NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/02/nfalk02.xml

Yup this has been known about for years.

Nyah that's just bullshit.

Would Argentina really launch another attack on the Falklands?

If I were in the Royal Navy's position, I'd be very leery of relying so heavily on the U.S. for aerial support. To me, eliminating that aircraft programme before a viable replacement enters active service is the naval equivalent of putting the cart before the horse.

Does anyone really care about the Falklands? They're a pile of rocks with even worse weather than Britain.

The Gr9 is better than the FA2.. in fact, far better..it's going to be equipped with some neat new stuff in the future. I daresay by 2012 [is that not the date for the end of ISD for all type 45s?] The royal navy will be a formidable force..
now all we need is a battleship. HMS Royal Oak!

Does anyone really care about the Falklands? They're a pile of rocks with even worse weather than Britain.

True, but those are British citizens, we can't just abandon them.

Does anyone really care about the Falklands? They're a pile of rocks with even worse weather than Britain.

Apparently the UK and Argentina do.

The Argies think their claim to the Falklands is legitimate even though they haven't owned it for 300 years.

Typical military mindset, always worried about how to fight the last war, when they ought to be worrying more about the next one. (The US, for example, went into the Gulf War well-prepared to fight the Vietnamese.)

We have nukes, what need do we have for conventional forces?

Yes I'm being sarky. We don't need the nukes but they suck masses of funding out of the rest of the Navy. If we are going to maintain armed forces lets at least make sure they are useful.

What's wrong with that? There isn't alot of difference between Iraq and Vietnam's capabilities.

Edit: You do realise our nuclear capabilites are entirely SSBN based Wurzelmania and we aren't exactly paying alot to mantain it.

Typical military mindset, always worried about how to fight the last war, when they ought to be worrying more about the next one. (The US, for example, went into the Gulf War well-prepared to fight the Vietnamese.)
The difference is that there is actually discussion in Argentina about reinvading the Falklands. Vietnam, on the other hand, was not discussing dastradly tactics to get the US to invade them again.

yet another reason why a European Army would be a good idea. the USA is sick of providing (pretty much) all the EU's military needs, and the EU needs to grow some balls. its too expensive and would be too radical (for want of a different word) to have each country build up their arms to a suitable level again, so band together under the EU and take advantage of economies of scale!

*waits to be flamed*

For it's illustrious tradition, the British Navy has basically been an anti-submarine arm of NATO for years. :(

Why fight? Make peace not war! :D

No, really, the UK should defend its territories...

They didn't protect our magnificent country (Canada) against the evil American in the 1860's... see what happened? No? Neither do I.

yet another reason why a European Army would be a good idea. the USA is sick of providing (pretty much) all the EU's military needs, and the EU needs to grow some balls. its too expensive and would be too radical (for want of a different word) to have each country build up their arms to a suitable level again, so band together under the EU and take advantage of economies of scale!

*waits to be flamed*
Britain makes all of her own naval equipment, except for the JSF which is actually a multi-national project to which the UK is contributing $10bn and is building a number of the systems. Euromissile has consistently been producing missiles better than their US equivalents for years and British and German forces routinely beat the US in NATO wargames (your carrier got "sunk" by a Dutch deisel-electric submarine for goodness sake).

OPn the other hand, there is no need for European army and it wouldnt work because everyone would speak different languages and have different operating practices. What the European nations need is two things:

1) Co-operation in making hardware (which is being done).

2) To get rid of all of these stupid neo-socialist governments who see defence as nothing more than a good source of funds for the next round of multi-billion pound NHS computer upgrades.

I think it's all well and good to talk about planning for the next war as opposed to the "last war," but there's an old saying that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The U.S. was apparently worried about Saddam being another Hitler when the first Persian Gulf War happened and they didn't want to go the route of Neville Chamberlain and create a monster that took many, many years of brutal fighting to overcome.

As has been outlined earlier, there are stark similarities between Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq with the insurgents and guerilla warfare. I do not think the U.S. is well-suited to fight such combat as they continually run into the same sort of problems with carside bombs and an enemy that can't -- and thus, won't -- slug it out with them on the battlefield. The U.S. frankly has been fighting the wrong battle. If they are going to stay in Iraq, they should be fighting for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people much the same way that Britain did in Malaya. That's how you break the back of the insurgency.

I also think merging into one European military would be a nightmare logistically, especially for non-NATO countries with different weapons systems, different languages, different cultural imperatives. Besides that, you start running into the whole issue of lost sovereignty. I know if I'm a commander in chief of a national military, I'd be really hesitant to give up command of my country's sons to a foreigner. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Or we could just get rid of our nukes.

