Truss says Falklands part of ‘British family’ after China backs Argentina

[UKBengali]

i dont think so.
Again, nobody thinks the Argentinians will be able to successfully take islands, not without years of build up and billions that they don't have.

but you still have to track and following any movements by the Argentinians. this will take ships and fatigue the airframes over time all adding to the british military burden. and every little bit of effort the british exert somewhere else is less effort they can spend to annoy china.

and its pretty standard practice. every time china send even a single frigate into the sea of japan, the japanese surveillance planes scramble and they assign at least one ship to follow, every time a single russian bear bomber goes around the british islands, nato escorts them.
that single frigate has no chance of invading japan or even doing a whole lot of damage nor does a single bear bomber pose much of a threat(yes i know they can be nuclear armed, but regardless that single bomber isnt going survive british defenses) but japan still cannot allow it to roam freely and un-tracked just as nato must escort the russian bomber.

a few potentially unfriendly ships around means they'll have to have their ships follow, stretching their already limited fleet, a few jets flying near the airspace means those Eurofighters will be spent all the quicker. all this is good for china, especially since china isnt even paying for it, it's in fact profiting from the sales, literally no down side for china.

You forget one thing - the Falklands are 600km away from the nearest Argentine air base and so if the Argentines want to send their JF-17s on such long round trips, then they would wear out their JF-17s far faster than the Eurofighters that are actually based on the islands as they all lie within a 100km radius of the centre of the archipelago.

The Falklands does not even add to the stress of the UK airframes as those Eurofighters would need to anyway fly regularly and it makes an ideal location to practice low and fast flying over large uninhabited areas that is almost impossible to find in the UK.

 

[UKBengali]

Exactly no need to panic mate. I wonder why that lady is so panicky. Maybe one day a Chinese CBG can visit Argentina and passby and do a freedom of navigation patrol. Lol

Do you Chinese not think it is funny when you are saying that Falklands belongs to the Argentines?

They are colonial settlers to the area just like the UK are as both sides are of European stock. If Argentina was mainly native Red Indian still then they may have some kind of legitimate claim to the islands.

UK has possession as they beat the Argentines twice in a fair fight over the course of 2 centuries. The people that inhabit the islands can now be thought of as native as they can trace their history back 200 years and 300 years ago there was not a single person living on those lands.

Don't let your anger over Hong Kong make the Chinese position look ridiculous here.

 

[Beidou2020]

For the record I thought it was very analytical.
He used fictional fact to answer your fictional claims.

Malvinas is Argentinian land. End of.

 

[Invicta]

Malvinas is Argentinian land. End of.

Themyscira belongs to Amazons. End of final end.

 

[Nan Yang]

i dont think so.
Again, nobody thinks the Argentinians will be able to successfully take islands, not without years of build up and billions that they don't have.

but you still have to track and following any movements by the Argentinians. this will take ships and fatigue the airframes over time all adding to the british military burden. and every little bit of effort the british exert somewhere else is less effort they can spend to annoy china.

and its pretty standard practice. every time china send even a single frigate into the sea of japan, the japanese surveillance planes scramble and they assign at least one ship to follow, every time a single russian bear bomber goes around the british islands, nato escorts them.
that single frigate has no chance of invading japan or even doing a whole lot of damage nor does a single bear bomber pose much of a threat(yes i know they can be nuclear armed, but regardless that single bomber isnt going survive british defenses) but japan still cannot allow it to roam freely and un-tracked just as nato must escort the russian bomber.

a few potentially unfriendly ships around means they'll have to have their ships follow, stretching their already limited fleet, a few jets flying near the airspace means those Eurofighters will be spent all the quicker. all this is good for china, especially since china isnt even paying for it, it's in fact profiting from the sales, literally no down side for china.

Argentina have huge geographic advantage. All latin American support Argentina's claim. US will stay neutral.

Argentina should play the long game, leverage these advantages and make it very expensive for UK.

 

[applesauce]

You forget one thing - the Falklands are 600km away from the nearest Argentine air base and so if the Argentines want to send their JF-17s on such long round trips, then they would wear out their JF-17s far faster than the Eurofighters that are actually based on the islands as they all lie within a 100km radius of the centre of the archipelago.

The Falklands does not even add to the stress of the UK airframes as those Eurofighters would need to anyway fly regularly and it makes an ideal location to practice low and fast flying over large uninhabited areas that is almost impossible to find in the UK.

that all depends on how many they plan to buy and how often they fly doesn't it?

for example, china flies towards taiwan all the time, and its gotten to the point where taiwan has all but given up and can nothing to intercept them anymore, not because they dont want to but because they cant anymore, not unless they want their planes to disintegrate from use and their pilots die from exhaustion.

the falklands has all of 4 eurofighters protecting it.

