Las Malvinas / The Falklands

[ifuhatepalacestandup]

I think the anniversary should be marked, but with due restraint. We lost many brave military personnel and their memories should not be forgotten but not in a jingoistic fashion.

The Argies may feel differently but then it is a political football for them.

Sadly this issue will not go away now there is oil at stake. After all thats why we really went to war in Iraq twice since the Falklands. We should certainly not back down.

In 1982 we had more military resources but crucially had the backing of the US which probably had more of a bearing on the outcome than we acknowledge. I'm not sure we will have the same advantage if there is a next time. It will be an interesting challenge to see how we would reinforce the Falklands in the event that things escalate.

very much this

 

[Race]

tell them to stick their corned beef up their f***ing arses!!

 

[northstandnorth]

But the message from Foot is clear and unambiguous FATCHER f***ed up Foot and Callaghan had seen off the Argie threat to the Falklands before through strong navy support to the main figurehead of British naval commitment to the falklands,but Fatcher signalled the end of HMS Endurance and with it our commitment to the south Atlantic.

But then,the new mob have killed off the Ark Royal and the Harrier.

 

[clapham_gull]

It's an odd one for successive Governments because they want the proceeds of potential oil exploration without the hassle of defending the place. If the Argentinians handed invaded in the 80s we wouldn't even be having this conversation. We would have negotiated it away.

This one has lots to do with oil I'm afraid.

Funny how people forget (or choose to ignore) that in 1980 the Tory Government were in Argentina tentatively trying to off load it and a year later down in the Falklands trying to persuade the Islanders that would be better off as Argentinian citizens.

It wasn't until AFTER the war, they got their full nationality back !

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

But the message from Foot is clear and unambiguous FATCHER f***ed up Foot and Callaghan had seen off the Argie threat to the Falklands before through strong navy support to the main figurehead of British naval commitment to the falklands,but Fatcher signalled the end of HMS Endurance and with it our commitment to the south Atlantic.

But then,the new mob have killed off the Ark Royal and the Harrier.

Why did they let Ark Royal go? the last of the 3 Invincible class....i don't understand it was the newest..

 

[northstandnorth]

Why did they let Ark Royal go? the last of the 3 Invincible class....i don't understand it was the newest..

So we can rent a French aircraft carrier through a private finance initiative,then some suit can make money out of providing a boat capable of supporting the Eurofighter when we develop one capable of taking off from a very short runway(Aircraft carriers only do short runways).
But as long as someone makes a fortune.HEY thats o/k with Dave.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

So we can rent a French aircraft carrier through a private finance initiative,then some suit can make money out of providing a boat capable of supporting the Eurofighter when we develop one capable of taking off from a very short runway(Aircraft carriers only do short runways).
But as long as someone makes a fortune.HEY thats o/k with Dave.

The US carriers all have catapults,we require sky slopes,we got rid of our best carrier imo,however age does not mean it was good,but as you say somebody will make money,also i thought we were going to use the F35

 

[Bry Nylon]

So we can rent a French aircraft carrier through a private finance initiative,then some suit can make money out of providing a boat capable of supporting the Eurofighter when we develop one capable of taking off from a very short runway(Aircraft carriers only do short runways).
But as long as someone makes a fortune.HEY thats o/k with Dave.

This could get complicated.

Now we're going to have to share Outlook calenders with France to make sure we don't have conflicting conflicts.

 

[northstandnorth]

Why did they let Ark Royal go? the last of the 3 Invincible class....i don't understand it was the newest..

Don't bank on Illustrious(the last of the 3)helicopters only and already lined up for a starring role in a Turk scrapyard.

From Wikipidia

HMS Illustrious is the second of three Invincible-class light aircraft carriers built for the Royal Navy in the late 1970s and early 1980s. She is the fifth warship and second aircraft carrier to bear the name Illustrious, and is affectionately known as "Lusty" to her crew. The vessel just missed the Falklands Conflict, but was deployed to Iraq and Bosnia in the 1990s and to Sierra Leone in 2000. An extensive re-fit in 2002 meant that she missed the Iraq War, but she was finished in time to assist British citizens trapped by the 2006 Lebanon War.
Currently Illustrious is the last remaining aircraft carrier of the Royal Navy having been converted to operate helicopters with the retirement of the Harrier aircraft. It is envisaged that she will be withdrawn from service in 2014 and will not be replaced until HMS Queen Elizabeth is commissioned some time around 2020.[3]

 

[pauli cee]

what a f***ing mess history tends to leave us with eh?

couldn't put it better!

 

[northstandnorth]

The trouble with all these things,as my Foot quote shows,is that the Daily Mail/Express/Sun give it all this anti-left bollox and mugs fall for it,the last Labour government got shit from generals like Danart for not providing enough Chinooks to support our troop in Afghanistan,now he is on the tory payroll we cant cut equipment or "boots on the ground" fast enough for him.

The Left support our boys putting their lives on the line,tories only ever exploit them for short term political advantage

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Don't bank on Illustrious(the last of the 3)helicopters only and already lined up for a starring role in a Turk scrapyard.

