PDA

View Full Version : "Sea Harrier Myth Shot Down"



leitmotiv
08-06-2007, 05:19 PM
Scroll down until you find "Sea Harrier Myth Shot Down":

http://www.warisboring.com/

leitmotiv
08-06-2007, 05:19 PM
Scroll down until you find "Sea Harrier Myth Shot Down":

http://www.warisboring.com/

Chris0382
08-06-2007, 05:39 PM
I didnt notice them mention that the Argentine pilots flew so low their wings almost touched the water and were practically on a one way suicide mission and avoided radar. That made a big difference to them being able to attack and hit the flotilla with Exocets.

If you ask me the Queen Mary "ooops I meant QE" (EDITED) was nearly a sitting duck and Im amazed it wasnt touched.

Zeus-cat
08-06-2007, 05:47 PM
Doesn't the analysis show that if the Sea Harrier was used properly it worked great? Sounds like the myth of "great tactics" was shot down, not the reputation of the aircraft.

FritzGryphon
08-06-2007, 06:04 PM
It just goes to show that the best tactic is to dogfight on the deck, something the noobs have known all along.

Taylortony
08-06-2007, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
I didn't notice them mention that the Argentine pilots flew so low their wings almost touched the water and were practically on a one way suicide mission and avoided radar. That made a big difference to them being able to attack and hit the flotilla with Exocets.

If you ask me the Queen Mary was nearly a sitting duck and Im amazed it wasnt touched. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would have needed to inflight refuel the Exocet enroute many times as the Queen Mary was tied up in Long Beach California, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
It would also upset a lot of pissed off Holiday makers that were booked into the said Hotel..........

Mind you the QE2 was there, as was the Canberra. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Exocet is launched from a pop up position up to 70 KM from the target, allowing a quick release then back down to wave hopping to be lost to radar background clutter.......... you then have bigger problems than the delivery mode as then you have an Exocet enroute to your location....

For what its worth all My friends survived but it was a shambles from start to finish in some parts...which I wont go into.
Its a fascinating thing to watch an Exocet coming at your ship, I know this for a fact as my mates from the Squadron were on the Atlantic Conveyor and one told me he just stood there and stared at it in awe as it came in and struck the ship.

The Shar was an awesome bit of Kit but had a serious flaw, that was the carriers, IE the likes of the Ark and Invincible are simply too small, they can carry only sufficent Shars to maintain a CAP over the carrier without offensive roles, so you have a situation where the Carrier is there to carry the Harrier and the Harrier is there simply to protect the carrier.... bit of a major flaw in the doctrine of the time.

One of the Harriers biggest assests was the latest variant of the Sidewinder and its ability to "Viff" in combat.

Ohh and yes I was involved on the Chinooks at the time and was in the RAF, so I do tend to know a lot more about it than ever was published, you would be suprised what went under the rug, so to speak.

Waldo.Pepper
08-06-2007, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">its ability to "Viff" in combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was my understanding that no Harrier ever did VIFF during any combat sortie. What is the truth?

Enforcer572005
08-06-2007, 09:38 PM
I also thought that was the case. I don't think they really needed to as the AIM-9L that we sent them (they only had J models before then I believe) was enough. I think a SHar would be more manuverable than a Mirage/Daggar anyway. I dunno about the A4Bs and Cs though.

The high CAP would've worked if they had some kinda AEW to direct them. Even the Sea Kings they modified later with radar for such would've been able to do that me thinks. I dunno what they were thinking of. Somebody should have reminded the Hermes planners that they weren't the old Ark Royal and had no Gannet AEW planes.

When the RN retired the Ark Royal and its airwing (79 I think), I told some of my friends that they would pay a heavy price for that someday. Happened alot sooner than I thought it would. Those F-4s and Gannet AEW planes could've prevented a single air or missle attack on the task force.

Amazing that a current RN admiral can say that they could do another Falklands type op without the Sea harriers (especially with the new radar and the AIM-120s). Not if the enemy has an airforce....any air force. I hope they can get those new full size CVs into service as planned. I promise the time will come when they will need them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

"Those who fail to remember the past are condemned to relive it".


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Xiolablu3
08-06-2007, 11:50 PM
There isnt really a Harrier 'myth' in my opinion.

The Pilots/Harriers/US Sidewinders did an excellent job versus the enemy aircraft. There were only 24 of them protecting a fleet thousands of miles from home, the Argentines had over 200 land based planes. Mirages/Daggers/A4Skyhawks.

NO HArriers were lost to enemy air action, at least one was lost to ground fire, maybe more I am not sure. I believe the final tally was around 25 enemy aircraft destroyed by Harriers, more by Ships, right on the doorstep of the enemy, thats quite a record, no need for a 'myth'

I thought this was a nice video, tribute to the bravery of the Argentinian pilots, attacking modern ships with WW2 style bombs. And to the crews of the British ships:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCIQHNPCRWM&mode=related&search=&v3

There is also a clip showing a Destroyers missile going right up the tailpipe of a A4 Skyhawk, but I cant seem to find that one.

Shame cant see the guncam vids from the HArriers . IS it 30 years before its released to the public in Britain? There are lots of clips on Youtube of the Argentinian hits on British ships, but nothing from the British archives. Searching for Harrier guncam reveals no hits.

CAn't we embed videos in posts here? Is this the 20th century still?!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
08-07-2007, 12:34 AM
JUst another point about the war in Argentina, if the people on the Falkland Islands had wanted to join Argentina, Britain would certainly be in the process of returning them, if not having done so already.

The point is the Falkland Islanders are absolutely certain that they wish to stay British and want no official connection with Argentina.

There is now one British soldier for every 2 people on the island in case Argentina attempts the same again. It is certainly not profitable to hang on to the islands for Britain, its a definite drain, but they have pledged their support so long as the inhabitants wish to stay British.

For Argentina to say that the islands are 'only 200 miles' from their mainland and so belong to them, is a bit like us saying France is only 23 miles away, so it should be British. Britain relenquished almost all of her World empire years ago, giving them the choice to remain British or go it alone, the Falklands were no different.