Mount Pleasant Complex

See more from the Royal Air Force

www.raf.mod.uk

if argentina buy 24 jf-17, those 4 eurofighters stand no chance in an attrition game. so Britain will have to put more planes there and again that's good for china and anyone else bothered by the british.

 

[tower9]

Do you Chinese not think it is funny when you are saying that Falklands belongs to the Argentines?

They are colonial settlers to the area just like the UK are as both sides are of European stock. If Argentina was mainly native Red Indian still then they may have some kind of legitimate claim to the islands.

UK has possession as they beat the Argentines twice in a fair fight over the course of 2 centuries. The people that inhabit the islands can now be thought of as native as they can trace their history back 200 years and 300 years ago there was not a single person living on those lands.

Don't let your anger over Hong Kong make the Chinese position look ridiculous here.

Doesn’t matter. It’s about what goes around comes around. The UK thought it could **** around and not have any repercussions, now it will find out there will certainly be repercussions.

 

[Beidou2020]

Time for China to arm Argentina to the teeth.

 

[TheSolution]

Argentina will get smoked, they don't want this, why are you forcing this upon them China?

 

[applesauce]

Argentina will get smoked, they don't want this, why are you forcing this upon them China?

"force"

is china holding a gun to their heads and demanding they buy? or you pulling your statement out of your ***?

 

[KAL-EL]

For the record I thought it was very analytical.
He used fictional fact to answer your fictional claims.

Why thank you sir! That is in fact what I was attempting to do

Sometimes I try things like that, rather than going the usual hyper-partisan nonsense.

 

[UKBengali]

that all depends on how many they plan to buy and how often they fly doesn't it?

for example, china flies towards taiwan all the time, and its gotten to the point where taiwan has all but given up and can nothing to intercept them anymore, not because they dont want to but because they cant anymore, not unless they want their planes to disintegrate from use and their pilots die from exhaustion.

the falklands has all of 4 eurofighters protecting it.

Mount Pleasant Complex

See more from the Royal Air Force

www.raf.mod.uk

if argentina buy 24 jf-17, those 4 eurofighters stand no chance in an attrition game. so Britain will have to put more planes there and again that's good for china and anyone else bothered by the british.

Taiwan straight is just 150kms across at its narrowest, compared to 600km between the nearest Argentine air bases and the Falklands.
A round trip would be 1200kms and that would require a lot of effort in terms of tankers and/or drop tanks.
Even if the Argentines had 24 Jf-17s, I doubt they could send more than a single flight of 3-4 per week which will be easily fended off by the EFTs that need to fly several hours per week each anyway and so not really adding to the stress on their engines and airframes.


Yes there are just 4 Eurofighters on the Falklands but this can easily be doubled to 8 with no real stress on the RAF if that is required. UK has 101 Eurofighters in total and so 4 extra being based in the Falklands is no major loss from mainland UK.

In case a JF-17 pilot wants to face a fully loaded Eurofighter, here is one in "beast mode" with 14 BVRAAM Meteor and 2 SRAAM IRIS-T missiles:

Please do not try to equate that cheapish JF-17 light fighter with a true beast like the Eurofighter.

 

[applesauce]

Taiwan straight is just 150kms across at its narrowest, compared to 600km between the nearest Argentine air bases and the Falklands.
A round trip would be 1200kms and that would require a lot of effort in terms of tankers and/or drop tanks.
Even if the Argentines had 24 Jf-17s, I doubt they could send more than a single flight of 3-4 per week which will be easily fended off by the EFTs that need to fly several hours per week each anyway and so not really adding to the stress on their engines and airframes.


Yes there are just 4 Eurofighters on the Falklands but this can easily be doubled to 8 with no real stress on the RAF if that is required. UK has 101 Eurofighters in total and so 4 extra being based in the Falklands is no major loss from mainland UK.

In case a JF-17 pilot wants to face a fully loaded Eurofighter, here is one in "beast mode" with 14 BVRAAM Meteor and 2 SRAAM IRIS-T missiles:

View attachment 814687

Please do not try to equate that cheapish JF-17 light fighter with a true beast like the Eurofighter.

china regularly flies jets from inland to taiwan not just from the closest air bases, something like 600 km one way isn't an issue and has not been an issue, and even though most fighter trips are done by the j-16, the j-10 has also done it many times, and they have only a bit more range than the jf-17.

now argentina isnt china , however, 4 eurofighters is also not the same as the entire RoCAF. not to mention they're not going to be over overflying the islands, just the defence zones around it, so you can easily shave 100+km off of the trip or 200km round trip.

and i have no idea where you're getting 4 per flight per week for 24 jf-17 total. you probably pulled it from thin air.

