Af/Pak & Other News (10/14/2012)

[dump...@hotmail.com]

Thousands of UK troops to quit Afghanistan in '13:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49406373/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.UHshAobAjGs



Afghan government burns 24 tons of illegal drugs:

http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-government-burns-24-tons-illegal-drugs-103716953.html;_ylt=AkmTO9TR3AIgyMsV6Tf2WZFvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTNjbmZkdWY5BG1pdAMEcGtnA2NiZWIyNzZiLThjMjUtMzJjYi1iOGIxLTBiYTJiMWM4ZjVhMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDbG5fQXNpYV9nYWwEdmVyAzMzMzIzMWUwLTE1ZjMtMTFlMi1hOGZiLWFkZTVhOWZhZGM2OA--;_ylv=3



Afghan anti-Taliban leader prefers to go it alone:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Afghan_anti-Taliban_leader_prefers_to_go_it_alone_999.html



The Conspiracy:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/afghan/articles/20121014.aspx



Indians Frustrated by Delay in Delivery of Carrier:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121014/DEFREG03/310140001/Indians-Frustrated-by-Delay-Delivery-Carrier?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE



Turkey bans Syrian planes from its air space, rebels gain:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/14/syria-crisis-idUSL5E8LE1IN20121014



Syrian army corpses mark rebel attack on base:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j_NdHLg9buI_CdZisQeYxGIx1m4w?docId=CNG.ea900d58bb25acbb22b1563afa808e4f.511



'Extremely dangerous': Assad forces use cluster bombs as rebels gain,
rights group says:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/14/14428135-extremely-dangerous-assad-forces-use-cluster-bombs-as-rebels-gain-rights-group-says?lite



'Hezbollah drone photographed secret IDF bases':

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=287724



UAV Incursion: Are Gas Rigs the Next Target?:

http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=426&ArticleID=1679



Libya Congress elects former congressman and rights lawyer Ali Zidan
as new prime minister:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/libya-congress-elects-former-congressman-and-rights-lawyer-ali-zidan-as-new-prime-minister/2012/10/14/52504990-1634-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_story.html



Ghana court rules Argentine naval ship seizure was legal:

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28043:ghana-court-rules-argentine-naval-ship-seizure-was-legal-&catid=108:maritime-security&Itemid=233



German city battles elusive new-look neo-Nazis:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/uk-germany-neonazis-idUSLNE89A00S20121011



Elbit Systems to Deliver a New Configuration of the ATMOS SP GUN for a
Customer in East Asia:

http://defense-update.com/20121014_new_atmos.html



Chinese political system could 'blow up', says US academic:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Chinese_political_system_could_blow_up_says_US_academic_999.html



Japanese, U.S. Troops Mull Drill To Take Island: Reports:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121014/DEFREG03/310140004/Japanese-U-S-Troops-Mull-Drill-Take-Island-Reports?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE



U.S. Pacific Shift Aims to Manage, Not Challenge China’s Rise:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/November/Pages/USPacificShiftAimstoManage,NotChallengeChina%E2%80%99sRise.aspx



Lockheed Martin not USAF to select AESA for F-16:

http://alert5.com/2012/10/14/lockheed-martin-not-usaf-to-select-aesa-for-f-16/



Panetta Gives A Peek At Some New Cyber Capabilities:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_12_2012_p0-506288.xml



2 U.S. Navy Ships Collide off Florida:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121013/DEFREG02/310130003/2-U-S-Navy-Ships-Collide-off-Florida?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE



Tamir Missiles to be Produced in the US?:

http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=1686



Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to Become Lighter, Faster:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/November/Pages/UnmannedAerialVehiclestoBecomeLighter,Faster.aspx



Defense Intel Agency Director Outlines Changes Under Way:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/139281/dia-head-outlines-intel-changes.html



USAF Still Reviewing Oxygen Concentration Levels For F-22 Cockpit:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_10_12_2012_p03-02-506094.xml



Red Bull Stratos and Ultra-HALO Tactics (Updated):

http://defensetech.org/2012/10/14/red-bull-stratos-and-ultra-halo-tactics/

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:55:00 -0700 (PDT), dump...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Ghana court rules Argentine naval ship seizure was legal:
>
> http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28043:ghana-court-rules-argentine-naval-ship-seizure-was-legal-&catid=108:maritime-security&Itemid=233

This link gives me a

"Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server."


Still this action could have major implications for countries like Greece
which wrote off a third of its debts recently

http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/industry-insights/shipping/argentinian-naval-vessel-seized-over-sovereign-defaults

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 15/10/2012 12:09, SolomonW ha scritto:

> Still this action could have major implications for countries like Greece
> which wrote off a third of its debts recently
>
> http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/industry-insights/shipping/argentinian-naval-vessel-seized-over-sovereign-defaults

mhm.... I suspect that there's potential for a major fuckup surpassing
the Falkland one; here (Italy) we still have a serious grudge with
Russian Navy about Regia Nave Cristoforo Colombo, and I'm sure the
Argentine's outrage will be something, and weighting all, an Argentine
reprisal (or wagging the dog) from the sea is feasible; Ghana being an
former UK Colony and a commonwealth member but not formally allied with
UK gives an indirect kick in the rear to UK's pride; the main issue is
the logistic one, ARA not having AOs, and having to cross the Atlantic
thru a tortuous course between the gaps between the "hostile neutral"
(UK) territories (Falklands, Ascension and St. Helena) and the only mean
UK has of interdict Argentina's reprisal UK is declaring an exclusion
zone not only around the islands, but also around the logistic link
between these insular colonies (effectively cutting in half the S
Atlantic), a thing whose will piss off Russia and China (the latter
formally allied to Ghana, but surely not much inclined to really
overseas adventuring...) and perhaps also France, not a thing one want
to have on the UNSC table....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Keith W]

The Ghanaian court has acted legally in support of
rulings in US and EU courts. Any military action by
Argentina would be a VERY big mistake and would
put them on the wrong side of the EU, USA and China
which is not a place they want to be.