SOrry for the rant, but some of the comments on that youtube site were so full of cr*p I just had to comment. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Friendly_flyer
08-07-2007, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
is a bit like us saying France is only 23 miles away, so it should be British. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I seem to remember the British Crown actually did say something to that effect, but it's a while ago, back in 14-something I think.

OD_
08-07-2007, 03:22 AM
~S~
Actually the real reason for keepin the Falklands is nothing to do with the fact that the people want to stay British...if we really cared about that why wouldbe be looking at negotiations with Spain about Gibraltar?

The real reason is this:

To have any claim to have territory on Antarctica you need to have territory within 750nm (I think - might be wrong on the distance). The Falklands gives Britain this ability, hence there being a British research station there. It is thought that there are huge Oil reserves under the Southern Ocean, the problem at the moment is extracting it. But when that is worked out guess who will be there and one way or the other the Falklands will more than likely be involved. So it is short term cost for potential long term gain.

No one is really interested in keeping a few hundred sheep farmers British just for the sake of it...in an ideal world maybe, but this isn't.

As for the Sea Harrier...how is the myth dispelled? No one has ever tried to cover up the fact that ships were sunk...it's well known. It does nothing to put the blame on the Sea Harrier, plus it the the opinion of one person on a website and hardly a criticl study of the Falklands War. Yes things were done wrong and could have definintely been done better but the performance or 'myth' of the Sea Harrier has not been undermined at all here.

OD.

STENKA_69.GIAP
08-07-2007, 06:31 AM
I can't quite see how quoting Sharkey Ward exposes a myth or could be seen as "News".

Ward's book "Sea Harrier Over The Falklands" has been available since the 1990s, latest edition is available on Amazon - reccomend you buy it and read it - very interesting. Ward led one of the SHAR Squadrons in the Falklands and is highly critical of much of the management of that conflict. Which he has a right to be as he was there and actualy flew both cap and ground attack.

However he highly rated the SHAR and what it achieved.

Just for info if I remember right there were 2 SHAR squadrons plus a squadron of GR6? ground attack Harriers. One GR6 was lost to AAA, one SHAR to ground to air rocket over Port Stanley and two SHARs collided in fog.

Chris0382
08-07-2007, 06:35 AM
Wasnt there also a surface raid by special forces to blow up aircraft?

Another major error was some of the ships were bottled up in port Stanley and easy targets as they were not very mobile in the port.

Vulcan bombers missed the air strips after flying all that way?

Argentina was lucky their mainland airbases were not targeted as I feel they were fair game.

K_Freddie
08-07-2007, 06:49 AM
Whatever the myths are, the Harrier is one of the best planes to appear in its time. Even so that the Amelicans, who usually full of their own military ideas, bought a squadron of Harriers.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OD_
08-07-2007, 07:03 AM
The Americans bought more than a squadron!

There was a surface raid on the base on Pebble island by the SAS which took out quite a few aircraft.

The Vulcans flew 8,000 miles and only one of the stick of bombs landed right at the end of the runway.

No.1 Squadron and I think another squadron from the RAF flew Harrier Gr.3s in the ground attack role flying off the carriers.

But there is no way that the 'myth' around the Sea Harrier has been busted.

Fox_3
08-07-2007, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:

Vulcan bombers missed the air strips after flying all that way?

Argentina was lucky their mainland airbases were not targeted as I feel they were fair game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Vulcan raid proved that the RAF could have hit bases on the mainland. The threat was real enough for the Argentinians, causing them to withdraw two interceptor squadrons tasked with defending Falklands airspace.

The SAS were also on the ground in Argentina. A raid on a major airbase was aborted at the last moment.

jarink
08-07-2007, 07:48 AM
I remember attending an event at an IPMS meeting in St Louis many years ago ('83 or '84) where the keynote speaker was a RN Sea Harrier pilot who had fought in the Falklands.

In his opinion, there were two things that made a difference. The AIM-9L missles, which allowed all-aspect shots and the ability of the Harrier and Sea Harrier to operate from unimproved landing patches, small carriers and the Atlantic Conveyor.

That being said, Harriers have some fundamental flaws. As the USMC has found out, Harriers suffer from short range, low bombload (especially when operating in VTOL mode) and are especially susceptible to damage from heat-seeking SAMs or AAMs due to the central location of the exhaust pipes).

I'm with others here. I don't see any "myth" that's being shot down. They are like any other military aircraft; they have their strengths and weaknesses. If you employ them in a way that doesn't use their strengths and exposes their weaknesses, they will not be effective.
Duh. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

hi_stik
08-07-2007, 08:43 AM
Well, now it's all academic, because the Royal Navy is so tiny and impotent, the Luxembourgian Boy Scout Canoe Squadron could whip it in a fight.

Viper2005_
08-07-2007, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
That being said, Harriers have some fundamental flaws. As the USMC has found out, Harriers suffer from short range, low bombload (especially when operating in VTOL mode) and are especially susceptible to damage from heat-seeking SAMs or AAMs due to the central location of the exhaust pipes).

I'm with others here. I don't see any "myth" that's being shot down. They are like any other military aircraft; they have their strengths and weaknesses. If you employ them in a way that doesn't use their strengths and exposes their weaknesses, they will not be effective.
Duh. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't say that relatively low payload/range is a flaw; it's an inherent characteristic of pretty much all STOVL aircraft since:

#1 You've got a bigger engine than you'd otherwise need
#2 Said big engine burns fuel faster, and takes up mass which would otherwise be used for payload or fuel
#3 In the VTOL mode you're limited to weight&lt;thrust, which can be really nasty hot & high; hence STOVL, though even then "bring back" is always going to be a problem

The important thing to remember is that your STOVL aeroplane can operate from places that conventional aircraft cannot. Therefore to make a fair comparison you need to put HOTOL and STOVL aircraft at appropriate forward operating bases, rather than automatically starting them from the same place.