because by that metric each individual jf-17 can only fly 1 time for a few hours every 6 weeks? you mean to tell me that a jf-17 needs like 400 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight??? for comparison the most maintenance intensive fighter jet per flight hour is the F-22 at some 40 hours per flight hour. you're giving out numbers that not even rabid jf-17 haters would dare give out. at worse it'll be something like the f-16 hours, which is about 19 hours of maintenance per hour of flight, meaning they could send a flight at least twice a day, every single day.

and i also have no idea where on earth did you get the idea that i said anything about the jf-17 combating or comparing its abilities to the eurofighter, again you probably pulled this from thin air.
they aren't suppose to fight the british nor is the jf-17 better than the eurofighter.

again i'll repeat myself . they are going to be there to annoy the british not fight them. for this it doesn't matter how much better your jet is, only the total airframe and life of the airframes matter. even if it only pulls an additional 8 jets away from britian, that's equipment worth many millions that they didn't have to use before and once more, there are no down sides for china whatsoever it doesnt matter if its 8 more jets or just $2 of gas that its ties up, still a net benefit for china.

 

[UKBengali]

china regularly flies jets from inland to taiwan not just from the closest air bases, something like 600 km one way isn't an issue and has not been an issue, and even though most fighter trips are done by the j-16, the j-10 has also done it many times, and they have only a bit more range than the jf-17.

now argentina isnt china , however, 4 eurofighters is also not the same as the entire RoCAF. not to mention they're not going to be over overflying the islands, just the defence zones around it, so you can easily shave 100+km off of the trip or 200km round trip.

and i have no idea where you're getting 4 per flight per week for 24 jf-17 total. you probably pulled it from thin air.

because by that metric each individual jf-17 can only fly 1 time for a few hours every 6 weeks? you mean to tell me that a jf-17 needs like 400 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight??? for comparison the most maintenance intensive fighter jet per flight hour is the F-22 at some 40 hours per flight hour. you're giving out numbers that not even rabid jf-17 haters would dare give out. at worse it'll be something like the f-16 hours, which is about 19 hours of maintenance per hour of flight, meaning they could send a flight at least twice a day, every single day.

and i also have no idea where on earth did you get the idea that i said anything about the jf-17 combating or comparing its abilities to the eurofighter, again you probably pulled this from thin air.
they aren't suppose to fight the british nor is the jf-17 better than the eurofighter.

again i'll repeat myself . they are going to be there to annoy the british not fight them. for this it doesn't matter how much better your jet is, only the total airframe and life of the airframes matter. even if it only pulls an additional 8 jets away from britian, that's equipment worth many millions that they didn't have to use before and once more, there are no down sides for china whatsoever it doesnt matter if its 8 more jets or just $2 of gas that its ties up, still a net benefit for china.

You have actually made the point for me.

China can stress Taiwan like the UK can stress the Argentines. UK is a far richer than Argentina is and geographical distance counts for little when the UK has such a technological advantage over Argentina. 24 or so JF-17s would change little to the military balance.

It would take little effort for the UK to have 8 Eurofighters to be permanently stationed in the Falklands. These would have to fly regularly anyway and so there would be little added stress to airframes and engines even if 2 needed to go up once a day to intercept JF-17s sent by Argentina.

Now this would be a real burden to the Argentine airforce as they would be committing the bulk of their air resources in just flying close to the Falklands and then flying back. Like I say they would probably only send 3-4 planes once per week as a show of defiance when the issue "heats up" from time to time and that is that.


PS - I don't know about you but I would not want to be in an Argentine JF-17 when it's RWR is lit up signalling that a Eurofighter armed with Meteor missiles is locked onto it.

 

[applesauce]

You have actually made the point for me.

China can stress Taiwan like the UK can stress the Argentines. UK is a far richer than Argentina is and geographical distance counts for little when the UK has such a technologica advantage over Argentina.

It would take little effort for the UK to have 8 Eurofighters to be permanently stationed in the Falklands. These would have to fly regularly anyway and so there would be little added stress to airframes and engines even if 2 needed to go up once a day to intercept JF-17s sent by Argentina.

Now this would be a real burden to the Argentine airforce as they would be committing the bulk of their air resources in just flying close to the Falklands and then flying back. Like I say they would probably only send 3-4 planes once per week as a show of defiance when the issue "heats up" from time to time and that is that.


PS - I don't know about you but I would not want to be in an Argentine JF-17 when it's RWR is lit up signalling that a Eurofighter armed with Meteor missiles is locked onto it.

yes, i never said the uk wasnt stronger and richer than argentina.

and again you are repeating that they can only send 3-4 planes per week. i ask where you get his number from, because its stupid as its well beyond any reasonable numbers based on even the most expensive (man hour-wise) to maintain jets.

and if the UK bases 8 eurofighters there. then good. thats 4 more jets, millions of dollars of equipment used where they didn't have to before.

and you think UK will shoot at a Argentinian jet flying in international airspace??? because i dont think so.