F15E's trounced by Eurofighters

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
Spin Doctor Guy Alcala has again left out a number of inconvenient
facts -- thirty-three inconvenient facts, in this case. Between May
1st and June 13th, 1982, Argentine C-130 Hercules transports
operated
33 flights into the airfield at Port Stanley, carrying 434 tons of
cargo and 514 personnel. They also managed to evacuate 264 wounded.
Evidently, the crater was not quite the detriment you and the RAF
would like us to believe.

Even, you really need to take off your dark goggles occasionally. You
might then have less trouble reading the portion of my post
immediately preceding the part which you quoted out of context, to
wit:

"During the campaign the runway had been cratered by the Vulcan bomber
and Harrier raids, and had suffered over 1,000 'scabs' or shallow
scuffs in its surface. The Argentinians had temporarily back-filled
the five large craters [Guy: 1 deep one by Vulcan, the other four
shallower, by retard bombs dropped by SHAR/GR.3], enabling them to
continue to fly in C-130 Hercules transports right up to the end.
"By properly repairing three craters and dealing with about 500
'scabs', No. 1 Troop of 59 Commando Squadron Royal Engineers had the
northern half of the runway ready to accept the first British Hercules
on 24 June [Guy: Obviously, risks worth taking in landing
They had also arranged rings of earth on the runway
to show up as craters on British air reconnaissance photos.


So what? I said you did not mention the 33 flights by the C-130s. You
mentioned one specific flight in which a Hercules (supposedly) "almost
crashed".

I don't know how much plainer I can make it.


Maybe you and Alistair Gunn should pass around a collection plate
to
have the crater enshrined.

Why would we need to do so? The only reason either of us mentioned it
was because you were referencing an anecdotal quote provided by Moro;
I merely provided the facts. How you get from there to our supposed
worship of the crater, I have no idea


Your longwinded response and rather astonishing selectiveness towards
"facts" suggests otherwise. : )

Peter Kemp wrote in message . ..
Spin Doctor Guy Alcala has again left out a number of inconvenient
facts -- thirty-three inconvenient facts, in this case. Between May
1st and June 13th, 1982, Argentine C-130 Hercules transports operated
33 flights into the airfield at Port Stanley, carrying 434 tons of
cargo and 514 personnel. They also managed to evacuate 264 wounded.
Evidently, the crater was not quite the detriment you and the RAF
would like us to believe.

Don't talk tosh - Guy specifically stated that the runway was still
useable....


But no mention of the 33 Argentine C-130 missions into Stanley or the
amount of supplies and personnel they carried. There was a remark
about one flight concerning a plane that almost crashed. This means
you are spin doctoring.


"The Argentinians had temporarily back-filled the five large craters,
enabling them to continue to fly in C-130 Hercules transports right up
to the end"

Neither did he leave out many facts in a detailed description of the
damage to the runway and the repairs to it.

SO you're the one doing the spin doctoring.......as usual.


You're getting petty now. Give it a rest.

On 31 Mar 2004 18:51:14 -0800, (Guy alcala)
wrote:

Typically spurious rationale advanced to justify further
slef-indulgent PC equipment purchases to a sceptical wife.

I will deny, to the last breath in my body, that my rationale is
spurious, that I'm being self-indulgent, and that I have a wife,
sceptical or otherwise.

For most unmarried men, the bank manager performs a similar function
when it comes to quashing fond dreams with the icy blast of stern
disapproval, backed by desolate financial reality.

I have sedulously avoided such legal
complications, preferring my relationships to
be of a more informal (and non-legally-binding) nature ;-)

I should give an honourable mention to my brother at this point, whose
valiant attempt to infiltrate a new, ridiculously over-spec PC into
his house after a subtle re-badging of the casing with the label for
an entry-level workstation so narrowly failed to escape the eternal
vigilance of the domestic management.

Gavin Bailey


--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

Guy alcala twisted the electrons to say:
The runway has long since been shortened and narrowed, to
3,013' x 63' (from 4,100' x 150' pre-war, extended to 6,100' x 150' in
the immediate aftermath, until RAF Mt. Pleasant was opened in 1995),
presumably to make it less useful in a war while still allowing the
FIGAS Islanders to land at Stanley.

One wonders if someone thought to include the odd piece of explosive
under what's left of the runway - "just in case" you understand ...