In the case of the Falklands, the Harrier's payload range performance was far superior to any other fast jet available to British forces since the nearest base available for fixed wing operations was rather a long way away.

Obviously, if you've got the facilities available, HOTOL aeroplanes will be better than STOVL aeroplanes when it comes to metrics such as payload range and bring back, but when you don't have those facilities the STOVL aeroplanes are still there flying whilst the HOTOL aeroplanes are just expensive furniture. You can see similar trades with F-35. The A and C models will do better than the B model given big runways and big carriers respectively. But the B model will do exactly 100% better than the A and C models when those wonderful facilities are taken away. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Similar arguments also apply to helicopters vs fixed wing transport aircraft. The bottom line is that if you've got a runway or a large carrier you should use it, but when you haven't, STOVL suddenly becomes an extremely attractive option! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
08-07-2007, 10:47 AM
Viper is right on the money. A STOVL aircraft will always be at a disadvantage in terms of peformance, range and bomb load when compared to a conventional fighter. However the added benefits the Harrier brings to the Task Force are immense.

Being able to operate from basically anywhere, no real landing strip needed. Being able to operate from tiny carriers. For this reason they are employed as close support aircraft for ground troops as they can stay basically with the troops at all times without needing to carve out a full runway each time the front moves. Giving air support extremely quickly when its requested by the ground forces.


Because the aircraft is able to base closer to the forward edge of the battle area, it can respond quicker and doesnt require air refueling. It can do things other airplanes can't do and can go places other airplanes can't go

ploughman
08-07-2007, 11:07 AM
Check this out.

Clickety click. (http://www.thunder-works.com/news.htm)

Chris0382
08-07-2007, 11:07 AM
Given that that operation was needed today, I dont believe you would see BlackHawks taking the Harriers place. What Britain really needs or needed is some Nitmiz Class carriers.

In the absence of a large carrier, the Harriers were really the only reliable option for air support and did their job.

Enforcer572005
08-07-2007, 11:22 AM
The RN really isn't impotent, but is for the time being in another period of outrageous neglect that they always seem to recover from with considerable innovation. To get funding for the three Invincible class small carriers from a basically moronic anti-aircraft carrier/offensive capability govt, they designed them with that absurd superstructure down most of the length...it made them look like a surface combatant from the side view, and they called them "through deck cruisers". The military-phobes (akin to the ones in the US) handling the purse strings fell for it and approved them, having recently successfully abolished carrier aviation with the retirement of the old Ark Royal (they were really proud of doing that to promote "peace" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif ).

Methinks that history is as neglected a subject in Brit schools as it is in America.

Then they had to present the Sea Harrier as purely defensive, so the RN wouldn't be able to hurt anybody. Anti defense types aren't too bright after all, so they fell for it.

IF they get the new large CVs, they will once again be an effective force that can act independently. But until then........

DuxCorvan
08-07-2007, 11:34 AM
Oh anus horribilis.
(Insert 'goatse' pic here)

Chris0382
08-07-2007, 11:37 AM
Maybe Britain was lucky to have small carriers as as they could not be spotted as easy and mistaken as a freighter.

What was going on in the Bikini Atoll at that time. There were rumors of massive activity at the Atoll related to the Falklands campaign.

DuxCorvan
08-07-2007, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
What was going on in the Bikini Atoll at that time. There were rumors of massive activity at the Atoll related to the Falklands campaign. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lonely Brit wives and girlfriends invaded the place, and it went Topless Atoll. Massive Dux activity at that time. Rumors were right, but the child is not my son.

Toten_Waffe
08-07-2007, 12:34 PM
There is no myth

Sea Harriers won teh war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Fox_3
08-07-2007, 01:45 PM
Harrier losses during Falklands War.

Type, Squadron, Location, Cause, Details

4 May
Sea Harrier, 800 Sqn, Goose Green, AAA, Lt Taylor killed.

6 May
2x Sea Harrier, 801 Sqn, East of Falklands, Operational accident, Collided in poor visibility, Lt Cdr Eyton-Jones and Lt Curtiss killed.

21 May
Harrier GR.3, 1 Sqn, Port Howard, AAA, Lt Glover taken prisoner.

24 May
Sea Harrier, 800 Sqn, East of Falklands, Operational accident, Crashed into sea shortly after takeoff from HMS Hermes, Lt Cdr Batt killed.

27 May
Harrier GR.3, 1 Sqn, Goose Green, AAA, Sqn Ldr Iveson evaded capture after ejecting.

29 May
Sea Harrier, 801 Sqn, East of Falklands, Operational accident, Slid off deck of HMS Invincible while turning in very bad weather, Lt Cdr Broadwater ejected and rescued from sea.

30 May
Harrier GR.3, 1 Sqn, Near Port Stanley, Small arms fire, Hit in fuel system, unable to RTB, Sqn Ldr Pook rescued from sea.

1 June
Sea Harrier, 801 Sqn, South of Port Stanley, Roland SAM, Flt Lt Mortimer ejected, spending 8 hours in a dinghy before being rescued.

8 June
Harrier GR.3, 1 Sqn, Port San Carlos, Operational accident, Suffered partial engine failure during hover while landing at San Carlos airfield, damaged beyond repair, pilot unhurt.

From Air War South Atlantic by J Ethell and A Price.

ploughman
08-07-2007, 02:09 PM
"8 June
Harrier GR.3, 1 Sqn, Port San Carlos, Operational accident, Suffered partial engine failure during hover while landing at San Carlos airfield, damaged beyond repair, pilot unhurt."

These are that.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/harrierGr3SanCarlos.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/HarrierGr3SanCarlos2.jpg

Thanks to jaybee2786 of ARRSE who took them and from who I have pirated them.

Bo_Nidle
08-07-2007, 05:23 PM
There were several reasons that the Vulcans bombs struck the runway in the manner they did. The first was that the bomb aiming equipment was antiquated being a later variant of the type used in the Lancaster and basically obsolete. The crews had not been trained in conventional bombing for about twenty years, concentrating on nukes instead. It was standard practice from the days of WW2 to attack an airfield at an oblique angle to ensure at least one good hit. If they had attempted to stitch a line of bombs down the runway and were off by the slightest degree then ALL 21 1000lb bombs would have missed.

