Article

2008-08-04 Terror Networks

Chavez gets Russian fighter jets, warns US Fourth Fleet

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2008-08-04 13:41|| || Front Page|| [11132 views ] Top

#1 Heh. Feeling his oats, is he? It won't be him dying when those planes get locked on and splashed. What a punk

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-08-04 13:54|| 2008-08-04 13:54|| Front Page Top

#2 More targets.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-08-04 14:21|| 2008-08-04 14:21|| Front Page Top

#3 Crappy Argentine maritime strike aircraft gave the British a handful in 1982. Only one missile has to get through...

Posted by gromky 2008-08-04 14:27|| 2008-08-04 14:27|| Front Page Top

#4 "Any gringo ship that sails into brown waters (river waters) will itself turn brown and go to the bottom, because they'll not get through," Chavez said.

If that ever happens, Hugo, the only "brown water" you'll be seeing will be shooting outta your ass.

Posted by tu3031 2008-08-04 14:27|| 2008-08-04 14:27|| Front Page Top

#5 Oh, look. Another line of death *yawn* I seem to recall the last bozo who said something about a "line of death" got his bathroom blown to smitherenes and we didn't hear much from him for a few decades. Now he looks like Michael Jackson. You have been warned!

I say we honor international law in our sailing, and if he's got a problem with that we can pull the plug on another dictator who's drunk on oil.

Posted by DLR 2008-08-04 14:45|| http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html]">[http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html] 2008-08-04 14:45|| Front Page Top

#6 Yes, but the US Navy is NOT the British Navy.

Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick 2008-08-04 14:45|| 2008-08-04 14:45|| Front Page Top

#7 True, only one has to get through.

However, they won't live long enough to launch.

Posted by DarthVader 2008-08-04 14:51|| 2008-08-04 14:51|| Front Page Top

#8 I wonder if the US will need one F-22 or two.

Posted by gorb 2008-08-04 15:00|| 2008-08-04 15:00|| Front Page Top

#9 I wonder if the Venezualan coast is within proper combat radius of Puerto-Rico-based air superiority fighters? It *looks* like it, but I'm not very good on Air Force stuff.

I believe the Argentinian Air Force got their collective asses handed to them during the Falklands, mostly because they had absolutely no margin for messing about over the British fleet and the islands after the long flight from continental air-bases. As I understand it, the Argentinian jets were superior to the British Harriers, but their inability to spare any thrust for dogfighting meant that they lost heavily, basically trading their fielded squadrons for a half-dozen non-essential ship kills.

Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H. 2008-08-04 15:27|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2008-08-04 15:27|| Front Page Top

#10 Personally, I'd argue for a Tomahawk-based answer to the tactical problem of Russian air superiority assets in the hands of the Fascist in Caracas. Su-30MK2 can't be flown from mud postage-stamp runways - you could probably blanket their bases given enough provocation without having to commit air-superiority assets.

Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H. 2008-08-04 15:34|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2008-08-04 15:34|| Front Page Top

#11 Gromky, it was poor damage control and the lack of any effective CIWS (close in weapons system) that gave the British fits a quarter of a century ago. Things are different now.

Actually, they were different just a few years later when the USS Stark was hit by an Exocet basically identical to the ones that sank the larger HMS Sheffield and the enormously larger Atlantic Conveyor in 1982. The Stark survived and returned to service.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2008-08-04 15:34|| 2008-08-04 15:34|| Front Page Top

#12 The big thing for me is:

When will we stop sending this asshat money?

Drill HERE Drill NOW!

No more oil money for dictators.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-08-04 15:41|| 2008-08-04 15:41|| Front Page Top

#13 Now we won't be able to carry out any Orinoco River humanitarian missions with the USS Boxer.

Bummer dude.

Posted by mhw">mhw 2008-08-04 15:43|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2008-08-04 15:43|| Front Page Top

#14 What happened to the proposed buy of CHINESE J10's???

ION FREEREPUBLIC > IRAN THREATENS [again] TO SHUT DOWN THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ, as before likely via a combo of TacAir, TLCMS, Gunboats + SILKWORMS, etc. Compare wid TOPIX [old] > HIZBULLAH THREATENS TO USE SILKWORMS AGZ ISRAELI WARSHIPS OFF LEBANON.