The chances of any Argentine flotilla being intercepted
by a French, British or USN SSN are rather high and
I am sure the Argentine navy recall what happened
to the Belgrano.

Keith

[Bill]

Can anyone work out what he's talking about because, for once, I'm
baffled...

[Keith W]

He seems to be suggesting the Argentine Navy would
use its naval forces against Ghana in reprisal.

Given that its current fleet of vessels capable of blue water
operations consists of just four MEKO 360 frigates and 6
smaller MEKO 140 corvettes and just one fleet oiler
this seems a tad unlikely.

Keith

[Andrew Swallow]

Ghana - I am not certain how good the relations between the Ashanti and
the British are. The Zulus were not the only blacks that fought the
British.

If Britain wants to help it could send a warship to Ghana on a good will
tour.

Alternatively the UK could buy the Libertadon and sell it back to
Argentina, possible under a hire purchase scheme.

How much on the dollar did Mr Singer pay for the Argentinian bonds? A
profit of 10% may be fair. Although he would like a higher number.

Andrew Swallow

[dott.Piergiorgio]

mhm.. you should keep in mind that Argentina is still an sui generis
democracy... but your military and diplomatic considerations are correct.

By the way, Italy is working on effectively removing the undue influence
of Argentina on Italian Parliament; one of the few agreed-upon point of
the still-to-be-finalised electoral Law here is canceling that
nonsensical (and offensive) overseas precincts thing, and counting the
foreign votes or on the precinct of origin, on the model of US abroad
vote (whose has serious issues) or on a worldwide "precinct" of sort...

(this is why I'm really watching what happens in Argentina....)

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 15/10/2012 16:46, Keith W ha scritto:

>> Can anyone work out what he's talking about because, for once, I'm
>> baffled...
>
> He seems to be suggesting the Argentine Navy would
> use its naval forces against Ghana in reprisal.
>
> Given that its current fleet of vessels capable of blue water
> operations consists of just four MEKO 360 frigates and 6
> smaller MEKO 140 corvettes and just one fleet oiler
> this seems a tad unlikely.

Also for me, but even a brief 5" shelling somewhere on Ghanan coast is
more than enough for messing-up the S Atlantic; Argentine's internal
economical and social issues isnt' much different from that of 1980-1
and isn't written in stone that a (sui generis) democracy will make
different choices re. a military junta....

[Keith W]

Now why would we wish to do that ?


Keith

[Keith W]

It would certainly end up being very messy for Argentina.
Such an act would bring UN sanctions and the likely
loss of any naval vessels involved.

Keith

[Bill]

What about a sudden rush in the night of a selection of lethal blokes
in black coveralls?

After the smoke clears Argentina (assuming they've been successful)
makes a lot of noise about US courts exceeding their powers and Ghana
being a pawn of the Chinese...

[Andrew Swallow]

Britain's aim would be to prevent a war.

Andrew Swallow

[Paul J. Adam]

On 15/10/2012 19:33, Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:16:39 +0100, "Keith W"
> <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It would certainly end up being very messy for Argentina.
>> Such an act would bring UN sanctions and the likely
>> loss of any naval vessels involved.
>
> What about a sudden rush in the night of a selection of lethal blokes
> in black coveralls?

It's a very long swim even for the Buzos Tacticales.

Okay, so you sneak them and their assorted small-arms and personal
explosives in aboard a Liberian-flagged rustbucket, crewed by Filipinos
hired in Panama and allegedly owned by Fuk Yu Shipping of Tsingtao, and
in a daring night raid they seize the ship and set a course for
Argentina at ten knots or so.


The GNS Achimota catches up to her, fires a 76mm round across her bow,
and invites her to heave to and surrender, or else volunteer to be a
target for a live-fire exercise. Not a lot that even elite commandos can
do with manpack weapons only, against a fast-attack craft at four or
five kilometres' range that's briskly pounding their ship to burning
matchwood.

Not sure this really helps the Argentine cause overmuch...

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Bill]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:54:33 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
<paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 15/10/2012 19:33, Bill wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:16:39 +0100, "Keith W"
>> <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> It would certainly end up being very messy for Argentina.
>>> Such an act would bring UN sanctions and the likely
>>> loss of any naval vessels involved.
>>
>> What about a sudden rush in the night of a selection of lethal blokes
>> in black coveralls?
>
>It's a very long swim even for the Buzos Tacticales.
>
>Okay, so you sneak them and their assorted small-arms and personal
>explosives in aboard a Liberian-flagged rustbucket, crewed by Filipinos
>hired in Panama and allegedly owned by Fuk Yu Shipping of Tsingtao, and
>in a daring night raid they seize the ship and set a course for
>Argentina at ten knots or so.