From Wikipidia

HMS Illustrious is the second of three Invincible-class light aircraft carriers built for the Royal Navy in the late 1970s and early 1980s. She is the fifth warship and second aircraft carrier to bear the name Illustrious, and is affectionately known as "Lusty" to her crew. The vessel just missed the Falklands Conflict, but was deployed to Iraq and Bosnia in the 1990s and to Sierra Leone in 2000. An extensive re-fit in 2002 meant that she missed the Iraq War, but she was finished in time to assist British citizens trapped by the 2006 Lebanon War.
Currently Illustrious is the last remaining aircraft carrier of the Royal Navy having been converted to operate helicopters with the retirement of the Harrier aircraft. It is envisaged that she will be withdrawn from service in 2014 and will not be replaced until HMS Queen Elizabeth is commissioned some time around 2020.[3]

My idea would be to keep her as she is a very useful and by original "pre Falklands" design a helicopter carrier.......with the need for air cover during the conflict back then and due to previous Ark royal and Eagle's scrapping there was no fixed wing aircraft suitable other than the VSTOL harrier...


These vessels are perfectly suited for all types of humanitarian work and oh well it amazes me.....

My choice is to get the thing fully underwritten and authorized for "BIG BOY CRUISES" you know the type of thing,forget the bungee jumps,base jumping,track days....that's kids stuff...

Nope get a company to sell "Harrier days" the perfect birthday gift for your Husband

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

...unless your name is Mauricio Taricco.

Why did we hand back Hong Kong, and keep a craggy rock in the South Atlantic. We didn't seem too bothered about the hong Kong Chinese?

The 99 year lease on Hong Kong ran out in 1997 , we had to hand it back to China who turned it into a semi-autonomous region.

 

[Weststander]

Send Blair over there to smooth things over

We can't afford the Bliar. $30,000 per hour.

 

[northstandnorth]

My idea would be to keep her as she is a very useful and by original "pre Falklands" design a helicopter carrier.......with the need for air cover during the conflict back then and due to previous Ark royal and Eagle's scrapping there was no fixed wing aircraft suitable other than the VSTOL harrier...


These vessels are perfectly suited for all types of humanitarian work and oh well it amazes me.....

My choice is to get the thing fully underwritten and authorized for "BIG BOY CRUISES" you know the type of thing,forget the bungee jumps,base jumping,track days....that's kids stuff...

Nope get a company to sell "Harrier days" the perfect birthday gift for your Husband

We aint got no harriers to put on them.dave has scrapped the lot.we would need to beg a few from the Indian navy unless you know where we could get a job lot.

 

[Stoo82]

...unless your name is Mauricio Taricco.

Why did we hand back Hong Kong, and keep a craggy rock in the South Atlantic. We didn't seem too bothered about the hong Kong Chinese?

Because Hong Kong was held as a lease. Gained in 1842 after the First Opium War. We also gain 4 orther treaty ports in which trade with China was opened up to the world. The Falklands Islands where a setler colony.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

We can't afford the Bliar. $30,000 per hour.

Is that tax free and before expenses are added on ?

 

[northstandnorth]

The 99 year lease on Hong Kong ran out in 1997 , we had to hand it back to China who turned it into a semi-autonomous region.

a semi-autonomous region without water,all the taps were supplied from the Chinese side.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

We aint got no harriers to put on them.dave has scrapped the lot.we would need to beg a few from the Indian navy unless you know where we could get a job lot.

I am going tonight to America,they will have some and when i get back i will release some Challenger 2 tanks from prison too!!!

 

[beorhthelm]

The US carriers all have catapults,we require sky slopes,we got rid of our best carrier imo,however age does not mean it was good,but as you say somebody will make money,also i thought we were going to use the F35

trouble with the F35 is it doesnt operationally do what is shown in the picture, thats a prototype, and iirc it would melt the surface of a metal topped carrier. they (US military) are trying to develop a ceramic tiling specifically for this. if in service, it will be far superior, but we know this is 5-10 years away. hence why the US Marines bought our Harrier fleet for spares and repairs. The new carriers a certain Scottish lead govenment ordered, to be built in Scottish dockyards (thats the money angle) again will be highly capable, but we've designed them to not have the equipment for the catapults, because we will have the as yet undeveloped F35-C (... wont we?), so dont need them? (right?). however the carriers will be ready within 5 years, so there will be a period where we have loverly state of the art aricraft carrier and no bloody planes to put on it. Eurofighter cannot be retro fitted as this it would need fundemental reworking of the "chassis" to cope with the arrestor wire landing, apparently. whoever decided on Tornados over Harriers, capabilities of the carriers , chinooks verses missile destroyers was in the MoD, the government didnt make that decision, they took the advise provided.

The Left support our boys putting their lives on the line,tories only ever exploit them for short term political advantage

The army is only ever delopyed for political advantage, its their purpose. the opposition will always make noise about how they support the boys, while the government will always be balancing the realities of budgets verse operational abilities. trouble with the last lot is they wanted them to fight a remote war without remote access (chinooks). trouble with the current lot is they see it as just another budget to be cut. the budget was f***ed (£30b black hole?) but at least pull them out then cut the budget.