[DuncanDoenitz]

As a former member of the UK's Royal Air Force, I'm sure my former comrades, and indeed their Argentinian adversaries, will be pleased to know that the Falklands War "only lasted a couple of months and not many sorties were flown".  I'm surprised by your breadth of knowledge on this subject, but you may want to note that Chile was not a belligerent. 

With regard to yesterday's LAN-Chile flight, which horse are you backing; either that it wasn't in Chile, or that it didn't go to Australia? 

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/cc-bbi 

[SteelyBob]

No, you are the one seriously suggesting everything.

Well, if you're suggesting the earth is flat, everything that follows that is coming from you.

Further, you have no scale presented on which to base your distances, supposed RE or FE, on which to make any serious suggestions. You just spout off numbers like you have a clue, when in fact, you do not. Highly irresponsible of you.

An absurd accusation. The radius of the earth is based on the consensus model. 60nm per degree of latitude is based on the known size of actual countries. The UK, as I said before in a previous post that you are completely ignoring or just didn't understand, spans roughly 9 degrees of latitude - 540nm, which tallies well with road journeys and generally agreed distances in the UK. Are you challenging these, or do you accept that this is indeed the size of the UK?

Following on from that, the UK you have on the monopole FE map spans the same rough latitude range, so scaling up from that gives the numbers I've used. If you're suggesting that the monopole FET map is a different size, then fine - let's hear it, but bear in mind that means you're then challenging well-established distances like the size of the UK etc.

Further, you were not there to verify anything about either of the conflicts related to the Falklands. Neither conflict lasted for much more than a couple of months and there were very few sorties flown by either the Argentines or Chileans. Much bluster about nothing and

How do you know they were only short conflict(s)? Were you there? Or can we agree that, in fact, forming a consensus view based on aggregated reports from an era is in fact ok?

And the Chileans didn't take part in 1982, so no, they didn't fly any missions.

The number of sorties flown by the Argentinians is also not particularly relevant - they flew, and that's all we need. As it happens, they flew a great deal, and lost a lot of aircraft. Although none, as far as I know, due to their maps being wrong by a factor of 2.5 .

I doubt you have ever been there at all, for that matter.

If you're demanding that level of personal verification for everything, then you aren't going to get anywhere, are you? How do you even know the Falklands exists? Do you doubt the existence of every country unless you have personally been there? Or do you place some degree of trust in the consensus view? You can't have it both ways - if you are only permitting personally experienced views, then you can't yourself discuss anything or anywhere that you haven't got personal knowledge of. I'd suggest that's a pretty ridiculous way to go about things, but it's your call.

[Action80]

... you were not there to verify anything about either of the conflicts related to the Falklands. Neither conflict lasted for much more than a couple of months and there were very few sorties flown by either the Argentines or Chileans. Much bluster about nothing and I doubt you have ever been there at all, for that matter.

Are you seriously suggesting or hinting that every historical account of every world event that took place should be disregarded if the person relating that account was not there?

Yeah, not everything and not totally disregarded so can that specious approach so typical of your many posts. It's ridiculous.

I am seriously suggesting that history, even yesterday, is not as accurate you and others of your ilk like to portray.

Tell me exactly what you know regarding the US Civil War for instance.

[Iceman]

That is a very poor attempt at diverting from the central question of the matter. The details may be lost, but whether or not planes flew battles around the Falklands, and the round trip distances involved in those battles for Argentinan pilots and craft, is the matter at hand.

If you want to talk about history and the civil war, start a new topic.

[Action80]

As a former member of the UK's Royal Air Force, I'm sure my former comrades, and indeed their Argentinian adversaries, will be pleased to know that the Falklands War "only lasted a couple of months and not many sorties were flown".  I'm surprised by your breadth of knowledge on this subject, but you may want to note that Chile was not a belligerent.

The Falklands War did last only a couple of months, for one.

Two, I didn't state Chile was a belligerent.