What do we need them for please?

they didn't want to go the route of Neville Chamberlain and create a monster that took many, many years of brutal fighting to overcome.

You do know that if Hitler had attacked instead of signing the 'peace treaty' we'd have lost right? Better years of brutal fighting than decades of oppression.

Or we could just get rid of our nukes.

What do we need them for please?
To stop people from threatening to destroy us if we dont give them lots of money. Nukes arent actually all that expensive either.

The Argies think their claim to the Falklands is legitimate even though they haven't owned it for 300 years.
More like 150, actually. And the claim is legitimate since they've been protesting the British invasion, when they ilegally expelled the Argentinian settlers, since the beginning.

You do know that if Hitler had attacked instead of signing the 'peace treaty' we'd have lost right? Better years of brutal fighting than decades of oppression.(Note that I posted previously as Majeristan. I was logged into Jolt as one of my puppets.)

You missed my point completely. Chamberlain's problem was not stopping Hitler militarily before he became too powerful for one country to stop him. It took a concerted effort because Chamberlain was too chickenshit to get involved militarily in spite of agreements with I believe the Czechs. It wasn't until he overran Poland that Great Britain finally took action. And it took a wake up call known as Pearl Harbor for the Americans to get off our lazy, isolationist asses and start doing something.

More like 150, actually. And the claim is legitimate since they've been protesting the British invasion, when they ilegally expelled the Argentinian settlers, since the beginning.
You do realise that, by that logic, Argentina legally belongs to the Aztecs? And America legally belongs to the natives as well?

(Note that I posted previously as Majeristan. I was logged into Jolt as one of my puppets.)

You missed my point completely. Chamberlain's problem was not stopping Hitler militarily before he became too powerful for one country to stop him. It took a concerted effort because Chamberlain was too chickenshit to get involved militarily in spite of agreements with I believe the Czechs. It wasn't until he overran Poland that Great Britain finally took action. And it took a wake up call known as Pearl Harbor for the Americans to get off our lazy, isolationist asses and start doing something.
This isnt true, Chamberlain was a great Prime Minister and widely misunderstood. After one of the conferences in Czechoslovakia, when Hitler refused to the peaceful annexation of the Sudetenland and said he was going to invade all of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain actually went back to London and told the authorities to dig air raid shelters and distribute gas masks, because he was prepared to declare war on Germany should Hitler not agree. The reality is that regardless of how horrible it feels to have to sit back and watch Hitler invade nations, if Britain had gone to war with Germany over Czechoslovakia we would have lost and that wouldnt have helped anything. In the event, we were only really able to barely hold off Germany when we went to war in 1939 and Government estimates from 1936 suggested we needed until 1942 to be really ready. Chamberlain also began the whole rearmament process, and without the efforts of him and his government we would not have won WWII, and today there would either be a Communist or Fascist Europe.

Nyah that's just bullshit.

Nope, it's all true.

Nope, it's all true.
Only for a while. I just hope that Labour sees fit to deploy a few SSNs to the Falklands to defend against any Argie attempts on it.

You do know that if Hitler had attacked instead of signing the 'peace treaty' we'd have lost right?

The German troops who marched into the Rheinland DMZ were under strict orders that if they encountered any resistance in force they were to withdraw immediately. Indeed, Hitler wasn't planning on a general offensive until 1945 - the other countries declared war on him early. If they'd done so even earlier, he might have had his plans set back further, which would have given the other nations the opportunity to scale up militarily in a manner that might not be subsequently describable as "half assed".

The Gr9 is better than the FA2.. in fact, far better..it's going to be equipped with some neat new stuff in the future. I daresay by 2012 [is that not the date for the end of ISD for all type 45s?] The royal navy will be a formidable force..
now all we need is a battleship. HMS Royal Oak!

Yes but the Gr9 is a single-purpose bomber, it can't fight enemy aircraft like the FA2.

So basically, in a Falklands-type operation we can't use those Gr9's for bombing duties, because they'll get shot down without FA2 escort to keep all those French-built aircraft off their tails.

Only for a while. I just hope that Labour sees fit to deploy a few SSNs to the Falklands to defend against any Argie attempts on it.

Well, I don't see us needing to fight another war in the Falklands on the same terms, since we actually have a rather large military presence there these days, complete with long range radar, airfield and significant Army presence.