ALso from TOPIX > AHMADINEJAD: PALESTINIAN STATE AND COLLAPSE OF ZIONIST ISRAEL ARE NOT UNACHIEVABLE GOALS.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-08-04 19:18|| 2008-08-04 19:18|| Front Page Top

#15 With 2 hit samples we cant say that Stark is better than Type42 in damage control. Both were crippled and Sheffield went down in towing. Stark has a CIWS and it didn't worked... As far as i know also it appears it is uncertain if Exocets exploded.
Ships are vulnerable to aviation and that is so since Billy Mitchell despite the Navy dreams.

The Argentine performed with honor and courage but their infra-red missiles werent all aspect like the new , at time, AIM-9L that came from NATO stocks, neither their air-to-air tactics were professional, and like it was said their Mirages performed at limit of their range.

Posted by Thor Glineger4862 2008-08-04 19:55|| 2008-08-04 19:55|| Front Page Top

#16 Stark's CIWS was not turned on, nor were AA missiles fired. Same the Israeli ship grazed off Lebanon 2 years ago.

Posted by ed 2008-08-04 20:26|| 2008-08-04 20:26|| Front Page Top

#17 I didn't say that Stark didn't have a CIWS. As ed points out, it wasn't turned on. Sheffield didn't have one. The Stark was hit by two Exocets, and one them definitely exploded.
"Ships are vulnerable to aviation and that is so since Billy Mitchell despite the Navy dreams."
Sure, just ask the owners of the 50+ tankers that were hit by Exocets and Silkworms during the Iran-Iraq war. Oh, wait a minute.
Billy Michell proved only that a defenseless, unmanned, anchored ship with all the hatches open could eventually be sunk by the bombers of the time. The Navy of the time was well aware of the risks, which is why they put so little faith in Mitchell's suicidal level-bombing technique.

The real lesson, a balanced fleet and the ludicrous inaccuracy of high-level attack, had to wait until World War 2.

We do have our own aviation, btw.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2008-08-04 21:30|| 2008-08-04 21:30|| Front Page Top

#18 The subject at hand is not a generalized discussion of air power at sea, but the specific applicability of certain incidents in the Falklands to the current scenario.

A great deal has changed or was different in the first place.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2008-08-04 21:38|| 2008-08-04 21:38|| Front Page Top

#19 According to ignorant moonbats who want naval funds for their own bureaucracies and pet projects, warships have been obsolete at least since the invention of the self-propelled torpedo in 1868.

The same is true of tanks which have been declared extinct almost since the day the first primitive specimens clanked into action on the Somme in 1916. Direct-fire artillery, infantry anti-tank rifles, flamethrowers, mines, shaped charges, and guided missiles have all been declared the agents of the tank's demise. Yet tanks are still here and the current crop are less vulnerable in relative terms than at any time in the past.

How many times have aircraft been declared obsolete by the rise of missiles, most notoriously by the 1957 Defence White Paper that virtually wrecked the British aviation industry? We heard the same zombie-like propaganda resurrected after Gary Powers's U-2 went down over Sverdlovsk in 1960 and, especially, after the 1973 Yom Kippur war. We haven't heard it so much in recent years.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2008-08-04 21:49|| 2008-08-04 21:49|| Front Page Top

#20 Chavez is inhaling too much cocaine. Uncle Sam isn't about to topple him. The real question is what Chavez might do in the region. If he tries to swipe the Dutch Antilles, expect fireworks.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-08-04 22:05|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-08-04 22:05|| Front Page Top

23:56 OldSpook
23:55 gorb
23:43 OldSpook
23:37 OldSpook
23:35 gromky
23:21 gromky
23:16 phxrav
23:05 bigjim-ky
22:57 bigjim-ky
22:43 AzCat
22:42 ed
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:41 AzCat
22:39 Pappy
22:38 ed
22:34 AzCat
22:31 AzCat
22:29 Pappy
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:23 ed
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:17 OldSpook
22:05 Zhang Fei
22:04 Keystone