The AAA threat was such that they were forced to bomb from a higher altitude than was ideal for airfield attack due to the Argentinian Oerlikon flak and Roland SAMs. The threat forced them into a low level approach culminating in a pop-up attack They were operating at the very limit of their capability in terms of range.

Only one bomb struck the runway but it rendered it useless for high speed fighter bombers as the damage kept causing subsidence on the runway.

It also scared the hell out of the Argies as they realised that any fighters stationed there would now be vulnerable-hence no Daggers, Skyhawks or Super Etendards ever operated from there. The raid also made them realise that their bases in Argentina were also vulnerable and they adjusted their home defence accordingly which tied up more aircraft.

Because of this the Argentinian Air Force was forced to operate at the limit of their range to the British advantage. I think the air-to-air kill ratio is the best evidence of the Harriers effectiveness no matter which way one might attempt to apply some sort of revisionist history. The all aspect AIM9L was also a major factor.

The sinking of the Belgrano forced the Argentinian navy to realise that they were extremely vulnerable to RN subs and they hightailed it home which effectively negated their carrier capability.

There was a surface attack carried out by British SAS/SBS on the airfield on Pebble island which rendered the Pucara ground attack aircraft stationed there inoperable. Classic special operations mission.

The people of the Falklands are British and wished to remain so rather than be subjects of a corrupt junta with a penchant for murder and oppression. That's why we went to war. All the conspiracy theories over Antarctica and oil are utter tosh!

Galtieri thought he could divert the Argentinian peoples attention from all the troubles in Argentina at that time with a quick victory that would guarantee him renewed popularity.

He believed that the British would never go to war over a seemingly insignificant part of British territory.

He was wrong.

Errors were made, of that there is no doubt. But the conflict was won by the skill at arms of men of a more professional Armed Forces.

Thinking about it, I think this was the last time I was proud to be British.

Taylortony
08-07-2007, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thinking about it, I think this was the last time I was proud to be British.

Bo_Nidle </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not when you were sitting in your little glass box? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Chris0382

Wasnt there also a surface raid by special forces to blow up aircraft?

Another major error was some of the ships were bottled up in port Stanley and easy targets as they were not very mobile in the port.

Vulcan bombers missed the air strips after flying all that way?

Argentina was lucky their mainland airbases were not targeted as I feel they were fair game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes to take out the Pucaras on Pebble Island.

Some of the ships were deliberately positioned in close in to shore to act as sacrificial targets, this was to draw the fire of the Argentinian Airforces away from the troop ships and carriers on the way south, the Captain of one of the Frigates requested permission to withdraw into open waters on a couple of occasions as the island masked his anti air missile capabilities, it was refused, he then stated on TV of late he realised then he was the bait.

Most were in San Carlos Water, Port Stanley was on the other side of the Island and was the last to fall.

As said the runway was straddled so as to avoid totally missing, it was also believed to have been more a pycho war thing as well.......

There was also rumours at the time in the RAF that they did not want to destroy to much of the infrastructure as they would need it urgently when the Islands were recaptured to defend the place.. The Nav from the raid joined Our Squadron in Germany soon after it all finished, as did I...... and he had the proverbial taken out of him for a while over it.

Hitting the mainland could have been to costly and may have swung public opinion in the rest of the world as aerial bombing of Argentina was not the goal of the mission, recovering the Falklands was........... Hence all the anomosity regarding (and quite wrongly in my opinion) over the sinking of the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone...... It was a threat in a war started by the other side and was in an agressive posture and was threatening to circle round the Islands where it could have caused all sorts of problems.

leitmotiv
08-07-2007, 06:20 PM
Another good 'un to be salivating over, Ploughman. Jet Thunder looks like the goods.

jarink
08-07-2007, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The important thing to remember is that your STOVL aeroplane can operate from places that conventional aircraft cannot. Therefore to make a fair comparison you need to put HOTOL and STOVL aircraft at appropriate forward operating bases, rather than automatically starting them from the same place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree; the ability to operate from darn near anywhere can be a huge advantage, especially in an amphibious landing where you may not have bases close enough for support.

However, lack of large bombload or smaller range is still a disadvantage in many situations (such as BAI). Like I said before, all aircraft have their strengths and weaknesses. That's why the USMC operates both Harriers and F/A-18s; they each have their own role. If V/STOL was the be-all end-all of aircraft design, there'd be more such designs, doncha think? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fox_3
08-07-2007, 06:57 PM
Harrier Air to Air Kills, Falklands war.

Type, Pilot, Squadron, weapon, Kill, Squadron, Location, Details.

1 May
Sea Harrier, Flt Lt Barton, 801 Sqn, Sidewinder, Mirage, grupo 8, North of West Falkland, Lt Perona ejected.

Sea Harrier, Lt Thomas, 801 Sqn, Sidewinder, Mirage, Grupo 8, Falkland Island, Severly damage by Lt Thomas, Shot down by friendly AAA during attempted emergency landing, Credited to Thomas as if it had landed, it probably wouldn't have been able to takeoff again. Capt Cuerva killed.

Sea Harrier, Flt Lt Penfold, 800 Sqn, Sidewinder, Dagger, Grupo 6, West Falklands, Lt Ardiles listed as KIA.

Sea Harrier, Lt Curtiss, 801 Sqn, Sidewinder, Canberra, Grupo 2, North west of Falklands, Lt Gonzales and Lt Ibanez could not be rescued from sea.

21 May
Sea Harrier, Lt Cdr Ward and Lt Cdr Craig and Lt Thomas, 801 Sqn, 30mm Cannon, Pucara, Grupo 3, Near Darwin, Major Tomba ejected.

Sea Harrier, Lt Cdr Blissett and Lt Cdr Thomas, 800 Sqn, Sidewinder, 2x Skyhawks, Grupo 4, Near Chartres, West Falkland, Lt Lopez and Lt Manzotti killed.