Afterall, it was bad enough the RAF having to go round the Vulcan
preservation groups borrowing pieces of equipment (mostly relating to the
refuelling probe) - if Argentina has another go, they'd have to go and
borrow entire Vulcans! grins
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In article , Presidente
Alcazar writes
On 31 Mar 2004 18:51:14 -0800, (Guy alcala)
wrote:

Typically spurious rationale advanced to justify further
slef-indulgent PC equipment purchases to a sceptical wife.

I will deny, to the last breath in my body, that my rationale is
spurious, that I'm being self-indulgent, and that I have a wife,
sceptical or otherwise.

For most unmarried men, the bank manager performs a similar function
when it comes to quashing fond dreams with the icy blast of stern
disapproval, backed by desolate financial reality.

I have sedulously avoided such legal
complications, preferring my relationships to
be of a more informal (and non-legally-binding) nature ;-)

I should give an honourable mention to my brother at this point, whose
valiant attempt to infiltrate a new, ridiculously over-spec PC into
his house after a subtle re-badging of the casing with the label for
an entry-level workstation so narrowly failed to escape the eternal
vigilance of the domestic management.

Gavin Bailey


--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

You chaps have got it all wrong!

SWMBO relies on her PC for her work (as I do on mine), so it has to be
reasonably fast. She's also heavily into digital photography, so needs
plenty of power for that. Her latest idea is a digital camcorder (first
grandbrat on the way), so even more oomph will be needed for editing. I
just need to convince her that she needs the GBP 750 one, not the GBP
250 type. Extensive testing at Duxford will be called for.

My PC is a tad slower, but has the memory for scanning.

Last monitor that failed on me just emitted a plume of smoke and a nasty
smell, but no flames, I'm glad to say.

So no problems with SWMBO on the PC front, but aviation books are
another matter...
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

On 31 Mar 2004 19:51:21 -0800, (Evan Brennan)
wrote:

Peter Kemp wrote in message . ..
Spin Doctor Guy Alcala has again left out a number of inconvenient
facts -- thirty-three inconvenient facts, in this case. Between May
1st and June 13th, 1982, Argentine C-130 Hercules transports operated
33 flights into the airfield at Port Stanley, carrying 434 tons of
cargo and 514 personnel. They also managed to evacuate 264 wounded.
Evidently, the crater was not quite the detriment you and the RAF
would like us to believe.

Don't talk tosh - Guy specifically stated that the runway was still
useable....


But no mention of the 33 Argentine C-130 missions into Stanley or the
amount of supplies and personnel they carried.

"The Argentinians had temporarily back-filled the five large craters,
enabling them to continue to fly in C-130 Hercules transports right up
to the end"

Seems to mention multiple Hercules flights to me, but not the number
33 or the amount of cargo carried in and out. IF those figures are
*so* important to you, I'd suggest you were the one being petty.

There was a remark
about one flight concerning a plane that almost crashed. This means
you are spin doctoring.

S******.....
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

(Evan Brennan) wrote in message om...
Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
Spin Doctor Guy Alcala has again left out a number of inconvenient
facts -- thirty-three inconvenient facts, in this case. Between May
1st and June 13th, 1982, Argentine C-130 Hercules transports
operated
33 flights into the airfield at Port Stanley, carrying 434 tons of
cargo and 514 personnel. They also managed to evacuate 264 wounded.
Evidently, the crater was not quite the detriment you and the RAF
would like us to believe.

Even, you really need to take off your dark goggles occasionally. You
might then have less trouble reading the portion of my post
immediately preceding the part which you quoted out of context, to
wit:

"During the campaign the runway had been cratered by the Vulcan bomber
and Harrier raids, and had suffered over 1,000 'scabs' or shallow
scuffs in its surface. The Argentinians had temporarily back-filled
the five large craters [Guy: 1 deep one by Vulcan, the other four
shallower, by retard bombs dropped by SHAR/GR.3], enabling them to
continue to fly in C-130 Hercules transports right up to the end.
"By properly repairing three craters and dealing with about 500
'scabs', No. 1 Troop of 59 Commando Squadron Royal Engineers had the
northern half of the runway ready to accept the first British Hercules
on 24 June [Guy: Obviously, risks worth taking in landing
They had also arranged rings of earth on the runway
to show up as craters on British air reconnaissance photos.


