Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I read on Wikipedia that the Argentinian A4s have been upgraded with the avionics from F16s.

I'm not sure what difference that makes. The F16's fly-by-wire control system simply doesn't apply to an A4. Presumably it means the radar and fire control.

Kilkrazy wrote:I read on Wikipedia that the Argentinian A4s have been upgraded with the avionics from F16s.

I'm not sure what difference that makes. The F16's fly-by-wire control system simply doesn't apply to an A4. Presumably it means the radar and fire control.

Analog primary flight indicators replaced by a glass cockpit, new radar, jammers. Probably most importantly they can be networked together to share targeting data. They may actually be fly by wire based on the upgrade notes on wiki, they were basically totally rebuilt flight controls were likely a part of that, and the 1533B bus is an integral part of the FBW system.

Albatross wrote:No. Why would China risk relations with a wealthy and powerful nation that ALREADY possesses the islands in order to sell a few missiles to a backwater nation that has a very slim chance of winning them militarily? It's a pessimistic fantasy.

Don't forget... the possibility of double dealings.

didn't the U.S. did the same double dealings in the flakland wars (80s) before??

AndrewC wrote:
Next time be careful of your audience.

I knew exactly where you were from.

Which I'm sure will further annoy you.

AndrewC wrote:
This is a common mistake from many people who have not visited or lived on the islands.

Its also common for people who have developed a dislike, or hatred, of another group of people that have influenced them to fervently deny the influence of that people, and attempt to remove it wherever they recognize it.

One of things that's important when you're going to claim expertise (I don't claim this by the way, many of my graduate assignments were completed by way of devil's advocacy.) is knowing that you never trust a primary, or any, source.

mattyrm wrote:
The islanders are aggressively patriotic to the point that they have formed a small militia to fight the Argies if they ever come back. I think that's proof enough of their thoughts on the matter!

I have a friend (Who lives in Chicago.) that despises the Green Bay Packers, and by extension all of Wisconsin. He insists that he doesn't like anything from the state, and would never be caught enjoying anything originating from there.

He eats at Culver's (A Wisconsin chain.) every other day.


Yes, he is quite fat.

sebster wrote:
A mass of colonies stretching right across the globe, demanding the maintenance and constant deployment of a navy ready to take on any rival power, and deployment of troops to quell increasingly active resistance movements is really not the same thing as 3,000 people on some islands that want to be part of Britain, that some third tier local power wants.

Sure, but the principle is similar. When something becomes too costly, or even just too annoying, to defend the governing body simply lets it go.

Granted, oil changes the equation greatly, but I don't see a resolution to the problem that isn't "Argentina has authority over the Falkland Islands."

I found out while looking at something else that the USS Boxer, an LHD in the USN that operates Harriers was lent to the Germans temporarily, which implies there is SOME precedent to a carrier being lent between NATO nations, but not for direct combat. I know this was like 5 pages ago...but i like to share.

it depends on the folk's attitude over their master.
for Americans (13 colonies... remember?) Irish and Indians. they believed that the brits oppressed them so hard (for americans. the main casus beli was a taxation without a representative from the 13 colonies). and their lives will be better w/o the Union Jack collars on 'em.

for many smaller isle folks (Many inhabited isles that lies within the continent of America still belongs to the U.K.), they've saw that the brits are the benefactors and they should stay, not sure if they saw the political meltdown in sub sahara africa before ???

Lone Cat wrote:it depends on the folk's attitude over their master.
for Americans (13 colonies... remember?) Irish and Indians. they believed that the brits oppressed them so hard (for americans. the main casus beli was a taxation without a representative from the 13 colonies). and their lives will be better w/o the Union Jack collars on 'em.

for many smaller isle folks (Many inhabited isles that lies within the continent of America still belongs to the U.K.), they've saw that the brits are the benefactors and they should stay, not sure if they saw the political meltdown in sub sahara africa before ???

The UK isn't their 'master'.
The Falklands Islands are a protectorate of the United Kingdom.

Lone Cat wrote:

Albatross wrote:No. Why would China risk relations with a wealthy and powerful nation that ALREADY possesses the islands in order to sell a few missiles to a backwater nation that has a very slim chance of winning them militarily? It's a pessimistic fantasy.

Don't forget... the possibility of double dealings.

didn't the U.S. did the same double dealings in the flakland wars (80s) before??

Not really, the US remained neutral in the conflict and was at the centermof attempsts to broker a peaceful settlement (remember those!).

But Ronny Raygun ever the nice chap allowed the supply of intelligence (naval disposition) and the ever so handy sidewinder missiles that did such a sterling job on the Argie airforce.

As to those that are trying to make sense of the ever pedantic points made by Dogma. His Raison d'être seems to take contrary points on any British related topic and drive the conversation in new and boring directions. The last time the Falklands came up he kept dismissing it as an irrelevant little non conflict. He's the worst sort of troll, he doesn't realise he's doing it.

Orlanth wrote:
And it looks like they satellite track also.

Satellite tracking depends on live access to the satellite in question, which the Chinese will not grant to the Argentinians for various reasons.

