Head of Navy made last minute plea to save Harriers from scrap-heap

The Daily Telegraph ^ | 13 Nov 2010 | Andrew Gilligan

[Lockbar]

"(Sorry for the multiple posts)"

Don't feel bad, I've made about 30 multipule posts in the past 2-3 months. Slow servers, I guess.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“Say goodbye to the Falklands.”

How could they possibly expect anything else???

[behzinlea]

>So in the name of balancing their budget they are going to axe their ability to project force?

That's alright. They've aggressively moved forward and made fundamental changes to their armed forces in the only way that REALLY matters to the progressive-minded: they've made it safe for homosexuals to serve openly.

We're not far behind them.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Harrier Boom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF06XZ3_cww

[Jack Hydrazine]

The UK is leading the way for the destruction of the West with the USA following right behind.

[ASA Vet]

You heard it here first

Actually, no we didn't hear it here first. Over the last week there have been several threads on the Harrier retirement. On every one of those threads someone has used the Falklands as a reason for not getting rid of the Harriers. Twenty years ago you'd have been right.

Apparently you're unaware that the Brits built their new RAF base Mount Pleasant on the Falklands and have Eurofighters stationed there. They built enough hangers to expand that presence if the Argentina fools want to play again.

I do agree dumping the Harriers now is a mistake.

Click here to see the green roofed hangers complete with berms.

[the scotsman]

Nope.

The Falklands is heavily defended by infantry and an antiaircraft battery. There is also ample air and sea defences, both in the area and that which can be sent to the area if necessary.

I utterly oppose the Harrier decision, but the Falklands falling?. No.

We can still defend our territory AND fight as a major military power.

[the scotsman]

Totally wrong.

[the scotsman]

Except the Muslims arent taking Britain over.

Which those of us who ARE British keep telling you, but you dont listen.

[the scotsman]

Dont credit him with good thinking when he is spouting rubbish.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Damn right I was right and you were wrong.

[ops33]

There is also an operating airfield there, something that was missing during the Falklands War.

[Chode]

Ungland...

[Yo-Yo]

Damn right I was right and you were wrong.

You always are, A.A. You always are. Glad to have you back again.

[Jay W]

< Say goodbye to the Falklands. You heard it here first. >

That was my first thought, too. Argentina has had plenty of time to lick its wounds, rebuild its military, and bide its time.

[Kakaze]

Surrender from within, much like obama has done regarding NASA., the F-22 and possibly the F-53 which is experiencing more delays.

No way Britain will keep those carriers mothballed for 9 years, they will either scuttle them or turn them into razor blades.

[Kakaze]

opps! typo the F-35 not 53 :)

[tanknetter]

Apparently you're unaware that the Brits built their new RAF base Mount Pleasant on the Falklands and have Eurofighters stationed there. They built enough hangers to expand that presence if the Argentina fools want to play again.

Yes, they have four Typhoons from No. 1435 Flight: Faith, Hope, Charity (named after the Malta defense Gladiators from WWII) and Desperation.

My recollection (please correct me if I'm wrong here) is that they are Tranche 2, Block 8 aircraft, and lack meaningful air-to-ground capability.

The biggest issue with retaking the Falklands is that the Argentinians don't have the same amphibious assault capability that they had to do so in the early 1980s. Put what the Argies had then against what the Brits have in the islands now, and while it would be much bloodier than the initial 80's walkover, the Argies would still take the islands.

[Smokin' Joe]

Now you’re thinking. With real estate at a premium in Japan (or so I’ve heard) the Harrier’s capabilities would be a plus for home defense as well.

[Vroomfondel]

ping