via express.co.uk
The aircraft, which Moscow will swap for beef and wheat, would be able to mount air patrols over Port Stanley.A low level high speed approach to launch point.
Ministry of Defence officials fear Buenos Aires would take delivery of the planes well before the deployment in 2020 of the Navy’s 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth and its F-35B fighters, leaving a “real window of vulnerability”.
Defence cuts have left the Falklands with just four RAF Typhoon fighters, Rapier surface-to-air missiles and fewer than 1,200 troops, supported by a naval warship that visits throughout the year.
A popup to launch long range missiles and a supersonic dash back to base effectively nullifies current UK defense planning for the Falkland Islands.
The Brits are going to have to rethink their defense of these islands with a quickness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLease (with option to own) two squadrons of Super Hornets to operate off of the QE carrier. Even better buy used SH's from USN that still have decent life on the airframe. Then the USN will need to procure ASH/Growler replacements from Boeing.
ReplyDeleteSuper's can ski jump off the carrier, and with some ingenuity they should be able to mount an arrestor system.
It may be able to jump off, but only at the cost of MTOW. If it can. There is nothing that indicates the F/A-18 can do that. Inversely, there is nothing that indicates that it can't do that either. Need more research to say for sure.
DeleteThe government did look at having the carriers being cats and traps but it was too expensive (thanks Tony Blair)
DeleteNo they didn't, they bassically just pulled a number out of their arse and said 'guess we are stuck with the 200mn a piece F35, oh well'. That way you are stuck with the F35s..... Worlds most expensive Helicopter Carrier.....
Deletethe kuznetsov has 3 launch positions for aircraft, 2 short and one long, the long position allowed su-33 to take off at MTOW with the use of afterburner, the cancelled yak-44 aew was to operate both using STOBAR and CATOBAR. Boeing has stated that a similar approach would work for the F/A-18 and grumman has said the e-2 can operate via STOBAR as well.
Deleteinteresting, a precursor for soviet naval base in argentina ? this is more than just a weapon deal.. this is long term investments for the argies to russian weapon systems.. SU35 next ? Malvinas or no malvinas, this is very interesting development..
ReplyDeleteThe Fencer is a decent enough platform but the standoff weapons options available to it are relatively narrow, I would suggest the Kh-38ME (AS-22) with flight performance on the order of 20nm and Mach 2.2 or the Kh-59M (AS-18) with roughly 150nm @ Mach .9 capability.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ausairpower.net%2FAPA-Rus-ASM.html
Either of these are well within the capabilities of the Typhoon/Meteor combination to catch to catch the shooter on, though the latter would likely require an airborne tanker to make workable (with the alternative option of engaging the missiles themselves, closer in).
The Su-24, like the Tornado, chose to forego the F-111's high internal fuel fraction in favor of (large) EFT on the order of 800 gallons, underwing. This sterilizes the inner wing pylons while the outers are largely intended for self defense weapons and the fuselage stubs are, like the F-15E equivalent, intended for dumb bombs in the 500-1,100lb category.
The centerline is available but would lead to an awful lot of repeat sorties if your target matrix contained more than a few DMPIs and that would be increasingly dangerous for the Su-24 crews unless they got lucky and hit all four QRA aircraft in the alert barn, first trip.
The problem with particularly the Kazoo is that -someone- has to be in LOS range to provide uplink to lock on the seeker, ala SLAM-ER. With the range of the Fencer, this could easily be from the east side of the islands as the attackers came from the North and South but it would still be a pretty much dead giveaway as the aircraft would either have to rise into LOS on the radars at Byron's Heights, Mt. Alice or Mt. Kent or come in pretty close to the islands and with a prelaunch programmed missile rising into the pod's line of sight from low level.
If you know it's out there, dedicated ground jamming from a rapid set-on wideband receiver and DRFM is always possible on a UOR based knock together as is direct engagement by a Mk.15 CRAM (I'm sure we would loan the British a HEMTT equipped unit or two, now that we are back from Iraq).
http://brabosh.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/phalanx.jpg?w=660
It's likely the DASS could also be programmed to pick up the X-Band of the APK-9 datalink.
If the Russians exported the Kh-90 (AS-21) or Kh-65/101 (AS-15) with those Fencers, things change, rather radically, as you could almost fire those from over the coast and expect them to make the 400nm trip unaccompanied.
But I wouldn't count on it as, aside from being their latest toys, the Koala and Kent are quite large and would need an extensive integration program to clear them on the Fencer and I have heard nothing about their being so qualified (all efforts having been to push them for the Su-34 Fullback instead).
Depending on whose figures you use, these 'strategic cruise' weapons-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE9q0v71ZKw
http://missilethreat.com/missiles/kh-55-55sm-555-65/
Would also violate the MTCR and possibly INF if exported.
DeleteAs is, I would have chosen either Su-30MKI and a boatload of AA-12s or Rafale with the SCALP over the Fencers which are dated, tired, airframes designed in an era when LDSD was unknown and RamAAMs not even on the horizon.