So what? I said you did not mention the 33 flights by the C-130s. You
mentioned one specific flight in which a Hercules (supposedly) "almost
crashed".

Oh, please. What exactly did you think I was referring to when I
wrote "The Argentinians had temporarily back-filled the five large
craters . . . enabling them to continue to fly in C-130 Hercules
transports right up to the end"? I also didn't specifically mention
the numerous flights by Fokker Fellowships and Friendships as well as
the CANA Electras which also continued to fly in during the war, which
Moro never mentions. As it happens, one of the navy's Electras
appears to have been the last a/c to land at Stanley with a load from
the mainland and then return.

I don't know how much plainer I can make it.

Nor do I, but it appears no matter how plainly I make it, you'll still
ignore any parts which disagree with your biases.


Maybe you and Alistair Gunn should pass around a collection plate
to
have the crater enshrined.

Why would we need to do so? The only reason either of us mentioned it
was because you were referencing an anecdotal quote provided by Moro;
I merely provided the facts. How you get from there to our supposed
worship of the crater, I have no idea


Your longwinded response and rather astonishing selectiveness towards
"facts" suggests otherwise. : )

Oh, you mean like where the facts I selected were the actual damage
repairs the runway required, rather than relying on an anecdotal quote
from a highly-biased source like Moro, as you apparently do? But
here's your chance to dazzle us with your analytical skills, and show
us that you're trying to be objective. You have Moro, and from
references you've made to it, you apparently also have "Air War South
Atlantic." Using those two sources plus any others you wish (you'll
want to use a good naval reference like Jane's, Conway's etc. for the
era), why don't you analyse for us Moro's claim that:

1. The Dagger attack on June 8th hit a frigate other than HMS Plymouth
(Moro suggests HMS Diomede, owing to a pilot's claim that he saw "F
16" on the ship),

2. That said frigate was off Port Pleasant rather than in Falkland
Sound when attacked,

3. That Plymouth, which he agrees was in Falkland Sound, must have
been hit by a British air attack,

4. And that IR emissions from said frigate were detected from the
Argentine Ops Center (presumably in Port Stanley)?

Using just those three sources, you have enough info to conclusively
prove or disprove the first three of Moro's claims, and can easily
argue the other based on basic physical phenomena. I don't have Moro
handy at the moment, but I think he discusses this attack around page
296, and you'll especially want to pay attention to the photos showing
what is stated in "Air War South Atlantic" to be during and
post-attack photos of HMS Plymouth," especially the frame from the gun
camera of one of the Daggers involved, as Moro claims that this is in
fact another ship entirely. I think they're between pps 172-173.

We await your reply. Please, everyone else hold off your comments
until we give Evan a chance to show us his prowess as an analyst of
the reliability of Moro's claims in this matter.

Guy

(Guy alcala) wrote in message . com...
(Evan Brennan) wrote in message om...
Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
Spin Doctor Guy Alcala has again left out a number of inconvenient
facts -- thirty-three inconvenient facts, in this case. Between May
1st and June 13th, 1982, Argentine C-130 Hercules transports
operated
33 flights into the airfield at Port Stanley, carrying 434 tons of
cargo and 514 personnel. They also managed to evacuate 264 wounded.
Evidently, the crater was not quite the detriment you and the RAF
would like us to believe.

Even, you really need to take off your dark goggles occasionally. You
might then have less trouble reading the portion of my post
immediately preceding the part which you quoted out of context, to
wit:

"During the campaign the runway had been cratered by the Vulcan bomber
and Harrier raids, and had suffered over 1,000 'scabs' or shallow
scuffs in its surface. The Argentinians had temporarily back-filled
the five large craters [Guy: 1 deep one by Vulcan, the other four
shallower, by retard bombs dropped by SHAR/GR.3], enabling them to
continue to fly in C-130 Hercules transports right up to the end.
"By properly repairing three craters and dealing with about 500
'scabs', No. 1 Troop of 59 Commando Squadron Royal Engineers had the
northern half of the runway ready to accept the first British Hercules
on 24 June [Guy: Obviously, risks worth taking in landing
They had also arranged rings of earth on the runway
to show up as craters on British air reconnaissance photos.


