A recent picture of B-52 (ex D-2) Hercules during NAVAEX 05.

The Sea Dart launcher is still onboard, but the rear Type 999 (906 ? what was the number again? ) dome is gone. Nice view of the new hangar, and the dimensions of her flight pad (in comparison to the SH-3 (AS-61 ?).

King Jester

PD: Note the rather crude way the new ship number was applied. The paint on the “5” is not the same shade of white nor the same type as the “2”. Geez, I´m almostr ashamed of how much this ship was misstreated during her service time by the ARA.

I guess that was pretty heavy handed. I guess sometimes even I can get rather emotional, especially when I get blindsided…..
King Jester, I am not deleting my previous post because I’d like to show the state of mind I was in after contemplating your comments. 🙁

A troubled state of mind, I guess… :rolleyes:
I will take it as an apology, sort of, though.

King Jester

PD: Southern Chile has indeed clear skies and beautiful star nights, but you need to get something done about the air in Santiago, you can’t see your own hand in front of your eyes some days.

Phil Foster wrote:

Oh bugger, we’re not going to have this argument again.

It wasn’t me who started it, or was it me? I only did politely point to the last topic where we had the chance of venting our opposing views, the one where you started your nasty manner of calling me words I have to go look up in my 1976 OXFORD dictionary only to find out they may have multiple deriding meanings. Calling me a sodomite?, how come would you know what my sexual appetites are…

Anthrax_cat wrote:

Thank you very much for that rebuttle Phil

That was hardly a rebuttle. Altought I do agree with my pal Phil that we should stay on topic.

I fail to see why Argentinians continue to think that the only nation Chileans are ever concerned with is Argentina.

Given the past, recent and current events, IMHO we do have reasons to think so. But I’m also aware Argentina is not the only concern for Chile, I mentioned “the neighbours up North” in my last post, remember?

Whether members of the Chilean ejercito want to realise it or not, their role is changing greatly and becoming less important ….. the army shrinks and the other two services get the lion’s share of the funding. ……

The Navy and Air Force are “rapidly” modernizing and getting “the lions share” because both were facing massive system obsolesence. Navy vessels needed replacement “en masse” , as Air Force planes do. The Army did this already a decade ago!

but the army has no prospective wars to fight, and the navy has a large territory and new trade routes to protect.

No! Really? I wonder why a country with less than 20% of “tank practicable terrain” needs 350 MBTs then? And what are the 100 Leo IIs Chile wants to aquire before 2010 for?

Economic and scientific benefits from naval funding have bolstered the countries development. The same can not be said of the army who’s road development, and bridge building programs, have yielded little public interest or support.

Thanks to the Army Engineer Corps there are roads in Chile to begin with. Foods gets to the markets through those roads, and people can tresspass streaming rivers through those bridges. Let me disagree with you here, but Chile hasn’t nor will, become a global scientific reference point because the chilean navy gets a couple off bucks more funding.Try funding your universities, for a change. But people all around Chile are going to dwell and live more productive lives if the army goes on building bridges and roads.

The navy is respected for it’s professionalism and modern technology by other powers, it’s capacity to protect national interests and it’s ongoing research on the Antarctic ozone depletion, and hydrocarbon hydrate research.

There you are probably right, and I’m happy for the sailors. They deserve the new frigattes. Just don’t run them aground, like the new Scorpene….

King Jester

I do think it a little naive to assume that and laws calling for ‘peaceful enforcement’ have any real meaning

Let me be naive, then…

As for the aircraft operating from the British carriers, they are not F/A-2s, those are the aircraft being retired. The GR-7s, which are going to be upgraded to GR-9 and GR-9A standard, will continue operating from the carrier force, but they lack BVR capability.

