America wants us to give back the Falkland islands

Twenty One · Post by **Twenty One** » Fri 13 Jun, 2003 7:10 pm

I only hope that the MoD will build better ships for the Navy in the future and equip them with the best radar that money can buy.I watched the attack on the Sheffield on Sky and could not believe it when the real reason for the exocet hitting it came out.

voodoo sprout · Post by **voodoo sprout** » Fri 13 Jun, 2003 8:15 pm

Well the navy must be laughing, as they're certainly getting an awful lot of very nice kit in. Including the type 45 destroyer which is going to be an excellent air defence ship by all accounts (well, one, and that's the official one, but still)- but it has no goalkeeper or equivalent? Ar they sure this isn't going to turn into a naval Phantom?

may18 · Post by **may18** » Fri 13 Jun, 2003 10:47 pm

voodoo sprout wrote:Well the navy must be laughing, as they're certainly getting an awful lot of very nice kit in. Including the type 45 destroyer which is going to be an excellent air defence ship by all accounts (well, one, and that's the official one, but still)- but it has no goalkeeper or equivalent? Ar they sure this isn't going to turn into a naval Phantom?

It has got PAAMS which can track multiple targets apparently the trials have shown it to be very good against both aircraft and anti ship missiles

The sampson radar is supposed to be superb, and the main reason we pulled out of the horizon project to build our own (the french wanted to use an inferior system)

condor · Post by **condor** » Sun 13 Jul, 2003 10:59 pm

Hi...I am one of those you call "Argies"...my father is an Argentinian Air Force officer and he was in the Islands during the war
Since I was 10 (I´m 18 now) I ´ve been reading about the war...Our teachers teachs us the history of the MALVINAS (falklands) sice we are 6 years old.
The Islands were not uninhabited, there was an argentinian goverment in 1833 when you invaded.
You wantede them just because you can control the south atlantic, as well as in that time you already control Gibraltar (belongs to spain), South Africa, India, Honk Kong, and many more places
I don´t wast to argue...I just want to exchage ideas with you
Malvinas (falklands) is for me a very important issue, one of my dreams is to visit them ( with out mention to take them back)
I hope we can solve our differences...and even I would like to make some friends in this forum
see ya
ps: I am looking to someone who served in the HMS Sheffield during the war...please mail me lupin_pinlu@yahoo.com.ar

Spannerman · Post by **Spannerman** » Mon 14 Jul, 2003 7:24 am

Hi Condor, welcome aboard, good to see your response.

Yes the Falklands (Malvinas) was controlled by the Argentinians in 1833, nothing wrong in that so far, however the people that eventually settled on those remote islands were Britishers, they obviously liked it and stayed.

We have a system called democracy (although it isn't wholly ideal!) in Britain and British Territories, one person (over eighteen years of age) one vote and we have the choice of who we want to govern our country (at the moment we British chose wrongly IMO), so to do the Gibraltarians and the Spanish and the peoples of Northern Ireland and The Channel Islands, etc. If the majority voted to be British then so be it, if you impose anything other than that, as recent years have shown in Iraq and Zimbabwe, those countries are run by despots and dictators rule the roost, General Galteiri comes to mind here too.

Like many nations over the centuries, those that immediately come to mind are New Zealand, Australia,The USA, Brazil and Argentina are ruled other than by the ORIGINAL indigenous population.

I feel that the term Argies is a generalisation in terms of the people who live in Argentina as we in Britain from the Americans viewpoint are known as Brits, we call the USA residents, Yanks, the Australians Aussies, those in New Zealand, Kiwis, in Germany, Krauts et al. I don't think that anyone here has any axe to grind with you or your nation today, I look forward to more input from you and your kith and kin.

Twenty One · Post by **Twenty One** » Mon 14 Jul, 2003 9:13 am

I could not have put it better my self Spannerman!
A lot of countries don't seem to understand democracy,"A form of government in which the PEOPLE have a say in who should hold power and how they should use it".

It is as simple as that Condor.

Anyway Condor, a big welcome to you to the Miltary Forums your contributions will be most welcome.

harry hackedoff · Post by **harry hackedoff** » Mon 14 Jul, 2003 5:27 pm

Don`t forget that during the FI War, the Argentines had probs making the Exocet`s onboard computer( which operated in real-time) talk to the computer onboard the Super Etendard( which did not) Our beloved partners in Euro-land, signatotories of the Nato Treaty etc, where only too pleased to help. Aero-Spatial sent technicians to sort out the software probs, with the blessing of the French Govt.
Under Euro-law, would the relatives/survivors of Exocet attacks not have a claim against both Aero-Spatial and the French Govt?
Just a thought

Nice to see Herman sent one of his Generals to take the salute at today`s Bastille Day parade. Shape of things to come, perhaps

Aye,

harry hackedoff · Post by **harry hackedoff** » Mon 14 Jul, 2003 5:54 pm

While we`re on the subject of air power, don`t forget Elmer gave us the latest version of AIM Sidewinder. This was to prove decisive in the air war. So many things were dependant on luck. Winning the air war made everything else possible. Losing the air war would have meant stalemate.
I`m not saying Elmer helped us win, of course, but it would have been a lot harder without the newer model Sidewinder. Read Sharky Ward`s "A Maverick At War" for a more informative account of the air war.( i.e. one which tells the truth and not the RAF version