And finds her flying the |Argentine naval ensign, accompanied by the
disappearing wake of a TR-1700 submarine...

Or, even worse, finds that she's linked up with something from
Argentina has that still floats and makes any West African navy look
a touch anemic......

Say, a MEKO 360 that just happened to be passing (complete with
aforementioned commandos...)

>The GNS Achimota catches up to her, fires a 76mm round across her bow,
>and invites her to heave to and surrender, or else volunteer to be a
>target for a live-fire exercise. Not a lot that even elite commandos can
>do with manpack weapons only, against a fast-attack craft at four or
>five kilometres' range that's briskly pounding their ship to burning
>matchwood.
>
>Not sure this really helps the Argentine cause overmuch...

And you seriously think Ghana will go to war for a New York court
judgment being delivered by some dodgy bad debt agency?

If the gang of 'sand baggers' get away with it they're away, if they
get caught they'll be deniable...

[Keith W]

[Paul J. Adam]

On 15/10/2012 22:12, Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:54:33 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Okay, so you sneak them and their assorted small-arms and personal
>> explosives in aboard a Liberian-flagged rustbucket, crewed by Filipinos
>> hired in Panama and allegedly owned by Fuk Yu Shipping of Tsingtao, and
>> in a daring night raid they seize the ship and set a course for
>> Argentina at ten knots or so.
>
> And finds her flying the |Argentine naval ensign, accompanied by the
> disappearing wake of a TR-1700 submarine...

Much easier said than done. Even back in the salad days of 1982, how
many submarines could Argentina get to sea, and how many of them did
more than get depth-charged and either surrendered or driven off? How
much prep time, purchasing and trials are needed to be confident that
the submarine can produce the required flourish on time and on cue?

> Or, even worse, finds that she's linked up with something from
> Argentina has that still floats and makes any West African navy look
> a touch anemic......

Which, of course, nobody noticed making ready, embarking supplies for a
long trip, setting sail with a tanker in tow...

The whole point of using the sneaky-beaky wetsuits-and-MP5 mob is that
they're stealthy and deniable. If they're unobtrusive themselves but
getting their supporting assets ready, deployable and deployed are a
veritable marching band with accompanying fireworks display... you sort
of blew the "stealthy" part.


And nothing Argentina has got can casually shrug off four Exocets from
an angry FAC, and Ghana has two of them (ex-German). However, if it's a
double knockout (one of the likelier outcomes) then the survivors will
be picked up by said West African navy and coast guard...

> Say, a MEKO 360 that just happened to be passing (complete with
> aforementioned commandos...)

Bill, you're a good guy, but you do need to realise that the UK's
ability to sometimes say "our warship that happened to be in the area"
is a seriously high-end capability that not many nations share.

Argentina doesn't deploy its ships as far as the Falklands much, if an
Argentine MEKO was cutting about off Ghana it is getting _noticed_
because they _can't do that_ normally. Doesn't mean it's not possible,
but it means their doing so is _different_ and means much money and
effort has been spent (for a nation that's broke) and so is a serious
and hard-to-miss warning sign.

Also, there's the historic point: the Argentine surface navy decided to
hide-with-pride in 1982 when the fight was readily accessible. Where are
they getting the backbone transplant to send a ship thousands of miles
from home to start a war?

Or are those Buzos Tacticales going to seize the ship and then discover
that the frigate that was _meant_ to be backing them up is still in
Punta Arenas, proffering a note from its Mum saying it's not very well
and can't play today?

>> The GNS Achimota catches up to her, fires a 76mm round across her bow,
>> and invites her to heave to and surrender, or else volunteer to be a
>> target for a live-fire exercise. Not a lot that even elite commandos can
>> do with manpack weapons only, against a fast-attack craft at four or
>> five kilometres' range that's briskly pounding their ship to burning
>> matchwood.
>>
>> Not sure this really helps the Argentine cause overmuch...
>
> And you seriously think Ghana will go to war for a New York court
> judgment being delivered by some dodgy bad debt agency?

No, but they may be prepared to prevent Argentina from doing so.

The status quo is what it is, it's up to Argentina to have men in
wetsuits climbing anchor cables with knives clenched in their teeth.
Once they start that route, it may get untidy.

> If the gang of 'sand baggers' get away with it they're away, if they
> get caught they'll be deniable...

Not if they start flying Argentine flags and an Argentine warship starts
threatening violence off the coast of West Africa in support.

They might get away with it through surprise, good intelligence and good
planning - but if it goes wrong it either fails (and Buenos Aires hopes
nobody squeals) or else it goes overt when Argentine military assets
start threatening violence.

[Bill]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:40:58 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
<paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Or, even worse, finds that she's linked up with something from
>> Argentina has that still floats and makes any West African navy look
>> a touch anemic......
>
>Which, of course, nobody noticed making ready, embarking supplies for a
>long trip, setting sail with a tanker in tow...
>
>The whole point of using the sneaky-beaky wetsuits-and-MP5 mob is that
>they're stealthy and deniable. If they're unobtrusive themselves but
>getting their supporting assets ready, deployable and deployed are a
>veritable marching band with accompanying fireworks display... you sort
>of blew the "stealthy" part.

Once you're bob bob bobbing about in international waters you're away
clear.