A Falklands-'type' war though... yeah we couldn't fight it from 2006 to 2012(+).

The German troops who marched into the Rheinland DMZ were under strict orders that if they encountered any resistance in force they were to withdraw immediately. Indeed, Hitler wasn't planning on a general offensive until 1945 - the other countries declared war on him early. If they'd done so even earlier, he might have had his plans set back further, which would have given the other nations the opportunity to scale up militarily in a manner that might not be subsequently describable as "half assed".
No they wouldnt, because we were less well prepared than Germany. A prepared Germany could not fight a prepared British Empire, a prepared France and a prepared USSR at the same time. WWI had shown that. Hitler wasnt actually interested in attacking the Western nations at all - he wanted an empire in the East and he wanted war with Russia - a war that he would probably have won had the Western nations not attacked when they did or slightly after.

Britain makes all of her own naval equipment...
Uh... I wouldn't be bragging about it...

Well, I don't see us needing to fight another war in the Falklands on the same terms, since we actually have a rather large military presence there these days, complete with long range radar, airfield and significant Army presence.

A Falklands-'type' war though... yeah we couldn't fight it from 2006 to 2012(+).
We only have a battalion or so there, we dont have enough to fight off a whole Argentinian landing force.

As an aside, the Falklanders dont actually want to be Argentinians. When the Argies landed they drew lines on the roads to try to persuade the Falklanders to drive on the right, but they ignored it and carried on driving the British way:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/Fk82right.jpg

You do realise that, by that logic, Argentina legally belongs to the Aztecs? And America legally belongs to the natives as well?
Erm... the Aztecs? Not very good in history and geography, are we?

The conquered peoples of America are still fighting for their rights and claims on land, don't think they aren't. And many courts have ruled that they have a legitimate claim. Have you heard of the movements in Bolivia and the Zapatista rebels in Mexico?

And yes, if we are to go by treaties, a very large area of the US should belong to the natives, since the US government first recognized them and then broke many of the treaties. And that's why they're being compensated in other ways now.

Argentina has protested the British actions since the start and hasn't received any kind of compensation.

The Falklands are so important to both sides because of the oil reserves the the southern pole, thats it

Argentina has protested the British actions since the start and hasn't received any kind of compensation.
I would support giving the Falklands to the Argentinians so long as the Argentinians hand over all their land and government to the original inhabitants. That's fair.

Although in all honesty, I dont see the point in trying to get everything "back how it was before" as though the mere fact that things used to be a certain way means that that way is virtuous, pure and better. I especially dont understand why people are prepared to invade sovereign nations over getting everything "how it was before".

Uh... I wouldn't be bragging about it...Which would you rather have, American ships? I'd rather use tin foil for other purposes besides ship hulls, thank you very much.

Well, fact is that Thatcher had asked for documents to be drawn up that would deliver dual sovereignty of the islands with Argentina, mostly probably with the intention of fully handing over the islands at a later date, but the Argies decided a war would be more fun...

Uh... I wouldn't be bragging about it...
I tell a lie, we use the Harpoon. A cheap stop-gap missile designed in the 1970s and now one of the worst pieces of rubbish in service anywhere in the world.

Well, fact is that Thatcher had asked for documents to be drawn up that would deliver dual sovereignty of the islands with Argentina, mostly probably with the intention of fully handing over the islands at a later date, but the Argies decided a war would be more fun...
What's all the more ironic is that having fought a war about it, it's now a politically untenable position for a British Government to take. It's effectively saying that those soldiers died for nothing.

I tell a lie, we use the Harpoon. A cheap stop-gap missile designed in the 1970s and now one of the worst pieces of rubbish in service anywhere in the world.

Yeah but our main Anti-Surface ship weapons are the SSN's, using Spearfish... Harpoon was only ever intended to be used in emergencies anyway.

Yeah but our main Anti-Surface ship weapons are the SSN's, using Spearfish... Harpoon was only ever intended to be used in emergencies anyway.
Harpoon is our only effective anti-surface weapon and we need to get rid of it ASAP.

Harpoon is our only effective anti-surface weapon and we need to get rid of it ASAP.

You never hear of the Exocet? or the Sea Skua? Not to mention our subs pack the Spearfish.

Although in all honesty, I dont see the point in trying to get everything "back how it was before" as though the mere fact that things used to be a certain way means that that way is virtuous, pure and better. I especially dont understand why people are prepared to invade sovereign nations over getting everything "how it was before".
It's not a "how it was before" thing. It's a matter of sovereignity. Like Iraq invading Kuwait or Germany invading Poland.

You never hear of the Exocet? or the Sea Skua? Not to mention our subs pack the Spearfish.
We dont use Exocet anymore, and it's French. What more do I have to say?

Sea Skua is a very small short range missile, and Spearfish is good but it's a torpedo, so not all that much use anymore for frigates, destroyers and planes as you need to get too close and you dont have the element of invisible-ness like subs have.

The whole topic seems a bit absurd to me. Of course the Brits could fight another Falklands war. It would be fought in an entirely different manner, however, it could be much more easily done now than then and with almost no British loss of life. In flight refueling, GPS guidance, real time reconnaissance and a little item ya'll are unaware you have yet make prosecution of such a campaign an elementary task by way of contrast to the first.

It's not a "how it was before" thing. It's a matter of sovereignity. Like Iraq invading Kuwait or Germany invading Poland.
Or British colonists invading America and then declaring it a country.

Harpoon is our only effective anti-surface weapon and we need to get rid of it ASAP.

Well like I said, it's only an emergency weapon anyway... UK naval docterine is to use SSN's to screen the fleet and take out threats before they even get the chance to engage the surface ships.

Bleh, what's wrong with using the foredeck Cannons anyway! :sniper:

Well, fact is that Thatcher had asked for documents to be drawn up that would deliver dual sovereignty of the islands with Argentina, mostly probably with the intention of fully handing over the islands at a later date, but the Argies decided a war would be more fun...
Yes, there had been a lot of negotiations back and forth by then and the UK was ready to grant some rights to Argentina, presumably even hand the islands back (making sure that the population was clearly represented, had their rights respected and all that, of course), but the military government of Argentina was going through a very problematic time, with a lot of unrest and lack of support at home.

So, they decided to start the war as a means to rally the people around a common enemy. That was very stupid, because not only did they lose the war, but also whatever remaining support they had, and were forced to give back the power to a civilian authority just one year later.

Liverbreath']The whole topic seems a bit absurd to me. Of course the Brits could fight another Falklands war. It would be fought in an entirely different manner, however, it could be much more easily done now than then and with almost no British loss of life. In flight refueling, GPS guidance, real time reconnaissance and a little item ya'll are unaware you have yet make prosecution of such a campaign an elementary task by way of contrast to the first.
The first Falklands War was only fought 20 years ago, not in the times of Napoleon. Simply put, thanks to defence cuts we no longer have any force projection capability. Not until 2015 anyway, at which point we could mash them. But sadly the Argies arent thick, and if they're going to go for it they'll probably do it around 2008.

Well like I said, it's only an emergency weapon anyway... UK naval docterine is to use SSN's to screen the fleet and take out threats before they even get the chance to engage the surface ships.

Bleh, what's wrong with using the foredeck Cannons anyway! :sniper:
Yeah and our subs are pretty amazing. But what we really need is a good air-launchable missile which would make our carriers equally unstoppable. Especially when the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales are commissioned.

Erm... the Aztecs? Not very good in history and geography, are we?

The conquered peoples of America are still fighting for their rights and claims on land, don't think they aren't. And many courts have ruled that they have a legitimate claim. Have you heard of the movements in Bolivia and the Zapatista rebels in Mexico?

And yes, if we are to go by treaties, a very large area of the US should belong to the natives, since the US government first recognized them and then broke many of the treaties. And that's why they're being compensated in other ways now.

Argentina has protested the British actions since the start and hasn't received any kind of compensation.

Not very up to date on who the Native people are in the US, are we? You are about 10 years behind in the identification of the rightful holders to that title are, and it is not the people who are making the claims. Of couse this is a story still unfolding so there is pleanty of time for you to catch up.

We dont use Exocet anymore, and it's French. What more do I have to say?

That it's pretty bloody effective for a start.

Liverbreath']The whole topic seems a bit absurd to me. Of course the Brits could fight another Falklands war. It would be fought in an entirely different manner, however, it could be much more easily done now than then and with almost no British loss of life. In flight refueling, GPS guidance, real time reconnaissance and a little item ya'll are unaware you have yet make prosecution of such a campaign an elementary task by way of contrast to the first.

-In flight refueling, we had that last time. It took TWENTY ONE refuels to get a single Vulcan bomber to the Falklands and back, and it missed its target.

- GPS guidance, so our bombers can be more accurate on their flight plan as they get shot down due to lack of fighter escort.

