Another Falklands conflict?

Alan Dicey wrote:
Jeroen Wenting wrote:

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...

On 28 Feb 2006 16:05:30 -0800, wrote:

It looks like tensions between Britain and Argentina are on the rise:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006

Is there any chance Argentina might try taking the Falklands again?

Would they have a good chance of success if they tried?

The British learnt a lot from the Falklands conflict, if they invaded
again it suggests Argentina did not.

Argentina has since rearmed, Britain no longer has a third of the
capability to wage war compared to the last time.
And they're already engaged in Iraq, an operation taking up most of
their strategic transport capability.

I'm of the opinion that the Argentinians could very well succeed in
taking the islands and keeping them.


We have Tornado's at Port Stanley.

We have a small flight of tornadoes at Mount Pleasant (4 I think, the
RAF website is down at the moment) I doubt they could do much more than
local area defense of the airfield.

Assuming we had tankers at Ascention can anyone guess how long it would
take to fly down additional F3s?

In sci.military.naval Iain Rae twisted the electrons to say:
Assuming we had tankers at Ascention can anyone guess how long it would
take to fly down additional F3s?

Actually, assuming there's a big enough fuel store present at Wideawake,
the presence of pre-positioned tankers there probably isn't too much of a
problem (strictly IMHO). Send some tankers down there first, "strictly a
routine training deployment, no it's not provocative, next question" and
then launch some F3s afterwards.

The problem is crew rest, I'd say. The tankers should be able to take
both spare crews (for the Wideawake-Falklands leg) for themselves and
the F3s, however once your extra F3s get to Mount Pleasant there's going
to be a delay before they can start operating. Unless there are more
than 4 Tornado crews down there already or you're going to send the
tankers all the way to Falklands as well ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"Iain Rae" wrote in message
k...
Alan Dicey wrote:
Jeroen Wenting wrote:

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...

On 28 Feb 2006 16:05:30 -0800, wrote:

It looks like tensions between Britain and Argentina are on the rise:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006

Is there any chance Argentina might try taking the Falklands again?

Would they have a good chance of success if they tried?

The British learnt a lot from the Falklands conflict, if they invaded
again it suggests Argentina did not.

Argentina has since rearmed, Britain no longer has a third of the
capability to wage war compared to the last time.
And they're already engaged in Iraq, an operation taking up most of
their strategic transport capability.

I'm of the opinion that the Argentinians could very well succeed in
taking the islands and keeping them.


We have Tornado's at Port Stanley.

We have a small flight of tornadoes at Mount Pleasant (4 I think, the
RAF website is down at the moment) I doubt they could do much more than
local area defense of the airfield.

FYI; the Tornado aircraft comes in many guises (Modifications) ...
The F3 variant is an _interceptor_ . 'Local area defense(sic)' would occur
hundreds of miles from the airfield.


Assuming we had tankers at Ascention can anyone guess how long it would
take to fly down additional F3s?

Why restrict a reinforcement to (Tornado)F3's?

--

Brian

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"Iain Rae" wrote in message
k...

Alan Dicey wrote:

Jeroen Wenting wrote:


"Jim Watt" wrote in message
m...


On 28 Feb 2006 16:05:30 -0800, wrote:


It looks like tensions between Britain and Argentina are on the rise:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006

Is there any chance Argentina might try taking the Falklands again?

Would they have a good chance of success if they tried?

The British learnt a lot from the Falklands conflict, if they invaded
again it suggests Argentina did not.


Argentina has since rearmed, Britain no longer has a third of the
capability to wage war compared to the last time.
And they're already engaged in Iraq, an operation taking up most of
their strategic transport capability.

I'm of the opinion that the Argentinians could very well succeed in
taking the islands and keeping them.


We have Tornado's at Port Stanley.

We have a small flight of tornadoes at Mount Pleasant (4 I think, the
RAF website is down at the moment) I doubt they could do much more than
local area defense of the airfield.


FYI; the Tornado aircraft comes in many guises (Modifications) ...
yes I know, I've sat in most of them, always with the wheels firmly on
the ground though.

The F3 variant is an _interceptor_ . 'Local area defense(sic)' would occur
hundreds of miles from the airfield.