With regard to yesterday's LAN-Chile flight, which horse are you backing; either that it wasn't in Chile, or that it didn't go to Australia? 

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/cc-bbi

I am backing the horse named "DuncanDoenitz did not actually watch the entirety of of the flight on the flight tracker app. He only watched an hour or two at most and therefore cannot verify or deny the flight actually went the route portrayed on the app and cannot verify or confirm the flight actually took place as depicted."

[Action80]

That is a very poor attempt at diverting from the central question of the matter. The details may be lost, but whether or not planes flew battles around the Falklands, and the round trip distances involved in those battles for Argentinan pilots and craft, is the matter at hand.

If you want to talk about history and the civil war, start a new topic.

The central question of the matter happens to be "explanations." Explanations are part of history whether you like it or not.

So, a very poor attempt at dismissing something you know to be fact.

[Tumeni]

I am seriously suggesting that history, even yesterday, is not as accurate you and others of your ilk like to portray.

.. but unless you can specify the inaccuracies, you're not really in a position to cast doubt on those who "weren't there" as holding an inaccurate picture ...

[SteelyBob]

The central question of the matter happens to be "explanations." Explanations are part of history whether you like it or not.

So, a very poor attempt at dismissing something you know to be fact.

Argentinians flew jets that can only just fly the RE distance from their bases to and from the Falklands in 1982. They did this lots of times. How long the war was, and how many times they did it, is not relevant at all. It makes no difference. If you are suggesting that this didn't happen, then where did all those jets come from? And don't say 'an aircraft carrier', because most of them weren't capable of that, so let's put that to bed right away. That inaccuracies occur in the recording of warfare is not in dispute. But there is no possible misinterpretation of events here - both sides agree that the events that are central to our discussion actually happened.

You either need to explain how it could have occurred if the distance was so much greater, or redesign the monopole FET map, or some other FET map, in a way you agree with that eliminates this problem.

[Action80]

I am seriously suggesting that history, even yesterday, is not as accurate you and others of your ilk like to portray.

.. but unless you can specify the inaccuracies, you're not really in a position to cast doubt on those who "weren't there" as holding an inaccurate picture ...

And unless you were there, you are not able to hold it as accurate, any more than any other belief.

And that is what it boils down to.

Belief.

There is more evidence for my belief in the inaccuracy of reports than there are for accuracy of reports, especially in today's "wag the dog," circus.

[Action80]

The central question of the matter happens to be "explanations." Explanations are part of history whether you like it or not.

So, a very poor attempt at dismissing something you know to be fact.

Argentinians flew jets that can only just fly the RE distance from their bases to and from the Falklands in 1982. They did this lots of times. How long the war was, and how many times they did it, is not relevant at all. It makes no difference. If you are suggesting that this didn't happen, then where did all those jets come from? And don't say 'an aircraft carrier', because most of them weren't capable of that, so let's put that to bed right away. That inaccuracies occur in the recording of warfare is not in dispute. But there is no possible misinterpretation of events here - both sides agree that the events that are central to our discussion actually happened.

You either need to explain how it could have occurred if the distance was so much greater, or redesign the monopole FET map, or some other FET map, in a way you agree with that eliminates this problem.

See, you don't know that. You have no clue as to whether or not that took place.

You also have no personal idea of the distance involved in the flight.

Here it is apparent you have looked at some maps and tried to intertwine a scale associated with one set of maps and apply to multiple maps.

Things don't work that way.

[DuncanDoenitz]

So your interpretation of history then is that a Skyhawk of the Argentine armed forces didn't actually (for instance) attack the British RFA Sir Galahad, killing many of the troops on board?  The link is to the Wikipedia page on one of the survivors, Simon Weston:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Weston

I don't know your age, nationality or political affiliations, but I do know that I, and some of the posters on this thread, remember these events happening, and know some of the personnel involved. 

[SteelyBob]

See, you don't know that. You have no clue as to whether or not that took place.

You also have no personal idea of the distance involved in the flight.

Here it is apparent you have looked at some maps and tried to intertwine a scale associated with one set of maps and apply to multiple maps.