)
Aye,

may18 · Post by **may18** » Mon 14 Jul, 2003 6:03 pm

quote
____
Don`t forget that during the FI War, the Argentines had probs making the Exocet`s onboard computer( which operated in real-time) talk to the computer onboard the Super Etendard( which did not) Our beloved partners in Euro-land, signatotories of the Nato Treaty etc, where only too pleased to help. Aero-Spatial sent technicians to sort out the software probs, with the blessing of the French Govt.
_____

did they do this when we were actually AT war???

may18 · Post by **may18** » Mon 14 Jul, 2003 6:10 pm

Got it,

_______The pilots of the 2d Escuadrilla, trained in France in 1980–81, were fully qualified with the aircraft. However, at the time the conflict in the Falklands began, only five of the Super Etendards and five Exocet missiles had been delivered from France. The Common Market nations and NATO immediately initiated an arms embargo on Argentina, therefore halting the French shipments of planes and missiles. Throughout the conflict, the Argentine government tried desperately but unsuccessfully to obtain more Exocets on the world market. Argentina would have to fight the war with only five Etendards and Exocet missiles. Since spare parts for the Etendards were cut off by the NATO arms embargo, the FAA decided to hold one of the five fighters in reserve and use it for parts to support the remaining four aircraft.

The Argentinians had no previous experience with antiship missiles, and the Exocet was a complicated and cranky weapon. The Argentinians experienced a lot of trouble fitting the Exocet launch system and rails to the Super Etendards. In November 1981, Dassault Aviation, owned by the French government and builder of the Super Etendard, sent a team of nine of its own technicians (and some additional French Aerospatiale specialists) to work with the Argentine navy to supervise the introduction of the Etendards and Exocets. Although France complied with the NATO/ Common Market weapons embargo, the French technical team remained in Argentina and apparently continued to work on the aircraft and Exocets, successfully repairing the malfunctioning launch systems. Without the technical help and collusion from the government of France—Britain’s NATO “ally”—it is improbable that Argentina would have been able to employ its most devastating weapon.18

___

how could they do this to an ally???

Twenty One · Post by **Twenty One** » Mon 14 Jul, 2003 7:05 pm

France an Ally sorry, this was the country that wanted to be a member of NATO but refused to commit troops should anything happen in the world. They were quite happy for Britain to that job for them.

Topper · Post by **Topper** » Mon 14 Jul, 2003 7:50 pm

I remember reading somewhere a while ago, in a paper i think, about a supposed secret operation to 'disable' a French ship in a French harbour that was going to be carrying Exocets to Argentina. However Maggie called it off whilst the first man was climbing up the ship's anchor chain ready to carry out the job. She deemed it unacceptable for us to blow a French ship in a French harbour. Anyway i read it in a paper, so its probably a load of rumours and cow dung.

spitz · Post by **spitz** » Tue 15 Jul, 2003 2:28 am

While we`re on the subject of air power, don`t forget Elmer gave us the latest version of AIM Sidewinder.

Elmer didn't give anything, an order for Sidewinders had already been placed and paid for before the Falklands War, but not delivered. Elmer just bought forward the delivery date, afterall it wasn't going to hurt Ford and Raytheon Sidewinder sales if it performed well, would it? Nothing like a battle proven system to increase sales.

And, if you believe John Knott, Pierre was the better Ally not only did the French stop sales to Argentina, but they supplied a list for all the Exocets on the open market allowing the U.K. to buy them before the Argies got hold of them. They also supplied technical info (i.e. secrets) about the performance of Exocets and French aircraft and flew Super Etendards against FAA Pilots to provide experience.

That was 20 years ago of course.

condor · Post by **condor** » Tue 15 Jul, 2003 2:45 am

Very funny!!!
Look...for your information we also got DEMOCRACY…and please take your history book and burn it, because the argentines who were in 1833 in the MALVINAS were taken to Uruguay BY FORCE…they didn’t choose to be British…
The Kelpers are sons of the British that invaded the islands and born in Argentinean land…
For you the MALVINAS are remote…for us they are really close…Ups!!! They are in OUR continental platform
Who are you to tell me something about dictators…you got a royal family…just because they were born in a family they spend your taxes in better education that your children…they have beautiful vacation in places you will never be able to afford…

spitz · Post by **spitz** » Tue 15 Jul, 2003 3:42 am

They are in OUR continental platform.

It makes no difference, it’s about self determination, the right to choose your own future. If the Falkland Islanders choose to be governed from London it’s their choice and historical or geographical circumstance has nothing to do with the argument. And, even if your argument did stand-up, why did Argentina occupy South Georgia? It’s not attached to the South American continental shelf.

Who are you to tell me something about dictators…you got a royal family.

That’s laughable, Dictator Betty is a harmless granny, she’s not in the same league as Argentina’s dictators and their Dirty Wars. Can you recall the last time she had some poor ratbag tossed out of a C130 into the Atlantic? I can’t please enlighten me.

Home | About Us | Articles | Forums | Shop | Reviews | Search | Contact Us | Advertise With Us

Our Journey Comes to an End! Please read our latest Announcement: https://www.militaryforums.co.uk/military-forums-closure.php

Share This Page: