The UK is the wrong claim. Nothing about the economical situation will change for Argentina even the Falklands will be handed to them by the UK. When in the distant future the opportunity will arise to make some use of the economical zone around the Falklands still under British rule both parties are forced to find a political solution at all otherwise none will give the money for the investments in need to have some profits and not cost only. Rearming or deploying forces are cost and will weaken the own economic at first. British Falklands are no threat for the freedom of Argentina.
The thing which pees me off Sens is that English is not your first language, yet you manage to sum the situation up far more articulately than I. Grrrrr
There is an argument which the NRA have made and could make more forcibly that criminals do not obey the law and will get their hands on firearms regardless of ownership restrictions.
However as true as this is, it misses another key fact. The majority of gun related deaths are not caused by criminals (as the ancient observation goes: murder is the one crime seldom committed by criminals).
Take a look at gun deaths in Miami Florida. At one time equal to all those of the rest of the world outside of the USA combined. To the extent that US combat medics have to spend time at the hospitals there before deploying overseas. But the vast majority are not gang or drug related but domestic incidents and accidents.
I like the idea of a citizens militia. But the US actually got rid of that early on and went for professional armed forces (in large part because of how much more effective the French Army were against the British in the war of independence than the minutemen). The constitution specifically is about defending USA against (nit pick constitution cannot be talking about USA but I have Canadian friends who bridle at use of the term American) outside threats not killing ones fellow citizens.
None of this makes this (or previous or subsequent) tragedies any less tragic. But it does to my mind make them even more pointless, preventable and sad.
There is an argument which the NRA have made and could make more forcibly that criminals do not obey the law and will get their hands on firearms regardless of ownership restrictions.
However as true as this is, it misses another key fact. The majority of gun related deaths are not caused by criminals (as the ancient observation goes: murder is the one crime seldom committed by criminals).
Take a look at gun deaths in Miami Florida. At one time equal to all those of the rest of the world outside of the USA combined. To the extent that US combat medics have to spend time at the hospitals there before deploying overseas. But the vast majority are not gang or drug related but domestic incidents and accidents.
I like the idea of a citizens militia. But the US actually got rid of that early on and went for professional armed forces (in large part because of how much more effective the French Army were against the British in the war of independence than the minutemen). The constitution specifically is about defending USA against (nit pick constitution cannot be talking about USA but I have Canadian friends who bridle at use of the term American) outside threats not killing ones fellow citizens.
None of this makes this (or previous or subsequent) tragedies any less tragic. But it does to my mind make them even more pointless, preventable and sad.
The cost of security for the islands is far outweighed by the benefits of the resources and claims that extend out to the natural shelf. Argentina would love this position.
Although technically off-topic I feel that madrats comment is bang on.
It was an open secret when I served (briefly and a long time ago) that there was oil by them there islands and that was the real reason for the conflict (that and an external threat suited UK domestic politics just as much as it did Argentinian)
It is the right thing IMMOO to respect the islanders right to self determination but I am afraid that this in and of itself would be insufficient reason for uk to do so.
FI is not poor. The corporation which runs does (or did: again I am speaking from old info) pay inhabitants rather than take taxes.
How many hours left on Spanish and Canadian f18s? With two engines, probe ifr and bvr these might suit Argentina better than f16s.
Sea Vixen has been difficult to manipulate.
No drama
Have subsequently spoken to someone with more aerodynamic knowledge than me (I.e. some aerodynamic knowledge!) who said that the vixens issue wasn’t lack of power and putting bigger motors in would just repeat scimitar (famously the most powerful aircraft never to break the sound barrier)
However keeping with speys
How about that proposed mirage iv export
Two colour schemes and load outs one for strategic and one for interdiction?
Who is the enemy, what is the threat?
If posturing to blame evil Anglos then anything from the boneyard will be fine. Nice long range corsairs and Vikings would be great.
Some ex Greek or Israeli f4s would give a capability they have never had.
(From personal experience only: which is not the same as definitive proof, Argentinians of my generation and of one older I have met and spoken to have been grateful for the Falklands defeat as it led to the end of the junta. Which suggests two things – but only suggest – the regime was more horrific than most of us can imagine, those posturing didn’t lose friends in the Falklands conflict or the dirty war which preceded it)
If the threat is other South American nations then ask the uk to station a squadron of tiffies on the mainland.
Dear Santa
For Christmas I would like:
Sea vixen with
Speys
Sparrows
An/awg11
More manly vertical stabilisers
Adens not ffars
Keep ’em coming young man.
Having read teer’s post (and I shall merely echo the plaudits from others) the answer to op seems to be:
Lca’s problem:
Public relations
Specifically the nature of the task and the actual programme goals are not clearly in the audience’s mind
Cheating. It’s got a centreline drop tank so might actually reach its target
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1926915&postcount=47
From another thread in this very forum
it’s not a first day of war fighter as the RAF have recently acknowledged..
They did? When? Do you have a link?
Or is this wilful misreading of RAF saying when our tyffies wear out no one will be building them any more so they’ll have to be replaced by something in production?
The incident is under investigation. But that’s no reason not to speculate; I guess that the General called shenanigans when crew said they could land it on the small strip.
Am I the only one that thinks a real maritime SAR aircraft should actually be able to land on water .
nope not alone. Although I’m coming at it with romance rather than practicality. Plus the last time we had flying boats the RAF operated them so my dream that RN stands up blue and red ensigns again is only a dream.
With sensible trousers on its US 2s but actually I m wanting Martin Seamasters
Wrt OTS MPA PDQ we could have been launch export customer for P8 or P1 (and cue trigger line for swerve) in fact my understanding is that of all the options available Nimrod MP4 was always the most expensive and most unconstrained.
Can we have more of REAL pictures of REAL aircraft and less models
Sure
Though this ones not really in the spirit of the thread since if it did get airborne those tanks might actually make it a viable and useful load
and cgi crap please!?!?!??
Fair enough. I was amused by the transparent marketing of an image loaded up with kit not yet cleared for use