Several posts on this thread use the term "argies." Please stop, as it makes me think of one my favorite comedians Arj Barker.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
And it looks like they satellite track also.

Satellite tracking depends on live access to the satellite in question, which the Chinese will not grant to the Argentinians for various reasons.

The Argies have their own domestic space program and are capable of launching their own satellites... just saying... they might need to purchase satellites from the Chinese, but they are technologically capable of operating such a system, although financially...

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
And it looks like they satellite track also.

Satellite tracking depends on live access to the satellite in question, which the Chinese will not grant to the Argentinians for various reasons.

I dont see the problem. Live access can be cold. That is to say during the relevant portion of the satellites sweep data is transmitted two ways to China and Argentina, or more likely a live relay comes on. Officially Argentina 'only gets what it pays for', portions of sweeps over the islands and surrounding waters, with live transmission coverage over China et al not being for sale.

Satellites do not hover over one spot unless they are in geosynch. Geosynch is for comms sats and some science, weather stats spy sats etc all need to be closer, for a start its the only way to get non equatorial cover, second the lower you are the better the resolution and the more passes per day.

Its a simple software matter to take take the live satellite feed and get it to automatically delay data to a client on certain parts of its passage, you could also arrange intermittent direct feed. All it requires is an extra set of comms channels and an on/off switch. Compared to what else you need to code to run a satellite its like a kids crayon drawing in the Louvre.

if data is relayed from a third party communications set, probably another satellite, you wouldnt need any more programming than a communications satellite normally holds. to the comms sat its just another phone call.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The Argies have their own domestic space program and are capable of launching their own satellites... just saying... they might need to purchase satellites from the Chinese, but they are technologically capable of operating such a system, although financially...

NASA (among others) pays for a good portion of CONAE, the question isn't one of funding, but resolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
I dont see the problem. Live access can be cold.

It can be, but there are numerous reasons why it wouldn't be.

Of course, when I say "live access" I mean "Access to the satellite itself." not "Access to a secondary stream of satellite data.

Orlanth wrote:
That is to say during the relevant portion of the satellites sweep data is transmitted two ways to China and Argentina, or more likely a live relay comes on.

No government in the world would allow another government direct access to live data sent directly from its spy/targeting satellites. It gives away their position, and makes it that much easier to tamper with telemetry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
if data is relayed from a third party communications set, probably another satellite, you wouldnt need any more programming than a communications satellite normally holds. to the comms sat its just another phone call.

But it delays receipt of the data, which is the inherent problem.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
I dont see the problem. Live access can be cold.

It can be, but there are numerous reasons why it wouldn't be.

Of course, when I say "live access" I mean "Access to the satellite itself." not "Access to a secondary stream of satellite data.

China doesnt need to share control to share data

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
That is to say during the relevant portion of the satellites sweep data is transmitted two ways to China and Argentina, or more likely a live relay comes on.

No government in the world would allow another government direct access to live data sent directly from its spy/targeting satellites. It gives away their position, and makes it that much easier to tamper with telemetry.

To tamper with a stallite you need to know its control codes, not just its location. Satellites can and are tracked with pinpoint accuracy anyway. Hell Jodrell Bank can still do that and thats early 50's tech.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
if data is relayed from a third party communications set, probably another satellite, you wouldnt need any more programming than a communications satellite normally holds. to the comms sat its just another phone call.

But it delays receipt of the data, which is the inherent problem.

Why is that a problem? You think even the US uses direct feed? No they dont its fed into data centre in Langley etc and then fed back to units in situ. The delay is microseconds and only really noticable with advanced measuring tools. Satellites make regular course adjustments because of it, military hardware has allowances for that sort of delay included as standard. You are sweating the small stuff.

Its as if you are saying you cannot build usable warships because salt water corrodes and waves create an unstable firing platform. Synchronising relaying for space technology is like a small incoming wave to a ship, anything but the unexpected.




This all discounts another option that Argentina gets reasonably timely support fast enough to act on but not split second that gives Chinese handlers a few minutes grace to sanitise. In the case of anti ship warfare a firm fix that is a minute or so old is considered a firm fix, not an estimate. The ocean is open and flat and ships travel only so fast, if the data is updated intermittently it is still valuable as a beacon for missiles and ungodly accurate with terms of ship vs ship intel..

Orlanth wrote:
To tamper with a stallite you need to know its control codes, not just its location.

The location, in this case, is less important than having access to the satellite's data stream.

At the end of the day, a satellite is a computer with a wireless connection, and gaining access to it is roughly similar.

Orlanth wrote:
Why is that a problem?

For satellite guided missiles?

Really?

I'll mail you a picture of myself with coordinates and a time stamp, you're free to shoot a missile at me if you think you can hit me. Hell, I'll upload it a file-sharing service, and let you take a guess.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
To tamper with a stallite you need to know its control codes, not just its location.

The location, in this case, is less important than having access to the satellite's data stream.

At the end of the day, a satellite is a computer with a wireless connection, and gaining access to it is roughly similar.

You are mistakenly thinking a third party client can upload data beyond a cofirmation signal and even that may be parsed by secondary means.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Why is that a problem?

For satellite guided missiles?

Really?