>And nothing Argentina has got can casually shrug off four Exocets from
>an angry FAC, and Ghana has two of them (ex-German). However, if it's a
>double knockout (one of the likelier outcomes) then the survivors will
>be picked up by said West African navy and coast guard...

I very much doubt anyone is going to be doing any shooting with
anything they couldn't carry.

>> Say, a MEKO 360 that just happened to be passing (complete with
>> aforementioned commandos...)
>
>Bill, you're a good guy, but you do need to realise that the UK's
>ability to sometimes say "our warship that happened to be in the area"
>is a seriously high-end capability that not many nations share.

I know that.

Think of it as a thought experiment...

>Argentina doesn't deploy its ships as far as the Falklands much, if an
>Argentine MEKO was cutting about off Ghana it is getting _noticed_
>because they _can't do that_ normally. Doesn't mean it's not possible,
>but it means their doing so is _different_ and means much money and
>effort has been spent (for a nation that's broke) and so is a serious
>and hard-to-miss warning sign.
>
>Also, there's the historic point: the Argentine surface navy decided to
>hide-with-pride in 1982 when the fight was readily accessible. Where are
>they getting the backbone transplant to send a ship thousands of miles
>from home to start a war?

If there's one thing Argentina was never short of it was flamboyant
officers with an eye on the chance for a 'spectacular'.

>Or are those Buzos Tacticales going to seize the ship and then discover
>that the frigate that was _meant_ to be backing them up is still in
>Punta Arenas, proffering a note from its Mum saying it's not very well
>and can't play today?

You launch your attack from the frigate...

And the accompanying submarine.

And what on earth makes you think a West African navy can shoot
straight or even wants to?

>> If the gang of 'sand baggers' get away with it they're away, if they
>> get caught they'll be deniable...
>
>Not if they start flying Argentine flags and an Argentine warship starts
>threatening violence off the coast of West Africa in support.
>
>They might get away with it through surprise, good intelligence and good
>planning - but if it goes wrong it either fails (and Buenos Aires hopes
>nobody squeals) or else it goes overt when Argentine military assets
>start threatening violence.

As I said, if they get away with it nobody's going to start shooting
in international waters.

Also...

Once they're away how do the Ghanaians find them?

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 15/10/2012 20:16, Keith W ha scritto:

>> Also for me, but even a brief 5" shelling somewhere on Ghanan coast is
>> more than enough for messing-up the S Atlantic; Argentine's internal
>> economical and social issues isnt' much different from that of 1980-1
>> and isn't written in stone that a (sui generis) democracy will make
>> different choices re. a military junta....
>>
>
> It would certainly end up being very messy for Argentina.
> Such an act would bring UN sanctions

As pointed in the previous post, depends on how the immediate, pre-UN
sanctioning measures are implemented....

and the likely
> loss of any naval vessels involved.

Likely ? if UK intervenes is near-sure, but depends on the tactical
layout and/or the Argentine post-action planning (reach a neutral port &
internment and/or scuttling, for example)

and, from a country based around a mix of Spaniard and Italian culture,
I can't exclude an alleging of "mutiny & going rogue" and the diplomatic
fuckup, esp. in an internment, with or without scuttling, is guaranteed
to be huge...

As everyone can understand, my perspective is that sooner the Italian
election with the new rules are cast, and the unseating of the too many
(4) senators and MP alloted to Argentina, the better.

[Bill]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:36:25 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
<chied...@ask.me> wrote:


>Likely ? if UK intervenes is near-sure, but depends on the tactical
>layout and/or the Argentine post-action planning (reach a neutral port &
>internment and/or scuttling, for example)

I very much doubt that the UK will interfere, except possibly on the
Argentine side.

Their Lordships will probably have views best described as 'robust'
when confronted by the idea of someone nailing a writ to the mast of a
naval vessel.

The UK's interests are probably best served by the Ghanaian government
getting their fingers badly burned for following the orders of some
dodgy debt collectors and lawyers trying to collect on a writ from one
of New York's famously over-arrogant commercial courts.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 15/10/2012 22:54, Paul J. Adam ha scritto:

> It's a very long swim even for the Buzos Tacticales.
>
> Okay, so you sneak them and their assorted small-arms and personal
> explosives in aboard a Liberian-flagged rustbucket, crewed by Filipinos
> hired in Panama and allegedly owned by Fuk Yu Shipping of Tsingtao, and
> in a daring night raid they seize the ship and set a course for
> Argentina at ten knots or so.
>
>
> The GNS Achimota catches up to her, fires a 76mm round across her bow,
> and invites her to heave to and surrender, or else volunteer to be a
> target for a live-fire exercise. Not a lot that even elite commandos can
> do with manpack weapons only, against a fast-attack craft at four or
> five kilometres' range that's briskly pounding their ship to burning
> matchwood.
>
> Not sure this really helps the Argentine cause overmuch...

well, you're openly asking for an look into Italian half of argentine
mindset...

Argentina is the lone country I known whose 1970s communist guerrilla
was capable, or allegedly capable, of doing "Italian jobs" (Naval sense)
and, more so if actually these episodes was a false flag operation, one
should NOT consider granted that the most capable Ghanese ships always
capable to intervene against in "commando retaking" scenario.

with this added scenario, whose can easily draw suspects on a Central
Med Navy with the longest list of precedents, and an huge expertise on
the matter, more so I prefer that the fuckup, whatever is, happens
*after* the next Italian election....

