Slashdot Mirror

According to this some Sea Harriers were flown by RAF pilots;

Mirage IIIEA of FAA Grupo 8 shot down north of West Falkland by Flt Lt Barton RAF in No.801 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder (4.10 pm). Lt Perona ejected safely.

A-4Q Skyhawk of CANA 3 Esc also shot down near Swan Island in Falkland Sound in same incident by Flt Lt Leeming RAF in No.800 Sea Harrier using 30mm cannon (3.12 pm). Lt Marquez was killed.

Puma SA.330L of CAB 601 flew into ground near Shag Cove House, West Falkland attempting to evade Flt Lt Morgan RAF in No.800 NAS Sea Harrier (10.30 am). All crew escaped.

- Two A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5 shot down over Choiseul Sound by Flt Lt Morgan RAF and a third by Lt D Smith in No.800 NAS Sea Harriers using Sidewinders (4.45 pm). Lt Arraras, Lt Bolzan and Ensign Vazquez killed.

Though they were not RAF aircraft they were RAF pilots.

... from my point of view....

She didn't do a very good job at it then: read up on your recent history

As some other poster has already said, this is part of the fallacy of a civilised conflict (or something like that). If you are losing, or otherwise facing overwhelming odds, you are likely to put the rules of engagement on the back burner, and expecting your foes to abide by some arbitary notions of "civilised" behaviour just before you wipe them out or capture them is the most stupid thing you can do and is often life limiting for your side.

Remember the Falklands when some Argentinian conscripts were involved in a "white flag" incident, where we also lost Colonel "H" Jones? If you are scared out of your wits I'm not surprised that people will do such things as it must simply be part of the human survival instinct to do whatever seems necessary to increase your chances. It would also seem far more likely to happen within a poorly trained (ie disciplined) force, or if you are fighting people who _think_ they really have their backs against the wall. So, fighting conscripts (as in the Falklands) or fighting a rag-tag band of religous zealots (*cough*) you should expect them to not abide by the rules, and, in my view, storing their arsenal in their hospitals makes the hospitals a valid target!

"Give me one example where two EU countries went to war (or let others wage war to another EU country) in the last 25 years." First of all, 25 years is an eyeblink. If you think that LESS THAN ONE GENERATION of peace is something to crow about, well bully for you. Second, why does it have to be 2 countries from the EU warring against each other? What does it matter WHO an EU country makes war against? Probably because you're smart enough to realize that this war http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.ht m belies your point. EU countries STILL go to war. I'm not sure the who really matters. "Not in the biological sense of 'instinct'." YES in the biological instinct. When attacked you have two options, fight or don't. The "don't" part can mean any number of things from negotiation to submission, but fighting an attacker IS instinctual. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about here. "The nature of man's social interaction is not, or at least not only, defined by 'instinctive' forms of aggression, and thus, we have a choice between more then one attitude that we use in social interactions." You're trying at a straw man. I never claimed "The nature of man's social interaction is not, or at least not only, defined by 'instinctive' forms of aggression" nor did I imply it. Stop making up points to rail against. Even better, you made my point for me. The very same "choice between more then one attitude that we use in social interactions" allows, hell it GUARANTEES that there will be people that CHOOSE to make war, for any number of reasons. "One can call that 'peacenik-talk', but one can not deny we have continiously progressed towards a less violent society." Agreed however, you seem to have this ill founded belief that war is about violence. Violence is a TOOL used in war. Equating the two is being intelectually dishonest. Here is my final point, which will refute you and all that follow with your view point. As long as people who seek to dominate others are allowed to exist, war is a possibility. Nothing you say can refute that. Evil has and will ALWAYS exist, and if you disagree, you have an incomplete, or purposely distorted understanding of humanity.

except the british navy was the most powerful navy in the world.

By who's account? The British Navy was smaller than the US Navy throughout WWII, and was highly dependent on battleships instead of carriers. It was decisively proved in the Pacific theater that a battleship was no match for the range and offensive ability of a carrier.