Supersonic at low level is about Mach 1.2 or 920mph and solely a burner achievement. At high altitude, a little unload will put you at 1.4 or almost 1,150mph and is sustainable out of burner on the EJ200. Pole to pole, the high altitude jet wins.
What Britain needs on the islands right now is a Mariner/Guardian (longspan, marinized, RQ-9) fitted with a Searchwater or equivalent AEW&C radar and using MP-RTIP technology and let it motor about at 20-30K for 3-4,000 dollars per flight hour. Kind've a cheap BAMS if you will.
Anything which can be offset west from the islands while raising the antenna depression angle by several thousand feet equates to early warning on fast movers approaching from the mainland in a height band which supports trough look-in with good planform (RCS) pullout from the sea clutter.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/MQ-9_Guardian.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AGYq5SvEyDk/UEWYqyUXMHI/AAAAAAAAQQg/ky1PeoaG7bU/s1600/Mariner.jpg
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/westland%20sea%20king/Sea%20King%20AsAcs.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f_TiAqdkqU4/TMyyk3pHxpI/AAAAAAAABMc/C2dCkEjAxz4/s1600/Time+From+Detection+To+Weapon+Release+For+A4+SkyHawk.bmp
The French are unlikely to assist Argentina in taking the Falklands.
DeleteFrance has numerous territories like the Falklands and doesn't want a precedent set that they can be taken by force.
From the Daily Express! This paper comes out with so much BS it's untrue
ReplyDeletehmm. that sounds like the comment from a brit. with all due respect to our ally i wonder why there is any news about the Falklands the first reaction is that its bullshit. we heard that Argentina wanted to buy Gripens from Brazil and the first reaction was bullshit...then we heard about a flurry of activity that stated that the UK was moving to block the sale. we hear about this and bullshit is the reaction but the difference is that the Russians will proceed with the agreement and will distract the UK at a time when they're going to be needed to help in Iraq. sounds like a win win.
DeleteWell, to be fair, the Falklands issue was partially due to some political misunderstandings, so I severely doubt a repeat. During the 70s and 80s, "decolonialization" was the rage and the UK was giving away MASSIVE amounts of territory, Middle East, Malaya, Africa etc, and it looked like they were going to give everything except for the UK itself away, so Argentina probably thought that a single in the middle of nowhere island won't matter much if they claimed it, and it would help placate their civil unrest, so off they went to take over the Falklands.
DeleteUnfortunately, there is a big difference between "giving away territory" and "getting invaded", and while the British were suffering from cutbacks, they still possessed enough firepower to make their displeasure known. The rest is history.
Which is why I doubt a Falklands 2. Falklands 1 depended on the British not getting too worked up over it, which the Argentinians now know is not going to happen.
Which is an irony. If the Argentinians did not turn the Falklands into such a hot issue, I can easily see the UK simply writing it off during their "East of Suez" policy and Argentina stepping in to lend a "helping hand". Now? The Falklands has become a symbol of something more than physical value, which means the Brits will move heaven and hell to hold on to/reclaim it.
don't think its that simple. you just gave the Brit perspective but what about Argentina's? they suffered a humiliating defeat that toppled a govt and they actually believe that the island belongs to them.
Deletethat alone is a recipe for a repeat.
I agree the express does come up with some far fetched stories. No other paper(anywhere) is reporting it and no source is cited. I personally am not worried as the 4 eurofighters down their should be able to take on the entire Argentine air force.
DeleteActually Sol, that was the Argentinian perspective cira 1981.
DeleteAnd yes, it might be a long term problem now, but unless Argentina gets a lot more firepower and support, both "local" (Falklands) and international, they won't be able to make a move without looking like a land grab. Most local Falklanders don't seem to like Argentina much, which would make any conquest useless, because once the UN gets involved, you're going to be looking at a plebiscite, which would vote Argentina off the island again for no gain.
Conquest only works if you can either get massive local support or do massive deportation or genocidic extermination. Argentina can invade, but I really can't see how they can hold on to it.
In the recent referendum 2 people voted against being British. They mayor of Stanley offered them free flights to Argentina.
DeleteEither do a build up or talk with the Argentine s about a give back.
DeleteThey can Pre-empt your forces on the ground with this weapon system and land enough hardware to make a take back very, very expensive.
Time to man up, bulk up or leave Gentlemen.
Owl
Delete> And yes, it might be a long term problem now, but unless Argentina gets a lot more firepower and support, both "local" (Falklands) and international, they won't be able to make a move without looking like a land grab. Most local Falklanders don't seem to like Argentina much, which would make any conquest useless, because once the UN gets involved, you're going to be looking at a plebiscite, which would vote Argentina off the island again for no gain.
It is not that simple.
1. Most of South America including Brazil backs the Argentinian clams on Malvinas(ie Falklands), and has banned Falklands flagged ships from docking in South American ports. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16280613
2. In addition, China backs Argentinian claims, thus there won't be a UNSC resolution demanding a return of the Falklands back to the UK if the Argentinians make a successful seizure.