My mistake about the FRS.2 = F/A.2, had forgotten they changed the name of the creature a while ago. Anyhow, even if argies try a redux of 1982, as you seen to fear so much, guess what they would be flying? Yes, you guessed it, Mirage IIIs, A-4s and Super Etendards !! FRS.1s with 9-Limas had a feast, what makes you fear that Gr.9s with 9-Mikes or AMRAAMs would do poorer? Besides, there are a couple of Tornados based on Mount Pleasent, more than enough reasons to stick to our written “peaceful negotations” pledge.

As for bringing the region out of balance, that is simply not true, the entire region is seeking to improve their own forces – just look at Brazil, who have gained new frigates, and a new carrier! Perhaps your condemnation should be on France for selling a carrier?

How could I condem France, after all she will sell us two LSDs!! You missed the point completely, its not about who gets what, but about you suggesting that a strong Chile and a weak Argentina is good for the region. You should find out what pending territorrial claims Chile or her neighbors wave, before making such light-headed claims.

In terms of Chile having had many years of military rule, this is true of a number of nations in S. America, but unlike Argentina, they did not invade British territory – why should the UK not reward Chile for its help during that conflict?

Now I know where I had that deja-vu feeling from…. I see images, images of dictator Pinochet avoiding pending extradition for crimes agianst mankind, in a London hospital, while being visited by Maggie, who kindly expresses the british peoples gratitude and jadajada jadada. Funny thing Maggie always claimed one of the reasons of her determination to fight in 1982 was because she was fighting a dictatorship, and she always glorified herself saying that she had helped Argentina return to democracy. Quite a load of c**p, don’t you think?

As for the Falklands being ‘colonial territory’ as you put it, how exactly do you come to this position, the population are British! The Argentines had no legitimate claim to the islands, merely their proximity, and the claim that somehow a Spanish claim should have become their own.

Been there, done that debatte already a while ago on this same forum. Actually, I’m still waiting for two gentlemen on this forum to refute/come back on my replies to the last topic. Find some interesting info about the “colonial status of the Falklands” here :http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=43733

Every country has a right to its own motives, but to claim that the ships would have been scrapped otherwise is simply not true – the ships are actually relatively new, and a number of nations were very keen to get them!

As in many orders of life, there is a big difference between what should be done, and what in the end is done. The natural life cycle of a state owned asset, be it a typing machine or a 6000 tn DLG, is to be budgeted, to be purchased, to be used to full depreciation, and to be scrapped. That is the best use of the taxpayers money. Type 22s and Type 23s (hell, even Type 21s) are fine ships, and were for the most part retired early. In so far you are right. But you missed the point completely again. Many nations were eager to buy those ships (hell, I would like them for the ARA), and selling or favourably transfering them to Chile has nothing wrong to it, AS LONG AS the Foreign Office is not trying to run some sort of power umbrella in the region. Those sort of things are regular “taxpayers money” sinks, and do every so often backfire. Besides, I think the UK had renounced to be an Empire, or I am being naive again?

King Jester

Forgive my ignorance but it seems not all locations are updated oftenly, right? . I mean I want to see the city Rio de Janeiro ( its labelled in the site ) and no matter if I do it at day or night it allways seems to be day there . 🙁

As already mentioned, the satellite imagery on google is in average older than a year. The area of Buenos Aires, i.e., is shown as it was ca. 2 years ago. I can tell as the Aeronautics Museum (Southeast corner of the City Airport (here) still displays the Ju-52, the C-47, Guarani II, De Havilland Bristol (IRCC), etc etc, which were all moved to Moron Airforce Base about 2 years ago.

King Jester

Ja Worsley wrote:

OK had a bit of a think, I’ll give you one of them, the other is wrong!
It’s not a Descubierta Class of the Spanish Navy, rather one of the Morrocan fleet
The Al Arrhamani

OK, its fair to point out its Al Arrhamani, as most spanish Descubiertas have lost their Bofors launchers recently, and do not look like that anymore.

On mistery ship #5 the smoke stack looks pretty similar to a Cdt, Riviere class, or some variation of it.