Sea Harrier, Lt Cdr Fredericksen, 800 Sqn, Sidewinder, Dagger, Grupo 6, South east of Mt Robinson, West Falkland, Lt luna ejected with injuries.

Sea Harrier, Lt Morell, 800 Sqn, Sidewinder, Skyhawk, 3 Naval Ftr & Atk Esc, Falkland Sound, Lt Cdr Philippi ejected.

Sea Harrier, Flt Lt Leeming, 800 Sqn, 30mm Cannon, Skyhawk, 3 Naval Ftr & Atk Esc, Falkland Sound, Lt Marquez killed.

Sea Harrier/HMS Ardent, Lt Morrell, 800 Sqn, 30mm Cannon/Small arms fire, Skyhawk, 3 Naval Ftr & Atk Esc, Falklands Sound, damaged by small arms attacking Ardent, further damage by Lt Morrell, Lt Arca ejecting after aborting emergency landing.

23 May
Sea Harrier, Flt Lt Morgan, 800 Sqn, None, Puma, Army, Near Shag Cove, West Falklands, Flew into ground while attempting to evade attack, credited to Flt Lt Morgan.

Sea Harrier, Lt Hale, 800 Sqn, Sidewinder, Dagger, Grupo 6, Pebble Island, Lt Volponi killed.

24 May
Sea Harrier, Lt Cdr Auld x2 and Lt Smith, 800 Sqn, Sidewinder, 3x Dagger, Grupo 6, Pebble Island, Lt Castillo kiled, Maj Puga and Capt Diaz ejected.

1 June
Sea Harrier, Lt Cdr Ward, 801 Sqn, Sidewinder/30mm Cannon, C130, Grupo 1, 50 miles North of Pebble Island, Capt Krause and 6 Crew killed.

8 June
Sea Harrier, Flt Lt Morgan x2 and Lt Smith, 800 Sqn, Sidewinder, 3x Skyhawk, Grupo 5, Choiseul Sound, Lt Arraras, Lt Bolzan, and Ensign Vasquez all killed.

Viper2005_
08-07-2007, 07:07 PM
jarink, we are singing from basically the same hymn sheet, but I consider it generally more productive to think in terms of advantages rather than disadvantages since being at a disadvantage is the enemy's job.

Enforcer572005
08-07-2007, 07:25 PM
Wow...those shots of the Gr3 are impressive. Thanx for posting those.

Will the idiotic indoctrination of the "nukes only" and "defensive" nonsense of that 1957 white paper ever end? The Falklands was a direct result of that lunacy. So is the phobia against offensive thinking. Sinking enemy warships is mean and nasty, and just not fair.


Sheeesh. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

CyberWings
08-07-2007, 09:14 PM
Well since I'm the only one from Argentina in this forum I have to say something.
First of all I was only 6 years old in 1982.
Argentina was under a military government in 1982. Argentine people will never forget the crimes committed by that illegal military government against our own nation (I'm talking about 30.000 people murdered "disappeared"). For this reason since the recover of democracy in 1983 Argentina military forces are been slowly dismantle.
The idea that Argentina could try to take Malvinas by the force again is ridiculous. I'm really sorry about all the human lifes from both sides of the conflict that were lost in that war. Some of them were only 17 years old, just children if you ask me.
I really don't think Argentina had any chance to win that war. The idea of going to war against a military power like Britain that also had the support of the United States was and still is completely stupid (Only Argentine military could think of something like this). Even at that time most of Argentines forces were obsolete against British forces.
Nevertheless, even today Argentines pilots are worldwide recognise for their bravery, with severe losses they perform almost suicidal attacks in obsolete planes against British ships and they manage to sink many of them. I really don't think any other country in the world manage to face one of the most important military forces in the worlds like the one fron U.K. causing them such a level of damage. What would happened if Saddam Hussein managed to sink one or two American ships? Think about it honestly, today Irak would be a radioactive wasteland.
One think that I'm thankful is that Malvinas war happened 25 years ago. It was a different time then; today the U.K. and U.S.A. would have recovered the Islands and would have invade the rest of Argentina, anyway war brings up the worst of people.
Sorry for this lasts comments I don't want to make huge discussions about this topic but when I read the news about what is happening in the middle east I get really scary about what the new Empire of the world will do in the future.
This is just my opinion.....

OD_
08-08-2007, 03:43 AM
I think you might want to review the opinion on the Falklands, oil and Antarctica...seeing as it came from an RAF Wing Commander from RAF intelligence, amoung other sources.

Would Britain do the same if the Spanish government sent the army to Gibraltar? No. Did Britain do anything to stand up for Grenada when it was invaded by the USA? No.

A few hundered sheep farmers and penguins are not worth sailing 8,000 miles for and hundereds of lives from the Armed forces, not to mention the cost in equipment. It's very patriotic of you to think otherwise, but also very unrealistic.

OD.

ploughman
08-08-2007, 04:02 AM
I heard similar reasoning about 20 years ago OD, but you can't discount either that 1982 was the middle of the 2nd Cold War, SS-20s, cruise, the War in Afghanistan, the Reagan build up, and that the Falklands War said things about where lines would be drawn that were meant to be heard in the Kremlin.

OD_
08-08-2007, 05:00 AM
That's fair enough, but it's still not sailing there just for the people of the Falklands to feel British and be 'free' of Argentina. Good way to sell it to the Public though.

I'm not saying that going to the Falklands was wrong either, I just think we should have a more honest appraisal of the real reasons for why.

OD.

Von_Rat
08-08-2007, 09:09 AM
if i understand correctly the USA and Russia do not actually recognise any territorial claims of Antarctic land.

i doubt that the Antarctic was the reason behind britains decision to retake the falklands. with both the us and russia, not to mention many others, not recognizing territorial claims, how were the brits ever going to exploit the Antarctic.

now the area within the falklands territorial waters is a differant story. it could well be worth having in the future and britains claim wont be disputed by any major power.

i even remember watching news programs in the us at that time, that remarked that britain wanted the falklands back to retain claim to the falklands territorial waters and its possiable future natural resources.