If the Argentinians do attack I wonder If they would use there new Tam 2C MBT's or leave them at home like they did last time. They are quite a good practical MBT for that sought of environment.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAHPsl7Rrc4
I don't think the Brits could or it would be very hard to get some CH2's down there.
If the story was from somewhere Sol, I would not have made the comment. That paper along with the Daily Mail, are 2 of the most untrustworthy sources you could quote from.
ReplyDeletewell lets hope you're right. and lets hope Cameron is able to call off what looks like war preparations for an offensive against Iraq.
DeleteThey will get 12 of them. The Argentine military is in such a poor state i would be surprised if the can maintain these. The navy on paper has 40 ships (I think) yet can only afford to have 11 out at sea for 10 days a year. A training ship was impounded in Ghana due to debt Argentina defaulted on. One Argentine frigate spent months stranded in South African naval base because they couldn't afford maintenance on the ships generators, a submarine had to perform an emergency surface and came up in the middle of a yacht race. They bought 2 type 42's off the UK in the 70's, after the war we didnt want to sell them spare parts so as a result they cannibalized one and mothballed it. Whilst in mothballs it wasnt maintained and last year capsized at anchor. . The air force wasn't allowed to participate in the countries bicentenary celebrations for fears they would crash over the capital. To top that most of the military's ammunition is out of date. Whilst these fighters may be able to reach the Falklands i doubt the rest of the Argentine military could physically make the voyage, yet alone fight a war.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.mercopress.com/2014/07/22/calamitous-state-of-argentine-armed-forces-equipment
Deletelike i said...
Euro fighter typhoon availability is not much higher
DeleteThey just have to work once, long enough to plaster any UK military sites.
DeleteBut surely 4 Eurofighters can take out 12 soviet era bombers.
DeleteMaybe I am to cynical, but I think both the Argentinian and the Brit governments want a bit of tension .. to justify military spending and deflect from other issues.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the military side of things..
If they can actually fly, crew and arm these planes in time .. Argentina might have a shot, but not a big one.
Britain would likely add more planes of their own and permanently station a frigate or destroyer.
An other question is , even if the Argentinians get the islands, will Britain let them keep them? They could wait till the carrier is ready. An other option could be using cruisemissiles to take out several airfields. I doubt very much Argentina could maintain dominance in the air after that.
One question I do have in that scenario is how effective naval air defense is.. can a taskforce without fixed wing aircraft deal with the few planes that might be coming? Would using AEW helicopters from HMS Ocean be able to extend the umbrella provided by missiles?
dont forget the yuan diplomacy in central america...
ReplyDeleteBeijing's move to bail out Russia, on top of its recent aid for Venezuela and Argentina, signals the death of the post-war Bretton Woods world.
Beijing’s $24 billion currency swap program to help Russia is a sign of things to come. Russia, it's often said, is too nuclear to fail. The same goes for China’s $2.3 billion currency swap with Argentina and its $4 billion loan to Venezuela.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-25/china-steps-in-as-worlds-new-bank
where is the edit button , it should be South America instead of Central America..
ReplyDeleteexept the UKs SSNs now have tomahawks..
ReplyDeleteA finite supply though, assuming an astute is on station, it has a max combined load of around 40 weapons, both Cruise missiles and Torpedos.
DeleteMore than enough to sink the Argentine Invasion force, or randomly blow up Argentine Governmental buildings, but not really enough to shut down a distributed airforce.
Need to field US Style SSGN to compliment the SSBNs and commit to developing and deploying better ICBMs and nuclear warheads.
DeleteIts not nothing, but its not everything either.
ReplyDeleteThe actual airframes are no big deal, they'll be sat in warehouses unloved all across the FSU.
Well maintained airframes are likely scarcer, even within Russia.
Well maintained upgraded airframes with long term service lives left ahead of them?
Russia will be looking for anyway it can inconvenience the west, but it has a deeply limited budget to do it with.
Argentina desperatly needs a new fighter ish, but has a deeply limited budget to do it with.
Once an acceptable mix of reliability, performance, service life and cost is found, Argentina still then needs to train several squadrons worth of pilots and ground crew.
And for what?
The UK builds a second runway, armours the infrastructure, or keeps a sub down south
It might need a rethink of whats down south, but its hardly an unsurmountable problem.
Buntalanlucu
The Numbers you are talking about are tiny on a scale you cant understand, its beer money.
The Oil Price Crash currently costs Russia nearly a billion dollars a day.
$1,000,000,000
Per day
That $24bn currency swap doesnt cover a month.
The SNB has bought somewhere in the region of 230 billion euros defending its currency cap.
normal reaction to the stupidity of certain European nations ......
ReplyDeleteSo its been a few days. 3-4 papers are running it but all citing the daily express article. Personally I dont believe it. What would Argentina want with 12 1970's soviet jet bombers. It doesnt really make sense.
ReplyDeleteBetter than the A4 sky(fighting?)hawks they own but that are barely operable and very very cheap.
DeleteMaybe they don't want to attack the Islands
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/nhj8ITvp-pw
4 polar tugs not 12 fighter bombers.
ReplyDeletehttps://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/argentine-minister-denies-leasing-russian-combat-aircraft/