I'll mail you a picture of myself with coordinates and a time stamp, you're free to shoot a missile at me if you think you can hit me. Hell, I'll upload it a file-sharing service, and let you take a guess.

You have just described how naval combat actually works, riding a painted target all the way is a luxury even today. Missile, air to ground anti ship or anti air cope with less. With anti ship technology it gets easier, the data need not be frequent. Terminal guidance should always be handled by onboard software lest the missile be jammed by the target. Expecting constant feed is actually worse than giving secure updates and letting the missile home on on its own for the final correction for impact. If constant feed is interrupted what does your missile do and the closer it gets to a hostile warship the greater chance the warship can generate a stronger jamming signal than its guiding signal.

Missile have a terminal guidance radius when its onboard computer can metaphorically say 'ok I can handle it from here on in'. You need to get the missiles in that bubble. Now if you are bombing Iraq or caves in Afghanistan and the target has no EW technology to speak of and has immobile targets then you can launch long range missiles at leasure and guide them all the way in, by hand if you like. But you wouldnt want to be actively guiding a missile approaching a modern warship with a modern EW suite, that would just be idiocy. Modern missiles, have hardened electronics and fairly good tracking software and hardware to do the job themselves, even not so modern missiles have that, its 80's tech, 70's if you are feeling generous.

Orlanth wrote:
You are mistakenly thinking a third party client can upload data beyond a cofirmation signal and even that may be parsed by secondary means.

If you're talking about a direct feed, then you aren't talking about a third party client. A third party client is the client that receives data from a Chinese earthbound stream. To illustrate:

Satellite -> China -> Argentina.

Orlanth wrote:
You have just described how naval combat actually works, riding a painted target all the way is a luxury even today.

I've described to you why satellite tracking missiles will not work, or at least will be significantly less effective, with data that has been delayed.

Look.

The important thing is, the 3,000 or so inhabitants of the Falklands have an inalienable right to self determination.


Shame about those 5,000,000 or so Scots, eh, David?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Look.

The important thing is, the 3,000 or so inhabitants of the Falklands have an inalienable right to self determination.


Shame about those 5,000,000 or so Scots, eh, David?

He returns!

That's what I was thinking?

Argie spy perchance?

What next Gwar?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Look.

The important thing is, the 3,000 or so inhabitants of the Falklands have an inalienable right to self determination.


Shame about those 5,000,000 or so Scots, eh, David?

Not a shame at all. I and the majority of Englismen can't wait for our bigoted racist, endlessly whinging n eighbours to feth off frankly. I just wish that fat bloke with the dress on would hurry the process along a bit.

But that's another thread of it's own.

mattyrm wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Look.

The important thing is, the 3,000 or so inhabitants of the Falklands have an inalienable right to self determination.


Shame about those 5,000,000 or so Scots, eh, David?

Not a shame at all. I and the majority of Englismen can't wait for our bigoted racist, endlessly whinging n eighbours to feth off frankly. I just wish that fat bloke with the dress on would hurry the process along a bit.

But that's another thread of it's own.

By similar reckoning the 7.8 Million Virginians and who cares how many other former confederate states should petition the UN eh?

mattyrm wrote:...fat bloke...

To be honest humans are tribal creatures.. you could even say the same of places in England. Cornwall has a separatist movement!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In a nutshell people are stupid and patriotism is stupid, but that doesn't mean i have time for the Scots and I've explained several times why that is.

It's childish and it's dumb. But i prefer to meet their gak attitude head on rather than ignore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:...fat bloke...

He looks uncannily like Alex Salmond .. i like him a little bit more

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Look.

The important thing is, the 3,000 or so inhabitants of the Falklands have an inalienable right to self determination.


Shame about those 5,000,000 or so Scots, eh, David?

They're getting an independence vote.

Someone care to fill me in on the Scottish national sovereignty debate? I didnt think there was much going on these days in that department.

chaos0xomega wrote:Someone care to fill me in on the Scottish national sovereignty debate? I didnt think there was much going on these days in that department.

ROFLMFAO

The Scots are nothing if not stubborn.

chaos0xomega wrote:Someone care to fill me in on the Scottish national sovereignty debate? I didnt think there was much going on these days in that department.

It's gone real quiet since they found out they can't keep the Pound and have to adopt the Euro.

Joey wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Look.

The important thing is, the 3,000 or so inhabitants of the Falklands have an inalienable right to self determination.


Shame about those 5,000,000 or so Scots, eh, David?

They're getting an independence vote.

Not only that, but the Scots (or more specifically the SNP) are the ones delaying it for a few years, Not SuperDave.

It';s nice to see a politician getting lambasted for actually keeping his election promise for once.

To be fair to the SNP, they did say the vote would be at the end of their term and not before. 'SuperDave' was the one who was trying to force the issue of an early referendum.

And I look forward to many more years of winding up mattyrm with all his hard earned tax heading north of the border. (Smile Matty, you know you want to. If we wern't here who would you have to complain about.

Dogma, I just do not know what to say to you at this point in time. If you really believe in what you say, I will have to leave you in your own, for want of a better word, ignorance.

Cheers

Andrew