples that it was likely a nuclear reactor. The inspectors could see no other use for the layout and infrastructure.

If the Syrians had nothing to hide then why not invite the IAEA when they asked to inspect? Why the major excavation and building of a structure directly over the destroyed building? The IAEA requested inspections at three other locations that are alleged to be functionally related to the destroyed Dair Alzour site. If they have nothing to hide then the whole incident could have been cleared up within weeks.

See report.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-30.pdf

From

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeasyria/index.shtml

http://www.iaea.org/

Your assumptions are not ‘pretty reasonable’ in my humble opinion. Certainly not in regards to Iran and Israel. Israel does not require a Russian green light in order to conduct a strike on Iranian facilities. That is just your over inflated assessment of Russian power and capabilites.