[dott.Piergiorgio]

for me isn't much of a tought experiment. This country is used to draw
other countries into unwanted wars, and of course we can notice the
smell of the danger of *being drawn* into unwanted wars (whatever
renders Gibraltar at least an unsafe heaven is a godsend for Argentina,
and with direct agents inside Italian parliament is obvious that
argentina has too many leverages around)

Go figure... it's the least thing everyone wants, for a starter, because
America suddenly finds in a "sophie's choice" between two key allies and
averting the collapse of the NATO (whose isn't the Warsaw pact, an
intra-NATO fighting will put it into a really brittle state)

And an anglo-italo-argentine war, if seriously fought, even if the NATO
survives , the winning side ends seriously crippled, an hard blow for
the western security....

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 15/10/2012 22:54, Andrew Swallow ha scritto:

>>> If Britain wants to help it could send a warship to Ghana on a good
>>> will tour.
>>>
>>> Alternatively the UK could buy the Libertadon and sell it back to
>>> Argentina, possible under a hire purchase scheme.
>>>
>>
>> Now why would we wish to do that ?
>>
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>
> Britain's aim would be to prevent a war.

And an hire purchase scheme, if I understand well what is, is a
sure-fire way to NOT prevent a war, because seriously hurt the Latin
pride of Argentina (a mixture of Italian and Spaniard pride, not a thing
to be handled without care)

[Andrew Swallow]

No problem, they can make a single payment.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

Do not worry. Britain will not be going to war with Argentina over this
one. We do not get the money or the ship or suffer the insult.

Andrew Swallow

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 16/10/2012 17:54, Andrew Swallow ha scritto:

> Do not worry. Britain will not be going to war with Argentina over this
> one. We do not get the money or the ship or suffer the insult.

or (ab)use Ghana as "Franklin device", averting being again the target
of Argentine's socioeconomic frustration.... all what is needed is
looking the other way (inside the "red circle in the waters" around
their S. Atlantic possessions....) save, perhaps a peeking (into ARA
Santisima Trinidad's signature in the "commando retaking" scenario....)

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 16/10/2012 13:48, Bill ha scritto:

> The UK's interests are probably best served by the Ghanaian government
> getting their fingers badly burned for following the orders of some
> dodgy debt collectors and lawyers trying to collect on a writ from one
> of New York's famously over-arrogant commercial courts.

All UK needs on this point is a too predictable cyclical reduction of
radar's power output, wink, wink &c..

Argentine get back their sacred TS, forgot about malvinas for a while,
HMS QE commissioned, ad everything quiet for three or four decades...

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 16/10/2012 17:41, Andrew Swallow ha scritto:

>> And an hire purchase scheme, if I understand well what is, is a
>> sure-fire way to NOT prevent a war, because seriously hurt the Latin
>> pride of Argentina (a mixture of Italian and Spaniard pride, not a thing
>> to be handled without care)

>

> No problem, they can make a single payment.

with what money ?

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

P.s. perhaps there's a misunderstanding on what you mean for "hire
purchase scheme"....

[Keith W]

Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:40:58 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Or, even worse, finds that she's linked up with something from
>>> Argentina has that still floats and makes any West African navy
>>> look a touch anemic......
>>
>> Which, of course, nobody noticed making ready, embarking supplies
>> for a long trip, setting sail with a tanker in tow...
>>
>> The whole point of using the sneaky-beaky wetsuits-and-MP5 mob is
>> that they're stealthy and deniable. If they're unobtrusive
>> themselves but getting their supporting assets ready, deployable and
>> deployed are a veritable marching band with accompanying fireworks
>> display... you sort of blew the "stealthy" part.
>
> Once you're bob bob bobbing about in international waters you're away
> clear.
>

No you are not. An act of military agression does not
become null and void because you get 12 miles off the coast.

The Argentines have reason to know otherwise

Keith

[Andrew Swallow]

What money - that is a good question. To solve the problem accept
Argentinian currency. Britain would just have to buy some beef or
something.

Andrew Swallow

[Keith W]

I repeat why should Britain bail out am unfriendly country ?

Keith

[Paul J. Adam]

On 16/10/2012 09:18, Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:40:58 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The whole point of using the sneaky-beaky wetsuits-and-MP5 mob is that
>> they're stealthy and deniable. If they're unobtrusive themselves but
>> getting their supporting assets ready, deployable and deployed are a
>> veritable marching band with accompanying fireworks display... you sort
>> of blew the "stealthy" part.
>
> Once you're bob bob bobbing about in international waters you're away
> clear.

Not even slightly, in fact it makes matters worse if you're trying to be
deniable. If your crew of cut-throat commandos are trying to be "not
Argentinean", who do they appeal to and who do they beg help from when
the Ghanian Navy intercepts them in international waters? If Ghana still
claims title to the ship, and the current crew are "not Argentinean",
then Ghana can give themselves clearance to stop and board without any
demur.