So what? I said you did not mention the 33 flights by the C-130s. You
mentioned one specific flight in which a Hercules (supposedly) "almost
crashed".

Oh, please. What exactly did you think I was referring to when I
wrote "The Argentinians had temporarily back-filled the five large
craters . . . enabling them to continue to fly in C-130 Hercules
transports right up to the end"? I also didn't specifically mention
the numerous flights by Fokker Fellowships and Friendships as well as
the CANA Electras which also continued to fly in during the war, which
Moro never mentions. As it happens, one of the navy's Electras
appears to have been the last a/c to land at Stanley with a load from
the mainland and then return.

I don't know how much plainer I can make it.

Nor do I, but it appears no matter how plainly I make it, you'll still
ignore any parts which disagree with your biases.


Maybe you and Alistair Gunn should pass around a collection plate
to
have the crater enshrined.

Why would we need to do so? The only reason either of us mentioned it
was because you were referencing an anecdotal quote provided by Moro;
I merely provided the facts. How you get from there to our supposed
worship of the crater, I have no idea


Your longwinded response and rather astonishing selectiveness towards
"facts" suggests otherwise. : )

Oh, you mean like where the facts I selected were the actual damage
repairs the runway required, rather than relying on an anecdotal quote
from a highly-biased source like Moro, as you apparently do? But
here's your chance to dazzle us with your analytical skills, and show
us that you're trying to be objective. You have Moro, and from
references you've made to it, you apparently also have "Air War South
Atlantic." Using those two sources plus any others you wish (you'll
want to use a good naval reference like Jane's, Conway's etc. for the
era), why don't you analyse for us Moro's claim that:

1. The Dagger attack on June 8th hit a frigate other than HMS Plymouth
(Moro suggests HMS Diomede, owing to a pilot's claim that he saw "F
16" on the ship),

2. That said frigate was off Port Pleasant rather than in Falkland
Sound when attacked,

3. That Plymouth, which he agrees was in Falkland Sound, must have
been hit by a British air attack,

4. And that IR emissions from said frigate were detected from the
Argentine Ops Center (presumably in Port Stanley)?

Using just those three sources, you have enough info to conclusively
prove or disprove the first three of Moro's claims, and can easily
argue the other based on basic physical phenomena. I don't have Moro
handy at the moment, but I think he discusses this attack around page
296, and you'll especially want to pay attention to the photos showing
what is stated in "Air War South Atlantic" to be during and
post-attack photos of HMS Plymouth," especially the frame from the gun
camera of one of the Daggers involved, as Moro claims that this is in
fact another ship entirely. I think they're between pps 172-173.

We await your reply. Please, everyone else hold off your comments
until we give Evan a chance to show us his prowess as an analyst of
the reliability of Moro's claims in this matter.

Guy


(Guy alcala) wrote in message . com...
Your longwinded response and rather astonishing selectiveness towards
"facts" suggests otherwise. : )

Oh, you mean like where the facts I selected were the actual damage
repairs the runway required, rather than relying on an anecdotal quote
from a highly-biased source like Moro, as you apparently do? But
here's your chance to dazzle us with your analytical skills, and show
us that you're trying to be objective. You have Moro, and from
references you've made to it, you apparently also have "Air War South
Atlantic." Using those two sources plus any others you wish (you'll
want to use a good naval reference like Jane's, Conway's etc. for the
era), why don't you analyse for us Moro's claim that:

1. The Dagger attack on June 8th hit a frigate other than HMS Plymouth
(Moro suggests HMS Diomede, owing to a pilot's claim that he saw "F
16" on the ship),

2. That said frigate was off Port Pleasant rather than in Falkland
Sound when attacked,

3. That Plymouth, which he agrees was in Falkland Sound, must have
been hit by a British air attack,

4. And that IR emissions from said frigate were detected from the
Argentine Ops Center (presumably in Port Stanley)?

Using just those three sources, you have enough info to conclusively
prove or disprove the first three of Moro's claims,



You really are a pathetic goofball.

The British claimed that their surface-to-air weapon systems shot down
at least 52 Argentine planes, but only 20 were confirmed. And yet
you're still whining about Moro.

At least your usual incoherence and poorly aimed shots were especially
appropriate for April Fool's Day.

(Evan Brennan) wrote in message snip

You really are a pathetic goofball.

