Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Argentine Air Power

Incredibly, there are still people in Argentina who are convinced they sank Invincible and there was then an elaborate cover up by the UK to hide her loss with Illustrious being renamed and an additional CVS produced!

Regards,
MM
Given the bolshiness of the dockworkers at the time , the replacement would just about be undergoing it's sea trials at around the time of Maggie's death ....
 
The Koreans will not do anything to upset HMG, it has its eyes on a much bigger defence sale prize than a few jets to Argentina in return for 2,000 tonnes of corned dog.

Offending or pleasing the UK Gov doesnt come into it.
 
You forgot "Ground attack in support of coup attempts".

Well it is South America after all.
Our exports in those days helped with that ....
See from 3.34 , Gloucester meteors bombing the Plaza de Mayo and the Pink House
Timed for lunchtime , it killed over 400 , including a large party of school children
 
Our exports in those days helped with that ....
See from 3.34 , Gloucester meteors bombing the Plaza de Mayo and the Pink House
Timed for lunchtime , it killed over 400 , including a large party of school children
Watched that and could only think of this:

 

Himmler74

On ROPS
On ROPs
The inability to design, produce world class ejection seats?
The point i was making is the ITAR restriction is more than legally binding - unless SK really does want pariah nation status.
Nobody will cross that line - because its not just the kit that you may no longer recieve - but all the associated technical support - In addition if you cant be trusted lots of others** will pull the plug on you

So theres no "oh well we dont want to upset the UK - because we want to sell them stuff factor" regardless of an individuals top trump fantasies on foreign kit.

But even if we humour him and accept they do decide to say screw the ITAR agreement the sales still doomed and not happening

Heres your 50 fighter aircraft - oh and dont worry about the lack of ejector seats and landing gear

Meanwhile the ROK aircraft is having difficulties with spares for its own fleet as the UK restricts supply to ensure they arent finding there way to export aircraft.


And nobody will take a dimmer view of that than the US
 

Yokel

LE
IIRC, in order to get the Anglo-Irish Agreement ratified, the RoI had to amend its constitution by removing the article laying claim to the territory of the North. Argentina could easily do the same re. the Falkland Islands.

Not for the Anglo Irish Agreement that Thatcher signed, but they did change one of the articles of the Irish constitution as part of the peace process.
Given the bolshiness of the dockworkers at the time , the replacement would just about be undergoing it's sea trials at around the time of Maggie's death ....

Apart from the ones who worked around the clock to get the task force ships ready; and the shipbuilders who got HMS Illustrious to sea and on service nearly a year before schedule.

The Soviets took note of the way heavily unionised workers were willing to pull out the stops.
 
Last edited:

HCL

Old-Salt
Given the bolshiness of the dockworkers at the time , the replacement would just about be undergoing it's sea trials at around the time of Maggie's death ....

They weren't bolshy in sorting out the fleet in record time. Just because someone's a thieving, skiving commie cnut doesn't mean he can't be patriotic when the chips are down.
 
Don’t forget a lot of those dockies had already been given redundancy notices as well.
 

Bardeyai

Old-Salt
The point i was making is the ITAR restriction is more than legally binding - unless SK really does want pariah nation status.
Nobody will cross that line - because its not just the kit that you may no longer recieve - but all the associated technical support - In addition if you cant be trusted lots of others** will pull the plug on you

So theres no "oh well we dont want to upset the UK - because we want to sell them stuff factor" regardless of an individuals top trump fantasies on foreign kit.

But even if we humour him and accept they do decide to say screw the ITAR agreement the sales still doomed and not happening

Heres your 50 fighter aircraft - oh and dont worry about the lack of ejector seats and landing gear

Meanwhile the ROK aircraft is having difficulties with spares for its own fleet as the UK restricts supply to ensure they arent finding there way to export aircraft.


And nobody will take a dimmer view of that than the US
No, you’ve lost me. I’m struggling with the point that you are trying to make here.
Given the reversion to “Boo Inglese!” As Argentine foreign policy, we have decided not to supply systems/ components for Korean jet trainers being sold to Argentina. How does this involve the US ITAR system and why would we not now happily continue to supply ejection seats to KAI as normal?
 
As Argentine foreign policy, we have decided not to supply systems/
components for Korean jet trainers being sold to Argentina. How does this involve the US ITAR system

ITAR and other restrictions on technology transfer arent only a US thing *


and why would we not now happily continue to supply ejection seats to KAI as normal?

The UK supplies parts for the KAI - As part of that agreement the UK can refuse to agree to supply parts or data to certain nation states - (It was the same for the Grippen).


This was only brought up in response to the comment the sale was cancelled because it would offend the UK

My point was they cant because the UK Gov can block who has access to the UK systems installed
ergo they arent refusing to sell it because UK wont be happy - but because the aircraft comes with UK kit they cannot export to Argentina.

As to why the UK would cease to supply to KAI as normal - this was simply expanding on and humouring the Idea they could just sell it anyway and say sod the UK.

In which case the UK will not supply those parts for those Aircraft (rendering them useless) There will also be actions to ensure parts ostensibly sent to KAI / ROKAF dont find their way onto the argentine fleet.