>> Argentina doesn't deploy its ships as far as the Falklands much, if an
>> Argentine MEKO was cutting about off Ghana it is getting _noticed_
>> because they _can't do that_ normally. Doesn't mean it's not possible,
>> but it means their doing so is _different_ and means much money and
>> effort has been spent (for a nation that's broke) and so is a serious
>> and hard-to-miss warning sign.
>>
>> Also, there's the historic point: the Argentine surface navy decided to
>> hide-with-pride in 1982 when the fight was readily accessible. Where are
>> they getting the backbone transplant to send a ship thousands of miles
>>from home to start a war?
>
> If there's one thing Argentina was never short of it was flamboyant
> officers with an eye on the chance for a 'spectacular'.

...whose execution in detail frequently fell well short of the
intentions, especially when the opposition turned out to have a little
more common sense, backbone or courage than the planning assumptions -
or when the technical means had been prepared and maintained with more
flamboyance than skill.

Compare the sortie rates in 1982 - A-4 Skyhawks are simpler aircraft
than Sea Harriers and they're flying from land bases, yet their on-task
sortie rate is under 25% while the SHars are 90% or more. Or the torpedo
fire control kit on the ARA San Luis, with the primary broken and the
reversionary mode wired back-to-front. Or even the material state of the
Belgrano, with hatches seized shut by paint - did they ever even set
Condition Yankee to enter or leave harbour?

>> Or are those Buzos Tacticales going to seize the ship and then discover
>> that the frigate that was _meant_ to be backing them up is still in
>> Punta Arenas, proffering a note from its Mum saying it's not very well
>> and can't play today?
>
> You launch your attack from the frigate...
>
> And the accompanying submarine.
>
> And what on earth makes you think a West African navy can shoot
> straight or even wants to?

The same thinking that lets Argentina get a frigate and a submarine
peeled off the jetty and deployed across the Atlantic, in some semblance
of operational state, with nobody significant thinking "that's bloody
unusual" - they're both about as credible as each other...

>> Not if they start flying Argentine flags and an Argentine warship starts
>> threatening violence off the coast of West Africa in support.
>>
>> They might get away with it through surprise, good intelligence and good
>> planning - but if it goes wrong it either fails (and Buenos Aires hopes
>> nobody squeals) or else it goes overt when Argentine military assets
>> start threatening violence.
>
> As I said, if they get away with it nobody's going to start shooting
> in international waters.

Ghana won't, because they don't need to - unless the Argentines do
something stupid.

> Also...
>
> Once they're away how do the Ghanaians find them?

A local revenue cutter from the port she fled shadows them for a couple
of hours or even days (depending on the cutter & the local alert state),
calling in updates, while the Navy and Coast Guard assets shake
themselves out. This ship's good for maybe twelve knots flat-out on
diesels, she's not going to outrun anybody.

Apart from anything else, though, has she got her AIS on correctly? If
she has, she's easy to find. If not, she's in violation of SOLAS rules,
and it's the flag state's responsibility to correct the situation
soonest - which is Ghana again unless our wetsuited cowboys have run up
an Argentine ensign.

It's just not a particularly sensible plan for Argentina, however you
look at it: too many ways it can go wrong, too few happy endings available.

[Bill]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:45:16 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
<paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 16/10/2012 09:18, Bill wrote:

>> Once you're bob bob bobbing about in international waters you're away
>> clear.
>
>Not even slightly, in fact it makes matters worse if you're trying to be
>deniable. If your crew of cut-throat commandos are trying to be "not
>Argentinean", who do they appeal to and who do they beg help from when
>the Ghanian Navy intercepts them in international waters? If Ghana still
>claims title to the ship, and the current crew are "not Argentinean",
>then Ghana can give themselves clearance to stop and board without any
>demur.

My understanding is that Ghana is not claiming the ship.

The Ghanaian bailiffs have nailed a writ to the mast on behalf of a
bunch of dodgy lawyers who have bought some Argentine government debt
previously defaulted on and are attempting to seize Argentine assets
in Ghana.

>> If there's one thing Argentina was never short of it was flamboyant
>> officers with an eye on the chance for a 'spectacular'.
>
>...whose execution in detail frequently fell well short of the
>intentions, especially when the opposition turned out to have a little
>more common sense, backbone or courage than the planning assumptions -
>or when the technical means had been prepared and maintained with more
>flamboyance than skill.

We are still talking about Ghana aren't we?

[Paul J. Adam]

On 17/10/2012 22:10, Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:45:16 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not even slightly, in fact it makes matters worse if you're trying to be
>> deniable. If your crew of cut-throat commandos are trying to be "not
>> Argentinean", who do they appeal to and who do they beg help from when
>> the Ghanian Navy intercepts them in international waters? If Ghana still
>> claims title to the ship, and the current crew are "not Argentinean",
>> then Ghana can give themselves clearance to stop and board without any
>> demur.
>
> My understanding is that Ghana is not claiming the ship.

That seems to be the case, which changes things a fair bit: if Ghana
particularly wanted it they'd be fairly well placed to keep it, but if
it's just other people having a paralegal squabble in their waters
they're likely to just shrug and watch it play out.

>>> If there's one thing Argentina was never short of it was flamboyant
>>> officers with an eye on the chance for a 'spectacular'.
>>
>> ...whose execution in detail frequently fell well short of the
>> intentions, especially when the opposition turned out to have a little
>> more common sense, backbone or courage than the planning assumptions -
>> or when the technical means had been prepared and maintained with more
>> flamboyance than skill.
>
> We are still talking about Ghana aren't we?