Ah, just as I suspected, you know you don't have a leg to stand on as
far as the facts go, so you result to ad hominem attacks.

The British claimed that their surface-to-air weapon systems shot down
at least 52 Argentine planes, but only 20 were confirmed. And yet
you're still whining about Moro.

If ppointing out that Moro is a highly unreliable source is whining in
your book, then I'll happily plead guilty, especially since you seem
to base so many of your claims on verbatim quotes from him. Unlike
Moro, any historian who is actually trying to be objective accepts
that overclaiming happens on all sides in wartime, and that the only
losses each side can be _sure_ of during a war are their own. That
the British SA systems overclaimed during the war, claims which were
published in "The Falklands Campaign: The Lessons" white paper, was
established quite early (1983) by Ethell and Price, and has been
accepted as fact ever since by every historian. Moro cites Ethell and
Price as a major source, and occasionally quotes from them, so he was
certainly aware of the appendix where they discussed the issue at some
length.

And yet, while discussing the British (over)claims in the white paper
(pp 325-326), rather than citing Ethell and Price as independent,
objective confirmation of his own claim that the number of shootdowns
were optimistic, he never mentions them. What possible reason could
he have for failing to mention this outside confirmation from
reputable historians, especially when he never hesitates to say that
he has confirmation of his many dubious (and often laughable) claims
from unnamed, unofficial sources in Britain? Let me suggest a reason:
Mentioning Ethell and Price's research confirming British SA
overclaims would establish their objectivity, and then might raise the
likelihood (indeed, certainty) in the reader's mind that the Argentine
side's SA claims, which Moro accepts at face value, were equally
overblown, as Ethell and Price list figures completely agreeing with
British admitted losses.

Unless, that is, you believe that the Argentine armed forces figures
for British a/c losses, as repeated by Moro, are accurate. Let's
review his claims for British a/c losses:

"1. According to official [British] sources -- 35* (11 fixed-wing and
24 helicopters)

"2. According to our own figures -- 66 (28 fixed-wing and 38
helicopters).

"3. According to unofficial British sources -- 77 (31 fixed-wing and
46 helicopters)."

*Ethell and Price and every other source I'm aware of only list 10
fixed-wing losses, 6 SHAR and 4 GR.3.

So tell me, which set of figures do you think is most accurate? If
you believe, as Moro does (or professes to), that the British engaged
in a huge conspiracy to cover-up the extent of their losses, then you
must believe in either no. 2 or 3. Unfortunately for Moro, no
reputable historian, including Ethell and Price, agrees with him.
Moro's claims are often ludicrously easy to disprove, often using the
very same sources which he used. Or rather, failed to use, either
because he didn't understand that the info was there, or because the
info disagreed with his own pre-conceived beliefs so he chose not to
use it.

Just taking a single case, do you believe that the Argentine defenses
round Port Stanley shot down four SHARs during the attack on the
airfield on 1 May, instead of the single SHAR damaged in the tail by a
20mm hit, admitted by the British?

Personally, I rate Moro as reliable when he's quoting flight callsigns
and t/o times, fairly reliable when he's describing what the AAF
believed was going on during the war, and very unreliable when he's
making the numerous overblown and silly claims which permeate the
book. YMMV, and apparently does.

Once again, I give you the opportunity to show us your analytical
skills as to Moro's reliability, on just one of his many controversial
claims, and one easily proved or disproved from the very sources that
Moro used. To repeat:

You have Moro, and from
references you've made to it, you apparently also have "Air War South
Atlantic." Using those two sources plus any others you wish (you'll
want to use a good naval reference like Jane's, Conway's etc. for the
era), why don't you analyse for us Moro's claim that:

1. The Dagger attack on June 8th hit a frigate other than HMS Plymouth
(Moro suggests HMS Diomede, owing to a pilot's claim that he saw "F
16" on the ship),

2. That said frigate was off Port Pleasant rather than in Falkland
Sound when attacked,

3. That Plymouth, which he agrees was in Falkland Sound, must have
been hit by a British air attack,

4. And that IR emissions from said frigate were detected from the
Argentine Ops Center (presumably in Port Stanley)?

Using just those three sources, you have enough info to conclusively
prove or disprove the first three of Moro's claims, and can easily
argue the other based on basic physical phenomena. I don't have Moro
handy at the moment, but I think he discusses this attack around page
296, and you'll especially want to pay attention to the photos showing
what is stated in "Air War South Atlantic" to be during and
post-attack photos of HMS Plymouth," especially the frame from the gun
camera of one of the Daggers involved, as Moro claims that this is in
fact another ship entirely. I think they're between pps 172-173.