Things don't work that way.

Well, it seems you agree that the 1982 conflict happened. I'm assuming you agree that the video footage of Argentine aircraft bombing Royal Navy ships around the islands isn't faked, so we have to assume those jets came from somewhere. I'm also sure Simon Weston, as Duncan quite rightly points out, would strongly agree that they were definitely dropping bombs. And then we have accounts like this - https://goefoundation.org/eagles/gonzalez-horacio-mir/

During May 1982, he led 20 combat missions across the nearly 400 miles of open, frigid water to the Malvinas. Facing a lethal British air defense system, they used a very low-level, high-speed attack profile as protection against surface-to-air missiles and relied on speed to evade the British Sea Harriers.
A typical mission consisted of a 45-minute overwater flight to the Malvinas, less than 4 minutes in the target area, and then a 45-minute flight home. Without air refueling capability, the Daggers routinely landed with only 4 minutes fuel remaining.

This is by no means unique - it lines up perfectly with every other account I've seen. 400 statute miles is about 350nm, so entirely in line with my previous posts, and consistent with a high speed subsonic transit at around 450kts for 45 minutes. The monopole FET map, and my calculations above (which you haven't rebutted or attempted to correct - so I guess you agree?) would have that same journey measuring 875nm.

So the distance being quoted are in complete agreement with those from google earth and other maps. But the monopole FET map reckons they're wrong by a factor of 2.5. And the best you've got is 'you weren't there so how would you know'?

[Action80]

So your interpretation of history then is that a Skyhawk of the Argentine armed forces didn't actually (for instance) attack the British RFA Sir Galahad, killing many of the troops on board?  The link is to the Wikipedia page on one of the survivors, Simon Weston:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Weston

I don't know your age, nationality or political affiliations, but I do know that I, and some of the posters on this thread, remember these events happening, and know some of the personnel involved.

I am about as sure any of this actually happened as much as the new head of the ATF here in the states is positive that residents at Waco, TX, fired on government helicopters during the FBI/ATF assault in April of 1993.

I am positive people died then as they die now, but exact cause/perpetrator in this case?

Unknown as far as I am concerned.

[Action80]

See, you don't know that. You have no clue as to whether or not that took place.

You also have no personal idea of the distance involved in the flight.

Here it is apparent you have looked at some maps and tried to intertwine a scale associated with one set of maps and apply to multiple maps.

Things don't work that way.

Well, it seems you agree that the 1982 conflict happened. I'm assuming you agree that the video footage of Argentine aircraft bombing Royal Navy ships around the islands isn't faked, so we have to assume those jets came from somewhere. I'm also sure Simon Weston, as Duncan quite rightly points out, would strongly agree that they were definitely dropping bombs. And then we have accounts like this - https://goefoundation.org/eagles/gonzalez-horacio-mir/

During May 1982, he led 20 combat missions across the nearly 400 miles of open, frigid water to the Malvinas. Facing a lethal British air defense system, they used a very low-level, high-speed attack profile as protection against surface-to-air missiles and relied on speed to evade the British Sea Harriers.
A typical mission consisted of a 45-minute overwater flight to the Malvinas, less than 4 minutes in the target area, and then a 45-minute flight home. Without air refueling capability, the Daggers routinely landed with only 4 minutes fuel remaining.

This is by no means unique - it lines up perfectly with every other account I've seen. 400 statute miles is about 350nm, so entirely in line with my previous posts, and consistent with a high speed subsonic transit at around 450kts for 45 minutes. The monopole FET map, and my calculations above (which you haven't rebutted or attempted to correct - so I guess you agree?) would have that same journey measuring 875nm.

So the distance being quoted are in complete agreement with those from google earth and other maps. But the monopole FET map reckons they're wrong by a factor of 2.5. And the best you've got is 'you weren't there so how would you know'?

Again, you are applying one scale provided on one map to a different map.

That is a faulty approach.