Here's a link showing Britian's WWII Naval capacity:

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy. htm

You'll note that they went into the war with only ONE carrier as opposed to the four or five that the US had. The US also had a comparable number of battleships (many lost in the attack on Pearl Harbor). Once the war got in full gear, however, the US managed to construct dozens of Essex class carriers, and a hundred or so Jeep Carriers. Escorts were not a big problem either. Look at this link for a list of retired aircraft carriers. Just about everything up to CV-45 was either in or built for World War II.

That's an amazing naval force that no country in the world has EVER managed to replicate.

The General Belgrano(sic) was also sunk in the by a British Submarine, yes it was a sonar detection but the stealth ship is also very quiet.

The Israelis have sunk Arab war ships in the past with radar homing missiles.

During the First Gulf war the Iraqi's launched several silk worm missiles at the assorted Navies in the gulf.

Finally why isn't the ability to deploy troops with out being stealthy important enough?

in fact Argentina put Skyhawks up against the Sea Harriers in the Falklands war and they're not supersonic.

Here are the Skyhawk Tech Specs - top speed 675 mph - and to jog you memory the Speed of Sound is 761 mph (1,223 km/h).

Here is a link to Skyhawks in Argentina and in the Argentine Forces during the Falklands war.

They did field four Super Etendard Fighters which are supersonic - but not against the Sea Harriers. The Sea Harriers were lost mainly through accidents, SAMs and small arms fire! British Aircraft Lost.

Here's a breakdown of Argentine Aircraft Lost - you'll see they were shot down mainly by missiles - some from ships others by Sea Harriers. The Sea Harrier can thus be seen as a platform for missiles - and can not really be lauded as a performance aircraft - though the VTOL ability is amazing.

I'm no war or fighter nut - these links above were found on Google over a 10 minute period - it's called research - something I don't think you actually did :) No hard feelings just do a Google and show us the links if you feel strongly enough about your position.

Just the facts Man!

in fact Argentina put Skyhawks up against the Sea Harriers in the Falklands war and they're not supersonic.

Here are the Skyhawk Tech Specs - top speed 675 mph - and to jog you memory the Speed of Sound is 761 mph (1,223 km/h).

Here is a link to Skyhawks in Argentina and in the Argentine Forces during the Falklands war.

They did field four Super Etendard Fighters which are supersonic - but not against the Sea Harriers. The Sea Harriers were lost mainly through accidents, SAMs and small arms fire! British Aircraft Lost.

Here's a breakdown of Argentine Aircraft Lost - you'll see they were shot down mainly by missiles - some from ships others by Sea Harriers. The Sea Harrier can thus be seen as a platform for missiles - and can not really be lauded as a performance aircraft - though the VTOL ability is amazing.

I'm no war or fighter nut - these links above were found on Google over a 10 minute period - it's called research - something I don't think you actually did :) No hard feelings just do a Google and show us the links if you feel strongly enough about your position.

Just the facts Man!

in fact Argentina put Skyhawks up against the Sea Harriers in the Falklands war and they're not supersonic.

Here are the Skyhawk Tech Specs - top speed 675 mph - and to jog you memory the Speed of Sound is 761 mph (1,223 km/h).

Here is a link to Skyhawks in Argentina and in the Argentine Forces during the Falklands war.

They did field four Super Etendard Fighters which are supersonic - but not against the Sea Harriers. The Sea Harriers were lost mainly through accidents, SAMs and small arms fire! British Aircraft Lost.

Here's a breakdown of Argentine Aircraft Lost - you'll see they were shot down mainly by missiles - some from ships others by Sea Harriers. The Sea Harrier can thus be seen as a platform for missiles - and can not really be lauded as a performance aircraft - though the VTOL ability is amazing.

I'm no war or fighter nut - these links above were found on Google over a 10 minute period - it's called research - something I don't think you actually did :) No hard feelings just do a Google and show us the links if you feel strongly enough about your position.

Just the facts Man!