You can demonstrate for us that you're attempting to be objective
about Moro as a source, or you can confirm what we all believe, that
you'll accept any claim no matter how ludicrous, if it bolsters your
prejudices. We're pretty sure which path you'll choose, but go ahead
and surprise us.

At least your usual incoherence and poorly aimed shots were especially
appropriate for April Fool's Day.

Apparently every day is April Fool's day for you, but here's your
chance to take a break from that.

Guy

Alistair Gunn wrote:

Guy alcala twisted the electrons to say:
The runway has long since been shortened and narrowed, to
3,013' x 63' (from 4,100' x 150' pre-war, extended to 6,100' x 150' in
the immediate aftermath, until RAF Mt. Pleasant was opened in 1995),
presumably to make it less useful in a war while still allowing the
FIGAS Islanders to land at Stanley.

One wonders if someone thought to include the odd piece of explosive
under what's left of the runway - "just in case" you understand ...

You might just still be able to land a Herc there under good conditions, by
day. Per AFPAM 10-1403, the minimum size runway for a C-130 in assualt
operations is 3,000' x 60'. At night on a wet runway, it would be extremely
dicey, although NVGs and a good ILS (or better yet ILS-quality GPS) approach
might make it possible. At the moment, there's only an NDB there, so the AAF
would need to bring ILS equipment with them.

Personally, I'd think that RAF Mt. Pleasant would have had appropriate
cavities designed in under the runway, but the problem would be getting
enough warning time to place the explosives. I assume that they wouldn't
normally be in situ, but I leave it up to Kevin Brooks or anyone else with
military engineering experience to say what the practice would be. It just
strikes me as breaking all sorts of safety regs, especially as Mt. Pleasant
is the sole APOE for external flights, the civilian LanChile flights from
Punta Arenas as well as the RAF TriStars from Brize Norton (via Ascension).
It is an interesting point, though. Having two airstrips nominally
compatible with Hercs, separated by 30 miles and with only a Company Group to
defend both of them, seems like a really bad idea, especially as the Military
Command and the Government are separated the same way. If they can't put
Stanley out of service (and are willing to do so, accepting that it could be
a false alarm), then the only reasonable action is to abandon it and just
defend Mt. Pleasant, in hopes that reinforcements can arrive from the UK in
time. But they'd pretty much have to be paras, because even if the Argentine
Army/Marines can't take Mt. Pleasant before the transports (let's assume
C-17s) arrive, they can certainly position soldiers with MANPADS, if not more
sophisticated systems, on all likely approach paths.

It's an interesting question as to just how Argentina would go about
attacking the Falklands now. I think their best bet would be to land SF by
sub, and then drop their sole Parachute battalion ("Regiment" in the
Ejercito) near/around one of the airfields, probably Stanley, and then
(assuming they've captured the runway in usable condition) bring in at least
one more battalion, or at least some heavy weapons/vehicles, by air. If they
could manage a simultaneous (with the para battalion) landing of a Marine
battalion by helo/landing craft, that would certainly be worthwhile. They're
in a lot worse shape now as far as amphibious ops than they were in 1982, as
they lack an LST/LVTPs, don't have a carrier, and are extremely limited in
ships with medium helo spots (and helo transport capability). They can move
LCVPs to the Falklands on one of the three civil transports they have under
charter, but they're hardly ideal as troop transports. Still, if the trip is
fairly short (i.e., from one of the nearby mainland ports), it might be
doable.

Afterall, it was bad enough the RAF having to go round the Vulcan
preservation groups borrowing pieces of equipment (mostly relating to the
refuelling probe) - if Argentina has another go, they'd have to go and
borrow entire Vulcans! grins

I think a GR.4 with Enhanced Paveway (LGB/GPS/INS) would do the job just
fine, although the crew would be getting more than a little antsy by the time
they finally landed back at Ascension;-) And the RN SSNs have Tomahawk now,
although I can't remember if they've got any unitary warheads or just the
bomblets.

Guy