US Special Forces will never lose multiple helicopters and eighteen dead
in one bad day of fighting a ragtag African militia, will they?

If you're assuming that the locals are all corrupt, incompetent and
cowardly, and your plan depends on them all being so... a couple of
exceptions could badly spoil your day.

[Bill]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:18:18 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
<paul....@gmail.com> wrote:


>US Special Forces will never lose multiple helicopters and eighteen dead
>in one bad day of fighting a ragtag African militia, will they?

As far as anyone can make out they didn't run into a rag-tag militia,
they ran into an area with an armed population who were sick and tired
of being preyed on by warlords and who weren't prepared to take any
shit from anyone.

As soon as the Pakistani Army (an organisation used to dealing with
pissed off locals who are armed to the teeth) turned up with some
obsolete heavy armour the problems more or less evaporated.

>If you're assuming that the locals are all corrupt, incompetent and
>cowardly, and your plan depends on them all being so... a couple of

>exceptions would badly spoil your day.

I think it's reasonable to expect them to take a couple of hours to
get on the road...

As happened in Abbottabad...

[Ian B MacLure]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:m5hu78djndvk2h0a2...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:18:18 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>US Special Forces will never lose multiple helicopters and eighteen dead
>>in one bad day of fighting a ragtag African militia, will they?
>
> As far as anyone can make out they didn't run into a rag-tag militia,
> they ran into an area with an armed population who were sick and tired
> of being preyed on by warlords and who weren't prepared to take any
> shit from anyone.

Of course had the Klintoon administration allowed the US contingent
real helicopter gunships above and beyond the Little Birds or
oh say some AC-130s the crowds of pissed off locals would have
been so much hamburger. As it was their losses were horrendous.

And having graduates of Ft Eustis Truck Driver School leading
the evac convoy was pure black comedy. Coming to a full stop at
each cross street? Hell the LIPs running up the parallel routes
were apparently able to keep up.

IBM

[Bill]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:22:59 -0500, Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org>
wrote:

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:m5hu78djndvk2h0a2...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:18:18 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
>> <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>US Special Forces will never lose multiple helicopters and eighteen dead
>>>in one bad day of fighting a ragtag African militia, will they?
>>
>> As far as anyone can make out they didn't run into a rag-tag militia,
>> they ran into an area with an armed population who were sick and tired
>> of being preyed on by warlords and who weren't prepared to take any
>> shit from anyone.
>
> Of course had the Klintoon administration allowed the US contingent
> real helicopter gunships above and beyond the Little Birds or
> oh say some AC-130s the crowds of pissed off locals would have
> been so much hamburger. As it was their losses were horrendous.

While the idea of making a large city full of innocents a free fire
zone for a heavy aircraft fitted as a gunship may give you huge
amounts of sexual excitement, it wouldn't ever happen.

And despite the movie about the incident showing nice clear skies, the
whole place was actually shrouded in heavy black smoke from burning
vehicles...

Your super dooper gunships couldn't see their targets. They'd be
shooting at shapes on their thermal imagers and the chances of a 'blue
on blue' would be reasonably high.

The whole operation was badly planned, was against a target who'd
already left the area, used insufficient assets and used a vehicle
type that couldn't survive in that environment.

What they should have done was leave such operations to units with the
armour capable of operating in an urban area defended by light arms.

To try and carry out such an operation with armoured jeeps and 'slick'
helicopters shows a level of arrogance bordering on racism.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 17/10/2012 02:26, Andrew Swallow ha scritto:

> What money - that is a good question. To solve the problem accept
> Argentinian currency. Britain would just have to buy some beef or
> something.

side note, is since the economical fuckup in Argentina that the
exeter-brand beef (by far the best canned beef, IMO) is nowhere to be
found.....

[Ian B MacLure]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3atv789q31ufd50af...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:22:59 -0500, Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:m5hu78djndvk2h0a2...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:18:18 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
>>> <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>US Special Forces will never lose multiple helicopters and eighteen
>>>>dead in one bad day of fighting a ragtag African militia, will they?
>>>
>>> As far as anyone can make out they didn't run into a rag-tag
>>> militia, they ran into an area with an armed population who were
>>> sick and tired of being preyed on by warlords and who weren't
>>> prepared to take any shit from anyone.
>>
>> Of course had the Klintoon administration allowed the US
>> contingent real helicopter gunships above and beyond the
>> Little Birds or oh say some AC-130s the crowds of pissed off
>> locals would have been so much hamburger. As it was their
>> losses were horrendous.
>
>
> While the idea of making a large city full of innocents a free fire
> zone for a heavy aircraft fitted as a gunship may give you huge
> amounts of sexual excitement, it wouldn't ever happen.

AC130s are fairly precise weapon systems.
They would certainly have been able to target the armed mobs
tracking the extraction convoy without turning the area into a
"free fire zone" notwithstanding the fact that you seem to be one
of those idjits stuck in Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam.

> And despite the movie about the incident showing nice clear skies, the
> whole place was actually shrouded in heavy black smoke from burning
> vehicles...

Just like a modern battlefield oddly enough.

> Your super dooper gunships couldn't see their targets. They'd be
> shooting at shapes on their thermal imagers and the chances of a 'blue
> on blue' would be reasonably high.

Where AH64s and AC130s are designed to operate.

> The whole operation was badly planned, was against a target who'd
> already left the area, used insufficient assets and used a vehicle
> type that couldn't survive in that environment.

