Can't get a US supercarrier down there in 72 hours!Shangri-la
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Can't get a US supercarrier down there in 72 hours!Shangri-la
I said a civilian aircraft would land in Santiago, Chile.
I said Chilean C-130 would be used to transport men to Port Stanley.
At no point did I say Chile was involved.
Technical point of order. If war starts in 72 hours then doing something now is not war. So the Chilean is just charter flights to some place. So no big deal. If a Chilean Herc overflys says Port Stanley on a training flight then I am sure these things happen. Just coincidence.
Like it not, by providing passage they are involved. Also, how does one travel from Chile to the Falklands without overflying Argentina?I said a civilian aircraft would land in Santiago, Chile.
I said Chilean C-130 would be used to transport men to Port Stanley.
At no point did I say Chile was involved.
Punta Arenas. You can't fly over it you can't fly under it but you can fly arounds it.Like it not, by providing passage they are involved. Also, how does one travel from Chile to the Falklands without overflying Argentina?
Britain helped keep Pinochet out of The Hague. That's a thank you of great value.Punta Arenas. You can't fly over it you can't fly under it but you can fly arounds it.
Whether the Chileans want to get involved depends on this large bag of cash. It's a large bag of cash. Plenty of cash is the issue.
Punta Arenas. You can't fly over it you can't fly under it but you can fly arounds it.
Whether the Chileans want to get involved depends on this large bag of cash. It's a large bag of cash. Plenty of cash is the issue.
My idea was the air drop was always a one way mission.That's 2000 miles one way from Santiago -- which was your original starting point -- to the Falklands via Punta Arenas. Five hours from Santiago to Punta, another two to the islands, and then where's the airplanes gonna go? You've already maxed out the C-130's range, they're landing at the Falklands or ditching nearby. Ask the Germans how landing on a hostile airfield goes.
My idea was the air drop was always a one way mission.
C-130 would land and refuel at Punta Arenas airport. And land back at Punta Arenas.
I am not saying this is realistic or even happening but it is possible or in the realms of possiblity.
Plus British forces could be in Belize or North America so it may be possible to build a scratch force of troops from them guys.
Again feasible no idea and equipment will have to be lifted from the Chilean army. Coz you ain't carrying grenade on a civilian flight.
So can you get British troops to Port Stanley in 72 hours. Yes. It is theoretically possible.
It is feasible or reality.... probably no but that's not the query. It can be done.
IIRC the Victor tankers used a boom system incompatible with the USAF system. It really was British negligence that the Stanley airfield wasn't lengthened to accept commercial transatlantic aircraft. How much would that have cost?I think "borrowing" USAF/USMC C-130s and painting them in UK colours within 24 hrs is doable. Whether the tankers that refuel them are RAF or USAF would not be knowable at the time.
I gotta get back to this one later!Oddly enough, this op-ed showed up in one of my go-to news sources today:
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War. Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands, a British Crown Colony, on April 2, 1982. The Argentines overwhelmed the small British military contingent on Port Stanley, the islands' capital, and took the town without inflicting any casualties. The next day, Argentine marines seized South Georgia Island, a British Overseas Territory about 1,120 miles from the Falklands. By the end of April there were more than 10,000 Argentine troops on the islands.
The challenge for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government seemed overwhelming, given the more than 8,000-mile distance between Britain and the islands. In fact, the British outpost in the South Atlantic that was closest to the Falklands, Ascension Island, was just under 4,000 miles away. Nevertheless, backed by the Reagan administration's strong and timely political, materiel and intelligence support, and despite some naval losses, Britain was able to retake the islands in a matter of just over two months.
Argentina has never come to terms with British control of the islands, which dates to 1833 (they became a Crown Colony eight years later). There was an Argentine settlement on the islands at the time, and ever since Buenos Aires has claimed the Malvinas, as it called them, as its own sovereign territory. Despite its decisive defeat in the Falklands War, and despite the preference of the islanders to remain British citizens, Argentina has never relinquished that claim. It has demanded that Britain agree to negotiate the islands' future. London has steadfastly refused to do so.
Enter China. This week, Argentina joined China's massive Belt and Road Initiative. The agreement that Argentine President Alberto Fernandez and his counterpart, Xi Jinping, signed on Feb. 7 calls for $23 billion worth of Chinese investments for what Fernandez termed "works and projects." Chinese official reporting has stressed not only the importance of trade and investment between the two countries, but also has noted the importance of "regional connectivity," which no doubt signifies an open door for Huawei's 5G network. The agreement represents a giant Chinese foothold in Latin America.
In their joint statement outlining the specifics of what is essentially an economic agreement, however, the two sides also backed each other's territorial claims. Argentina reiterated its support for the One China policy that is the cornerstone of Beijing's claim to Taiwan. For its part, China voiced its support for the Argentine claim to what the statement called "the Malvinas."
Those interested can read the full article here:
Britain, China and the Falkland Islands: Why the US must weigh in
Washington must make clear to Buenos Aires and Beijing that it fully supports keeping the Falklands under British control.thehill.com
Politically I'm not sure the Chileans would agree to be so openly involved (where else can a Herc come from?). Historically, while they helped us, everything that happened in Chile had to be kept very hush hush. Use of Hercs this way seems a bit too overt to me.
Oddly enough, this op-ed showed up in one of my go-to news sources today:
It has demanded that Britain agree to negotiate the islands' future. London has steadfastly refused to do so.
I can remember it being discussed and the number of Victors used to keep the RAF Charley 130 in the air
Unfortunately I can remember most of itOff the top of my head I can't recall the action in particular you're referring to, but flying the single Vulcans to the islands from Ascension required around 11 Victor tankers. Maritime patrol Nimrods conducted sorties during the war and they were refuelled en route by the Victors, the IFR capability having just been added to the Nimrods at the time of the war. One Nimrod recon sortie lasted 19 hours.
I do know that C-130s often carried long rang cargo drops by installing tanks in their holds, one flight lasting 18 hours on a supply drop to a warship at sea.
Off the top of my head I can't recall the action in particular you're referring to, but flying the single Vulcans to the islands from Ascension required around 11 Victor tankers.