HamishUK
08-08-2007, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">its ability to "Viff" in combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was my understanding that no Harrier ever did VIFF during any combat sortie. What is the truth? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not visited these forums for a looong time. Allow me to clarify.

Viffing was a media generated legend. No RAF pilot ever trains to Viff. There is no such manoeuver in the RAF's combat doctrine.

Reasons? Easy....

1: Speed is life. The Harrier dropping its speed to viff presents a very clear target.

2: It's almost impossible for a pilot to judge how close an enemy aircraft is behind him to enable the so called Viff manoeuver. if an enemy jet is that close to allow Viff'ing to be effective then you are already dead.

3: The Harrier needs to slow down to about 5 knots before it can even attempt a reverse direction manoeuver. From full speed this take a good 15-20 seconds followed by the pilot working very hard to ensure the aircraft is stable whilst hovering.

Viffing has never been performed in combat as far as your interpretation of the technique is understood. The Harrier is highly manoeuverable but a pilot would never slow his Harrier to a dead stop in combat.

HamishUK
08-08-2007, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if i understand correctly the USA and Russia do not actually recognise any territorial claims of Antarctic land.

i doubt that the Antarctic was the reason behind britains decision to retake the falklands. with both the us and russia, not to mention many others, not recognizing territorial claims, how were the brits ever going to exploit the Antarctic.

now the area within the falklands territorial waters is a differant story. it could well be worth having in the future and britains claim wont be disputed by any major power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Au contraire.

The area around the Falklands is well known to have very rich oil and fishing reserves. Argentina has just chopped up the current contract with the UK on these rights.

The Falklands does indeed allow the UK oil privilages in the South Atlantic in the future.

Without the Falklands the UK would be giving up these potential reserves and lucrative fishing rights.

Von_Rat
08-08-2007, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if i understand correctly the USA and Russia do not actually recognise any territorial claims of Antarctic land.

i doubt that the Antarctic was the reason behind britains decision to retake the falklands. with both the us and russia, not to mention many others, not recognizing territorial claims, how were the brits ever going to exploit the Antarctic.

now the area within the falklands territorial waters is a differant story. it could well be worth having in the future and britains claim wont be disputed by any major power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Au contraire.

The area around the Falklands is well known to have very rich oil and fishing reserves. Argentina has just chopped up the current contract with the UK on these rights.

The Falklands does indeed allow the UK oil privilages in the South Atlantic in the future.

Without the Falklands the UK would be giving up these potential reserves and lucrative fishing rights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


why,,, Au contraire??????


your saying the same thing i am.

to qoute myself
_________________________________________________
now the area within the falklands territorial waters is a differant story. it could well be worth having in the future and britains claim wont be disputed by any major power
__________________________________________________ _____________

HamishUK
08-08-2007, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if i understand correctly the USA and Russia do not actually recognise any territorial claims of Antarctic land.

i doubt that the Antarctic was the reason behind britains decision to retake the falklands. with both the us and russia, not to mention many others, not recognizing territorial claims, how were the brits ever going to exploit the Antarctic.

now the area within the falklands territorial waters is a differant story. it could well be worth having in the future and britains claim wont be disputed by any major power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Au contraire.

The area around the Falklands is well known to have very rich oil and fishing reserves. Argentina has just chopped up the current contract with the UK on these rights.

The Falklands does indeed allow the UK oil privilages in the South Atlantic in the future.

Without the Falklands the UK would be giving up these potential reserves and lucrative fishing rights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


why,,, Au contraire??????


your saying the same thing i am.

to qoute myself
_________________________________________________
now the area within the falklands territorial waters is a differant story. it could well be worth having in the future and britains claim wont be disputed by any major power
__________________________________________________ _____________ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In part. The Antartic was the chief reason though. There are huge uncapped oil reserves there.

Von_Rat
08-08-2007, 09:58 AM
if you got the usa and russia, plus many other antartic treaty countrys not recognizing your claim, good luck in trying to exploit that Antartic oil.

HamishUK
08-08-2007, 10:14 AM
Current laws grant countries an economic zone of 200 nautical miles beyond their land borders.

This zone can be extended where a country can prove that the structure of the continental shelf is similar to the geological structure within its territory.

The South Pole is not currently regarded as part of any single country's territory and is therefore administered by the International Seabed Authority.

You are right everything is a 'claim'. However it is made more important by the requirements I have indicated.

Anymore questions?

Von_Rat
08-08-2007, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
Current laws grant countries an economic zone of 200 nautical miles beyond their land borders.

This zone can be extended where a country can prove that the structure of the continental shelf is similar to the geological structure within its territory.

The South Pole is not currently regarded as part of any single country's territory and is therefore administered by the International Seabed Authority.

You are right everything is a 'claim'. However it is made more important by the requirements I have indicated.

Anymore questions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

in my very 1st post i said that the falklands territorial waters, were the reason to take back the falklands.
territorial wasnt the right word but it types faster than economic zone of 200 nautical miles.

i also said antartic LAND claim.

i find it difficult to believe that the uk sent a fleet just to try to strenghten a antartic LAND claim, that at least 2 major powers, plus many other treaty powers deny.

like i said good luck in exploiting that antartic oil. its been 25 years already, i bet you it'll be alot longer before britain makes that land claim stick.

maybe they were just thinking ahead,,,way ahead.

OD_
08-08-2007, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

maybe they were just thinking ahead,,,way ahead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is what I said in my first post...so does this mean we're in agreement? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It's not just about the land claim...who will benefit from the Falklands being used as a stagin post? Who will benefit from the passing trade as ships need to refuel or take on supplies? The US doesn't recognise a lot of Treaties...doesn't make them irrelevent. What would make a US or Russian claim to antarctica any more relevant??? Russia has no territory near it and is at the opposite pole, so is the US.