With 4 aircraft versus the FAA you're not going to be able to stop
everything. I'm assuming that they'd be targetted on raids attacking the
airfield, lose the airfield and you lose the islands.




Assuming we had tankers at Ascention can anyone guess how long it would
take to fly down additional F3s?


Why restrict a reinforcement to (Tornado)F3's?


I'm not, but without doing the sums I'm guessing they could get there
quickest and there would already be supplies and technicians there to
service them.

I don't know if they have weapons or spares chached for the GR4 or
Jaguar but I'd have thought they'd have based a flight of them there if
there was.

"Iain Rae" wrote in message
. uk...
Brian Sharrock wrote:


Why restrict a reinforcement to (Tornado)F3's?


I'm not, but without doing the sums I'm guessing they could get there
quickest and there would already be supplies and technicians there to
service them.

I don't know if they have weapons or spares chached for the GR4 or
Jaguar but I'd have thought they'd have based a flight of them there if
there was.


Jaguar is being phased out of service but there is considerable commonality
between Tornado GR4 an F3, I doubt technical problems or spares would
be a problem.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Keith W wrote:
"Iain Rae" wrote in message
. uk...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

Why restrict a reinforcement to (Tornado)F3's?

I'm not, but without doing the sums I'm guessing they could get there
quickest and there would already be supplies and technicians there to
service them.

I don't know if they have weapons or spares chached for the GR4 or
Jaguar but I'd have thought they'd have based a flight of them there if
there was.


Jaguar is being phased out of service but there is considerable commonality
between Tornado GR4 an F3, I doubt technical problems or spares would
be a problem.

The avionic suites are considerably different, they use different
versions of the RB199 and the F3's fuselage is about a meter and a half
longer than the GR4's. The only common armament is the mauser cannon(s)
and ALARM. I'd have thought that there's enough of a difference to make
the ground crew's lives interesting at the best of times.

"Iain Rae" wrote in message
...
Keith W wrote:
"Iain Rae" wrote in message
. uk...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

Why restrict a reinforcement to (Tornado)F3's?

I'm not, but without doing the sums I'm guessing they could get there
quickest and there would already be supplies and technicians there to
service them.

I don't know if they have weapons or spares chached for the GR4 or
Jaguar but I'd have thought they'd have based a flight of them there if
there was.


Jaguar is being phased out of service but there is considerable
commonality
between Tornado GR4 an F3, I doubt technical problems or spares would
be a problem.

The avionic suites are considerably different, they use different versions
of the RB199* and the F3's fuselage is about a meter and a half longer
than the GR4's. The only common armament is the mauser cannon(s) and
ALARM. I'd have thought that there's enough of a difference to make the
ground crew's lives interesting at the best of times.

Anybody (airframes/engines/instruments/avionics) know what the current
training course(s) content is/are for groundcrew tasked to stations
supporting these aircraft?
Is it a fair 'thought' that the fitters are so narrowly trained that they
can only work on a particular airframe and are confined to discrete Mark(s)?
Is it still the case that a RAF Fitter will be 'concept' trained and
expected to follow the APs and schedules dictated by the F720's? {not to
mention the over-arching F700).
Now, I'm not saying that it wouldn't make store-bashers 'life interesting at
the best of times'.

"they use different versions of the RB199* " . What is the parts
commonality of these different versions? IIRC, a design criteria was to
minimize the number of different parts utilised between different versions?

--

Brian

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
...



Anybody (airframes/engines/instruments/avionics) know what the current
training course(s) content is/are for groundcrew tasked to stations
supporting these aircraft?

The training courses are carried in the Tornado Maintenance School
at RAF Marham and cover both GR-4 and F-2/3 variants. Facilities include

The Ground Instructional Aircraft (GIA) is a hybrid Tornado F2/F3 with fully
functional electrical power and hydraulics systems .

A GR4 Avionics Ground Training Rig (AGTR)

The Propulsion Systems Training Rig (PSTR) which
is used for all variants

Is it a fair 'thought' that the fitters are so narrowly trained that they
can only work on a particular airframe and are confined to discrete
Mark(s)?

No

Is it still the case that a RAF Fitter will be 'concept' trained and
expected to follow the APs and schedules dictated by the F720's? {not to
mention the over-arching F700).

Indeed

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----