As for the fast patrol boat #2, the chilean flag behind the bridge is a giveaway. Its a israeli built boat in service with the chilean navy, that should pretty much narrow down the search.

King Jester

I did find a reference to counterfeit, but that is not used when discussing comments. You could say that an item is snide in terms of it being fake, but it does not apply to people or what they say. (Oxford) When one says that someone makes a snide comment, it means that they were being nasty.

I’ll say it again, don’t try and lecture people on their own language. :p

OK, thank you for the links and for explaining what you really meant with your previous post. I´ll take my “lair” comment back.

I learned something new today, I hope so did you, also.

I will start a fund raiser to get a new dictionary, you are invited to toss in your pocket change, if you wish… 😉

King Jester

PD: After closing edition: Here another virtual dictionary link you may find interesting. Snide on Merriam Webster . Enjoy.

Musashi wrote:

Well you can make snide comments all you want, but it does make a difference.

At first I thought you had made a typo, and meant to write “side comments”. Then I looked up “snide” in the dictionary, and I do not like what I found. You dare calling me a lair while you don’t have a clue about past or present of the Malvinas. Bring forward some evidence to back your claim that I have posted inaccurate or false information about the economic development of the Falklands in 1982 or STFU .
I recommend the 1984 Sir Shackleton report to the Parliament to check the facts.

It’s all very well if a nation’s history records it appointing a governor and do this and that. But if there’s no evidence to back this claim up – i.e. a process of settlement was started – then its claim is shakier

Here you show us again that you talk out of your ar*e. Not only argie documents back the settlement process quite well, but ALSO american historic records AND british historic records contain evidence as to the development of the argie settlement on the Malvinas. We had not only appointed authorities, but detached a naval force and we were effectively policing our souvereignty there, i.e. by detaining illegal poachers, regulating fisheries and whaling, etc.
We had introduced cattle, and build stores, houses, a pier and even a fish salt-house (which was after the british invasion used by the british colonials, a bit of trivia which can be found even on the official “Falklands” website). In 1833, at least 30 settlers and the crew of an argie navy shoner were rounded up and expelled. Want more “evidence”?

How far back should we go when redistributing land? 500 years? 1000 years? Shall we go into ancient history?

As long as there is a valid claim, and a practical solution to it, more so if a win-win solution can be found, every claim should be brought forward.

At one time England controlled many parts of modern France completely fairly. But we went to war with “France” several times and they took them off us. We don’t teach our children that they were “stolen” from us and they are rightfully ours.

I’m not familiar enough with european medieval history as to comprehend fully what you mean by “completely fairly”, but I’m pretty sure that at some point in history, after the romans left and the english arrived, France was indeed french (or gaulois, or whatever Asterix and Obelix were :p ).
Anyhow, we are talking 600 years ago, when the UK as such and France as such didn’t even exist as we know them today.
In the case of the Falklands/Malvinas we start in 1833, when both the UK as such and Argentina as such did already exist, and had appointed ambassadors to each other, and did mutually recognize the independence and boundaries of each other. The UK did in 1825, IRCC, effectively and formally recognize Argentinas (“United Provinces of Rio de la Plata” back then) independence and (self-)proclaimed outer limits, including islands and dependencies.

So why can’t Argentina accept that it lost the islands to us and just move on?

Because we do not need to put up with sh*t like that. Read above. The UK attacked and seized what had been previously recognized as souvereign argie territory. Period.

Sealordlawrence ranted:

You avoided my question very nicely jester

Did I? I was under the impression that I gave you a straight and forward answer to your single and simple question. I will repeat it here: british citizens who live on the islands should have the right to vote in british elections, just as any other british citizen does 😀

The history is irrelevant

Given that you will not step down from there, its pointless to continue arguing (sorry, I meant debating…) the issue.

I do miss though, some intelligent replies to the many questions I made on this topic, which have been ignored so far.

King Jester

PD: Edited quote tags and typos.