Right now the problem is extracting the oil, the Southern Ocean isn't the most hospitable place on Earth. But the UK has plenty of experience with Oil Rigs from the North Sea...there is potential, all wars are economics based. No one in their right mind would give two hoots about the Falklands otherwise.

But the fact remains the Sea Harrier won the war!

jarink
08-08-2007, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
jarink, we are singing from basically the same hymn sheet, but I consider it generally more productive to think in terms of advantages rather than disadvantages since being at a disadvantage is the enemy's job. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Waldo.Pepper
08-08-2007, 06:31 PM
I took me an entire evening of searching through stacks of discs to find this video to post it.

Harriers operating from a forward wooded base during an exercise.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7225703651425132094

Enforcer572005
08-08-2007, 07:14 PM
Politics aside, it was a fascinating war that I kept up with at the time (wish I had a VCR back then). Arg AF and Navy pilots were incredible in their skill and courage. The disparity in the Kill ratio doesn't actually reflect on thier skill: they didn't have fuel to dogfight, as they were stretching their range as it was. Their sidewinders were old B models anyway.

It was much closer a contest than many realize. A few small things could've changed the outcome, like the Arg AF not knowing how to fuse bombs for ship attack (the navy did and had much better results). If they had waited a few more mos, the RN would've been even more gutted, especially its amphib ships. If there had been the usual wind, the Arg Navy could have launched A4s from their Collossus class CV, but strangely there wasnt enough wind for them to launch with any ordinance.

The bomb fusing alone would've made a huge difference.

There were alot of close issues. A real pity one tyrant sacrificed all those lives just for political capitol, which backfired.

Gonna make a great sim though.

Von_Rat
08-08-2007, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

maybe they were just thinking ahead,,,way ahead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is what I said in my first post...so does this mean we're in agreement? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It's not just about the land claim...who will benefit from the Falklands being used as a stagin post? Who will benefit from the passing trade as ships need to refuel or take on supplies? The US doesn't recognise a lot of Treaties...doesn't make them irrelevent. What would make a US or Russian claim to antarctica any more relevant??? Russia has no territory near it and is at the opposite pole, so is the US.

Right now the problem is extracting the oil, the Southern Ocean isn't the most hospitable place on Earth. But the UK has plenty of experience with Oil Rigs from the North Sea...there is potential, all wars are economics based. No one in their right mind would give two hoots about the Falklands otherwise.

But the fact remains the Sea Harrier won the war! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

we're in agreement that the resources in the falklands economic zone were a good reason to take back the islands. this was clearly stated by news programs ,in the usa at least, at the time. i dont see why its causing a stir now.

the us and russia are treaty powers even if they have no adjancent territory.
the us and russia currently have no claims in the antartic. but they are antartic treaty members and seem dead set against antartic land claims by others including the uk. my point was i doubt those resources in under antartic land are going to be used even if the technology existed, as long as 2 major powers plus most of the small treaty powers say no. theyve been saying no for 25 years, i bet they say no for 25 more at least.

simply put i doubt antartic resources, were a major factor in the uks decision to take back the falklands. the resources of the falklands economic zone however were a major factor, and this was common knowledge at the time.

HamishUK
08-09-2007, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

like i said good luck in exploiting that antartic oil. its been 25 years already, i bet you it'll be alot longer before britain makes that land claim stick.

maybe they were just thinking ahead,,,way ahead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually no-one can currently drill for oil regardless of claims till 2050.

Since there are few major powers that have the capability or resources for offshore oilfields it is unlikely that a UK company will not be allowed drilling claims.

BP most certainly will be there as it's one of the 6 supermajor companies that can drill in these conditions.

As for any 'bets' I don't make them. It's pretty obvious that BP, Shell and Standard Oil (US company)will be there.

Saudi Aramco is the largest company in the world however it does not have the offshore deep sea capabilities the above three have.

It's not about 'owning' land as you seem to think? It's about the country laying a claim for drilling rights in the region. As I pointed out there are very few companies in the world that have the software or capability for deep sea rigs or the capability to transfer crude or natural gas to a processing station over long distances.

Two UK companies are amongst the most experienced at doing this and I sincerely doubt they will be excluded.

Von_Rat
08-09-2007, 08:39 AM
of course the uk will be involved in any future exploitation of the antartic oil. they are a treaty power afterall. they would have that status whether or not the falklands belong to them. thats why i say i doubt the antartic oil was a major reason for recovering the falklands. thats my point. they have a right to share in antartic oil even without the falklands.

having the falklands is not going to give them EXCLUSIVE drilling rights to anything in the antartic other than the economic zone around the falklands. a antartic LAND claim would give them EXCLUSIVE rights to not only the land, but its adjacent ocean.

as i said before the other treaty powers are unlikly to ever allow this.

HamishUK
08-10-2007, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
of course the uk will be involved in any future exploitation of the antartic oil. they are a treaty power afterall. they would have that status whether or not the falklands belong to them. thats why i say i doubt the antartic oil was a major reason for recovering the falklands. thats my point. they have a right to share in antartic oil even without the falklands.

having the falklands is not going to give them EXCLUSIVE drilling rights to anything in the antartic other than the economic zone around the falklands. a antartic LAND claim would give them EXCLUSIVE rights to not only the land, but its adjacent ocean.

as i said before the other treaty powers are unlikly to ever allow this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said 'Exclusive' I said 'claim'. What the Falklands does do is allow fishing and oil rights (as we both agree on) within it's own territorial waters.

As for the claim on the land well that's still for the courts to decide. However if you read your news Canada is also starting a much more aggresive 'claim' on the North Pole regions based on it's own landmass.

Should Russia and Canada move onto these landmasses (provided there is proof of the continental shelf) then what will anyone else do to stop it? Go to war? Probably not.