As for your accounts, combat missions aren't fought at cruising, subsonic speeds.

Quick in, quick out, particularly if you're not stealths.

Further, refueling is always an option. As in Duncan's contribution.

[SteelyBob]

Again, you are applying one scale provided on one map to a different map.

What on earth(!) are you talking about? Which maps are you talking about? The monopole FET map is just one map, with one scale, and on it the distance between Argentina and the Falklands is quite clearly a lot larger than the UK's north-south distance. This aligns perfectly with the calculation I showed, which you haven't rebutted, that shows a distortion ratio of around 2.5 at the Falklands' latitude.
 

As for your accounts, combat missions aren't fought at cruising, subsonic speeds.

Oh, this should be good.

Do you have source for that statement? Or is it just wild, wild, baseless speculation? Because, and I could be wrong of course, I was always under the impression that for the kind of early gen fighter that the Dagger is that super cruise was not an option and reheat was therefore needed for supersonic flight, meaning that supersonic excursions were extremely costly in terms of fuel. So 90 minutes+ of supersonic flight would be completely unrealistic, particularly at low level. Also bomb delivery is not viable at supersonic speeds, although again, always happy to be put back in my place with informed sources.

And of course, you still have the slightly awkward issue that our man there mentioned a range and a duration, so you're essentially saying he didn't know how far he was flying.

[Action80]

Again, you are applying one scale provided on one map to a different map.

What on earth(!) are you talking about? Which maps are you talking about? The monopole FET map is just one map, with one scale, and on it the distance between Argentina and the Falklands is quite clearly a lot larger than the UK's north-south distance. This aligns perfectly with the calculation I showed, which you haven't rebutted, that shows a distortion ratio of around 2.5 at the Falklands' latitude.
 

As for your accounts, combat missions aren't fought at cruising, subsonic speeds.

Oh, this should be good.

Do you have source for that statement? Or is it just wild, wild, baseless speculation? Because, and I could be wrong of course, I was always under the impression that for the kind of early gen fighter that the Dagger is that super cruise was not an option and reheat was therefore needed for supersonic flight, meaning that supersonic excursions were extremely costly in terms of fuel. So 90 minutes+ of supersonic flight would be completely unrealistic, particularly at low level. Also bomb delivery is not viable at supersonic speeds, although again, always happy to be put back in my place with informed sources.

And of course, you still have the slightly awkward issue that our man there mentioned a range and a duration, so you're essentially saying he didn't know how far he was flying.

I would love to see your FE monopole map that has a scale listed.

I don't have the problem with range and speed here for the times you offered.

You do.

With the times offered for the distance you claim.

The times and performance of the plane more closely match FE (as claimed by you) than RE (as claimed by you).

Given that fighters will not simply cruise to targets at normal operating speed.

The source  you offered distances and times that do not match RE, given the Israeli plane performance envelope.

[SteelyBob]

I would love to see your FE monopole map that has a scale listed.

It doesn't need a scale does it?! It's a flat (allegedly) earth, and I'm comparing the relative size of one country (which I know, because I live here), with another country. Now don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love it if one of the FE community would be brave enough to do a more detailed map, and perhaps put a scale on it, but that never seems to happen.

I don't have the problem with range and speed here for the times you offered.

You do.

With the times offered for the distance you claim.

The times and performance of the plane more closely match FE (as claimed by you) than RE (as claimed by you).

Given that fighters will not simply cruise to targets at normal operating speed.

The source  you offered distances and times that do not match RE, given the Israeli plane performance envelope.

That just makes no sense at all.

The man in that quote describes a distance of 400 miles. Your FE monopole map has that same distance at around 1000 miles. One of them is right. I'm banking on the man whose life depended on getting it right. You're very welcome to disagree.

[sirtomato]

Oh, this could absolutely be done without a scale. Just look at the map and see the relative size. A scale would just make it even more painfully obvious that these sizes don't match up with real measurements.

This gave me a thought though, I've never seen a FE map with a scale. Maybe I just haven't been looking hard enough