TOE was determined by Klintoon et al.

> What they should have done was leave such operations to units with the
> armour capable of operating in an urban area defended by light arms.

Of which the US contingent had 0.

> To try and carry out such an operation with armoured jeeps and 'slick'
> helicopters shows a level of arrogance bordering on racism.

Never attribute to malevolence what can be explained by
stoopidity ( stupid on steroids, a hallmark of the Klintoon
regime ).

[Bill]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:48:34 -0500, Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org>

wrote:

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in

>news:3atv789q31ufd50af...@4ax.com:

>
>> While the idea of making a large city full of innocents a free fire
>> zone for a heavy aircraft fitted as a gunship may give you huge
>> amounts of sexual excitement, it wouldn't ever happen.
>
> AC130s are fairly precise weapon systems.

Bollocks, they're an area fire system.

>> The whole operation was badly planned, was against a target who'd
>> already left the area, used insufficient assets and used a vehicle
>> type that couldn't survive in that environment.
>
> TOE was determined by Klintoon et al.

If you honestly believe that tactical objectives and the means to
achieve them are set by politicians then you're living in a fantasy
world of your own rather stupid design.

>
>> What they should have done was leave such operations to units with the
>> armour capable of operating in an urban area defended by light arms.
>
> Of which the US contingent had 0.

Then they should have set their objectives at a realistic level.

>> To try and carry out such an operation with armoured jeeps and 'slick'
>> helicopters shows a level of arrogance bordering on racism.
>
> Never attribute to malevolence what can be explained by
> stoopidity ( stupid on steroids, a hallmark of the Klintoon
> regime ).

Your obsession with the Clinton presidency and its culpability in this
matter borders on the neurotic.

The senior officer present could have resigned at any point and
publicly repudiated his orders,

He chose not to do so.

This implies that he did not consider the mission objectives to be
unachievable.

[Steve Hix]

In article <XnsA0F0E802998...@216.196.121.131>,

Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> wrote:

>
> > What they should have done was leave such operations to units with the
> > armour capable of operating in an urban area defended by light arms.
>
> Of which the US contingent had 0.

And of which the UN (Pakistani, IIRC) unit refused to come out of base to help.

[Bill]

Nope.

The Pakistani armour rescued the Americans in the end.

However they weren't told of the original mission because the US
thought they might leak it to their target.

No tank commander in the world is going to take his men and machines
into an unknown area and face unknown opponents to achieve an unknown
objective...

The US commander requested assistance after his units got bogged down
and discovered that 3rd World armies, much like anyone else, require
time to get heavy mechanised elements on the road, especially when
they don't know what's going on and who is in there, loaded for
bear...

The Pakistani Army got 'on the road' after three hours, which is
pretty good going in my opinion.

To brief senior officers, plan the mission, hold 'O groups', brief
crews, load up the tanks with ammunition and fuel and get on the road
in three hours is quite fast.

The Pakistani Army may well be brutal and corrupt and under the
influence of Muslim fanatics, but they're a professional bunch and
reasonably well trained...

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

It was sold as a humanitarian mission, but the U.S. took sides and
made it a military mission. i.e. the Americans were the bad guys.
If anything the Pakistanis should have stopped the Americans.
;-)

[Bill]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:59:26 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
<dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:

>If anything the Pakistanis should have stopped the Americans.
>

Given the circumstances, how?

[Ian B MacLure]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jlf288tkj3r05pius...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:48:34 -0500, Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:3atv789q31ufd50af...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> While the idea of making a large city full of innocents a free fire
>>> zone for a heavy aircraft fitted as a gunship may give you huge
>>> amounts of sexual excitement, it wouldn't ever happen.
>>
>> AC130s are fairly precise weapon systems.
>
> Bollocks, they're an area fire system.

They have area fire capability but the 105 and 40mm weapons
are fairly precise.

>>> The whole operation was badly planned, was against a target who'd
>>> already left the area, used insufficient assets and used a vehicle
>>> type that couldn't survive in that environment.
>>
>> TOE was determined by Klintoon et al.
>
> If you honestly believe that tactical objectives and the means to
> achieve them are set by politicians then you're living in a fantasy
> world of your own rather stupid design.

Talk to someone who was at Desert One on the Iran hostage rescue
mission. Had Dhimmi Khadr left well enough alone and let the
pros get on with it things might have developed very differently.

>
>>
>>> What they should have done was leave such operations to units with
the
>>> armour capable of operating in an urban area defended by light arms.
>>
>> Of which the US contingent had 0.
>
> Then they should have set their objectives at a realistic level.

Slick Willy's sycophants were calling the shots.

>>> To try and carry out such an operation with armoured jeeps and
'slick'
>>> helicopters shows a level of arrogance bordering on racism.
>>
>> Never attribute to malevolence what can be explained by
>> stoopidity ( stupid on steroids, a hallmark of the Klintoon
>> regime ).
>
> Your obsession with the Clinton presidency and its culpability in this
> matter borders on the neurotic.
> The senior officer present could have resigned at any point and
> publicly repudiated his orders,

In the face of the enemy?

> He chose not to do so.

Slick's chiefs of staff should have gone to Congress. They do I
believe have that right.

> This implies that he did not consider the mission objectives to be
> unachievable.

Imples, sez you.