Xiolablu3
08-10-2007, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CyberWings:
Well since I'm the only one from Argentina in this forum I have to say something.
First of all I was only 6 years old in 1982.
Argentina was under a military government in 1982. Argentine people will never forget the crimes committed by that illegal military government against our own nation (I'm talking about 30.000 people murdered "disappeared"). For this reason since the recover of democracy in 1983 Argentina military forces are been slowly dismantle.
The idea that Argentina could try to take Malvinas by the force again is ridiculous. I'm really sorry about all the human lifes from both sides of the conflict that were lost in that war. Some of them were only 17 years old, just children if you ask me.
I really don't think Argentina had any chance to win that war. The idea of going to war against a military power like Britain that also had the support of the United States was and still is completely stupid (Only Argentine military could think of something like this). Even at that time most of Argentines forces were obsolete against British forces.
Nevertheless, even today Argentines pilots are worldwide recognise for their bravery, with severe losses they perform almost suicidal attacks in obsolete planes against British ships and they manage to sink many of them. I really don't think any other country in the world manage to face one of the most important military forces in the worlds like the one fron U.K. causing them such a level of damage. What would happened if Saddam Hussein managed to sink one or two American ships? Think about it honestly, today Irak would be a radioactive wasteland.
One think that I'm thankful is that Malvinas war happened 25 years ago. It was a different time then; today the U.K. and U.S.A. would have recovered the Islands and would have invade the rest of Argentina, anyway war brings up the worst of people.
Sorry for this lasts comments I don't want to make huge discussions about this topic but when I read the news about what is happening in the middle east I get really scary about what the new Empire of the world will do in the future.
This is just my opinion..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice to hear your opinion mate, thanks!

Your pilots were incredibly brave, the British Navy had nothing but praise for their attacks using old style bombs against missile armed destroyers. IN all the documentaries we have about the Falklands nowadyas, there is always some Navy guy stating how they admired the bravery of the Argentinian pilots.

Von_Rat
08-10-2007, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
of course the uk will be involved in any future exploitation of the antartic oil. they are a treaty power afterall. they would have that status whether or not the falklands belong to them. thats why i say i doubt the antartic oil was a major reason for recovering the falklands. thats my point. they have a right to share in antartic oil even without the falklands.

having the falklands is not going to give them EXCLUSIVE drilling rights to anything in the antartic other than the economic zone around the falklands. a antartic LAND claim would give them EXCLUSIVE rights to not only the land, but its adjacent ocean.

as i said before the other treaty powers are unlikly to ever allow this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said 'Exclusive' I said 'claim'. What the Falklands does do is allow fishing and oil rights (as we both agree on) within it's own territorial waters.

As for the claim on the land well that's still for the courts to decide. However if you read your news Canada is also starting a much more aggresive 'claim' on the North Pole regions based on it's own landmass.

Should Russia and Canada move onto these landmasses (provided there is proof of the continental shelf) then what will anyone else do to stop it? Go to war? Probably not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i said exclusive, because they already have non exclusive rights in antartica whether they own falklands or not. i dont think any court will decide on land claims in antartica, its the treaty powers that will decide. ive already have given my opinion on what i think they'll do.

as for the north pole, i think theres more than canada and russia involved at the north pole. off the top of my head theres also, the us, norway, iceland, and denmark/greenland? involved. im sure the powers involved will settle, without violance, on some sort of accord resembling the antartic treaty.

HamishUK
08-10-2007, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
of course the uk will be involved in any future exploitation of the antartic oil. they are a treaty power afterall. they would have that status whether or not the falklands belong to them. thats why i say i doubt the antartic oil was a major reason for recovering the falklands. thats my point. they have a right to share in antartic oil even without the falklands.

having the falklands is not going to give them EXCLUSIVE drilling rights to anything in the antartic other than the economic zone around the falklands. a antartic LAND claim would give them EXCLUSIVE rights to not only the land, but its adjacent ocean.

as i said before the other treaty powers are unlikly to ever allow this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said 'Exclusive' I said 'claim'. What the Falklands does do is allow fishing and oil rights (as we both agree on) within it's own territorial waters.

As for the claim on the land well that's still for the courts to decide. However if you read your news Canada is also starting a much more aggresive 'claim' on the North Pole regions based on it's own landmass.

Should Russia and Canada move onto these landmasses (provided there is proof of the continental shelf) then what will anyone else do to stop it? Go to war? Probably not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i said exclusive, because they already have non exclusive rights in antartica whether they own falklands or not. i dont think any court will decide on land claims in antartica, its the treaty powers that will decide. ive already have given my opinion on what i think they'll do.

as for the north pole, i think theres more than canada and russia involved at the north pole. off the top of my head theres also, the us, norway, iceland, and denmark/greenland? involved. im sure the powers involved will settle, without violance, on some sort of accord resembling the antartic treaty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it now boils down to what's on my pay packet at the end of the month. Than debating the toss over a piece of land that contains the wierdest bunch of people I have ever had to meet.

As far as the Falklands are concerned we used to call them Bennies (the character from Crossroads Soap). We were hauled over the coals for that so we called them Stills (as in Still Bennies).

AWL_Spinner
08-10-2007, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If there had been the usual wind, the Arg Navy could have launched A4s from their Collossus class CV, but strangely there wasnt enough wind for them to launch with any ordinance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it was a close fought war - plenty of examples both ways, of course. Several days prior to the Belgrano sinking, one of the other British attack submarines was tracking 25 de Mayo. By the time authorisation to sink her came back a sea fog had descended (RoE of the time requiring visual acquisition) and the opportunity was lost (the carrier subsequently moving into national waters and beyond the allowable RoE).

Regarding UXBs - there's an interesting bit in Jerry Pook's excellent book (I think) on this subject.

The idea that because of incorrect fusing the RN somehow got off lightly is a load of tosh. Even if it doesn't go off, a 500lber moving that quickly does a collosal amount of damage (disabling several ships to varying degrees). Further more, UXBs tie up valuable disposal teams in dangerous work for long periods of time, as well as hampering whatever operations the disabled ship may be capable of.

In Pook's view (as a GR3 ground attack pilot) - any weapon on target was a valid hit, whether it went off or not, and any pilot who got one on target had had a succesful mission.