In otherwords there will be a block on exports to KAI and possibly ROKAF

In short KAI will have shot itself in the foot as UK supplied parts stop being exported, because we cannot trust them.

Furthermore SK is now not trusted globaly with Technology transfers and export rights and thats when the US issue arises.

This can impact commercial systems as well as many are dual purpose.

Hence keeping the UK goverment happy is irrelevant - they cannot sell to argentina without UK agreement.



*Im probably guilty of using ITAR as a catch all term for all technology transfers.


Back in the 90s France blocked a potential sale of the U boats because the radar was French - (They also as I recall went on to sell submarines with the same radar to that customer )
 
Last edited:

Bardeyai

Old-Salt
ITAR and other restrictions on technology transfer arent only a US thing *




The UK supplies parts for the KAI - As part of that agreement the UK can refuse to agree to supply parts or data to certain nation states - (It was the same for the Grippen).

As to why the UK would cease to supply to KI as normal

If KAI has just sold the aircraft to a country we dont want to have it - then the UK will not supply those parts for those Aircraft (rendering them useless)

There will also be actions to ensure parts ostensibly sent to KAI / ROKAF dont find their way onto the argentine fleet.

In short KAI will have shot itself in the foot as UK supplied parts stop being exported, because we cannot trust them.

Furthermore SK is now not trusted with Technology transfers and export rights and thats when the US issue arises.

This can impact commercial systems as well as many are dual purpose.




*Im probably guilty of using ITAR as a catch all term for all technology transfers.


Back in the 90s France blocked a potential sale of the U boats because the radar was French - (They also as I recall went on to sell submarines with the same radar to that customer )
Thanks for yours. The UK conforms to the EU Consolidated Criteria not ITAR, which confused me. Companies around the world use “ITAR-free”, when they can, as a positive selling point.
I’m no expert but when KAI wants to buy UK restricted/ dual use tech it produces an export license showing the end user.
Technically KAI could do a smoke and mirrors job and divert components for an Argentine contract - which would be illegal but, for the reasons you state, why would they? The UK and Korea have far bigger interests in common. And Remember, didn’t Korea jail its National Armaments Director for a programme which didn’t follow their processes to the letter - no hint of corruption, just a lack of rigour (!). Hence the nice letter to the Argentine Ambo saying “Alas... regrets”.

Perhaps we are violently agreeing and your use of “ITAR“ threw me.

Anyhoo, I hope that this grates with Argentina. It was a betting certainty that allowing Kirchner back into domestic politics would result in their reversion to Sh1t flinging at the UK at the first opportunity, and that turns out to have consequences. She and her supporters had proven to be toxic for Argentina’s interests and economy last time and will do so again.
 
Perhaps we are violently agreeing and your use of “ITAR“ threw me.

Anyhoo, I hope that this grates with Argentina. It was a betting certainty that allowing Kirchner back into domestic politics would result in their reversion to Sh1t flinging at the UK at the first opportunity, and that turns out to have consequences. She and her supporters had proven to be toxic for Argentina’s interests and economy last time and will do so again.
We are in agreement

My dealings have allways been at a low level (aircraft systems) and its pretty much allways been US kit. Thus its always ITAR to me - just like hoovering the carpets.
 

Yokel

LE
Does anyone know what parts it was the we did not want reexported? Martin Baker ejection seats are an easy example, but I have also heard landing gear being mentioned. What about things like cockpit displays and flight controls? Does anyone know?
 
The inability to design, produce world class ejection seats?
The nice people at Boeing who now own McD who manufacture the ACES 2 and variants would be rubbing their hands.
Does anyone know what parts it was the we did not want reexported? Martin Baker ejection seats are an easy example, but I have also heard landing gear being mentioned. What about things like cockpit displays and flight controls? Does anyone know?
Not sure but "probably"

Meggit - Braking systems, maybe engine monitoring
Cobham - On-board oxygen-generating system (OBOGS)
BAE - HUD
 

Bardeyai

Old-Salt
Up thread Typhoon for Argentina is mentioned. When the aircraft was about to be introduced into service naturally there were discussions to agree priority markets and who would lead on what market. BAES produced a big listfor MOD which included Argentina: there was much laughter. Then they were told to get rid. “Not us. It’s the Italians/Spanish “ said BAES. “Were you hoping for UK Government support then?” was the reply.
 

Yokel

LE
Apparently the Korean jet had six key systems which are made in Britain. I wonder if they are the same ones as in the Grippen, in other words, things we have deep expertise in? Makes you proud....

A bit like the way the Armada Argentina procured warships power by Rolls Royce gas turbines, and then had problems getting hold of spares post Falklands.
 
Apparently the Korean jet had six key systems which are made in Britain. I wonder if they are the same ones as in the Grippen, in other words, things we have deep expertise in? Makes you proud....

A bit like the way the Armada Argentina procured warships power by Rolls Royce gas turbines, and then had problems getting hold of spares post Falklands.
iirc there were a couple canberrras parked up at warton for years
 

Latest Threads

Top