- Real Time recon, with what? The Sea King radar choppers? Which will get shot down by enemy aircraft due to having no fighter escort?

Assuming we can spare Three SSN's for such an operation, that means we can hit them with at most thirty Tommahawk missiles. That's it.

After that you're going to be putting Gr9 pilots in insane danger as they try and conduct bombing operations with no FA2's to protect them.

We'd need shore based fighter cover or US help or we just couldn't do it, sorry.

That it's pretty bloody effective for a start.

Nah we can shoot down skimmer type missiles like Exocet with much better results these days due to dedicated defence weapons like the computer-guided Phalanx chaingun.

Nah we can shoot down skimmer type missiles like Exocet with much better results these days due to dedicated defence weapons like the computer-guided Phalanx chaingun.

In which case one must query why sub-launched missiles have any use at all other than cruise missiles.

That it's pretty bloody effective for a start.
It isnt actually that different to the Harpoon really... what we really need is the Yakhont: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Yakhont.html

EDIT: It's bloody hard to shoot that down, even with something like PAAMS, because it travels so fast.

Yeah and our subs are pretty amazing. But what we really need is a good air-launchable missile which would make our carriers equally unstoppable. Especially when the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales are commissioned.

Well we have Storm Shadow, which is kinda like Tommahawk-lite, not a bad weapon at all, but due to a range of only a few hundred miles our bombers will be in grave danger without FA2 escort.

Like you say, once we have a CVF or two we could squash them flat. Unless they cancelled, or downsized to 20,000 tons or something equally fun.

Well we have Storm Shadow, which is kinda like Tommahawk-lite, not a bad weapon at all, but due to a range of only a few hundred miles our bombers will be in grave danger without FA2 escort.
Indeed. Storm Shadow is pretty good, as is the new Brimestone stand off anti-tank missile.

Like you say, once we have a CVF or two we could squash them flat. Unless they cancelled, or downsized to 20,000 tons or something equally fun.
I dont think they'll be downsized, because if they are then they cant take the CTOL JSF and we may have buy that instead of the STOVL one if the USMC decide that they dont want STOVL. What they might do is only build 1 carrier, or build 2 and sell the second to France, who are having problems with not being able to design engines.

In which case one must query why sub-launched missiles have any use at all other than cruise missiles.

Well since standard Navy tactics emphasize the use of Torpedos for ship-hunting, I think the forces are well aware of their limitations.

Skimming missiles do have their uses, but against a decent UK ship/crew you'd need quite a barrage.

Set a harpoon against a second or third rate navy and it's a very different story of course.

True.

Can anyone link me to some good sites for info on the armed forces? I dug up a good one a while back but I lost it. Most of my knowlege is out of date.

True.

Can anyone link me to some good sites for info on the armed forces? I dug up a good one a while back but I lost it. Most of my knowlege is out of date.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Not actually a military site per se, but it has a good section on the British military and those of other nations, as well as most military equipment.

The first Falklands War was only fought 20 years ago, not in the times of Napoleon. Simply put, thanks to defence cuts we no longer have any force projection capability. Not until 2015 anyway, at which point we could mash them. But sadly the Argies arent thick, and if they're going to go for it they'll probably do it around 2008.

I am very much aware of when the Falklands War was fought. In fact I had to help pack out one of your commandos who was bunking with me at Fort Bragg when it kicked off. You have force projection capabilities right now that most are very unaware of. The past twenty years has brought about some changes that are the equivilant to the introduction of the crossbow to warfare. It wiped out hundreds of years of accepted standards. While in flight refueling was a British capability at the time, it was very much more limited than now. As far as the other two, no one had them at that time. They make a difference that the world has never seen, and the British fully enjoy their capabilities. One platoon of British troops now has more firepower avaliable than an entire batallion did 20 years ago.

WHat the hell are you on about? How does in-flight refueling (which was available and used in the first Falklands War) doesnt prevent any casualties from occuring, and doesnt negate the fact that we wont have any aircover for the troop transports. If you are (and I sincerely hope that you arent) suggesting that the RAF should fly Harriers or Tornados from British bases to the Falklands by refueling them however many dozen times on the way there and back only for them to loiter there for a few hours before turning back, then please think about it for a bit more because you are missing the rather obvious flaws in that plan, namely that any mission will have to be planned hours in advance meaning that cover when it is needed would not be there. In addition, even if that system did work perfectly (which it doesnt) then that would at most level the playing field compared with the first time around, not actually help anything. Since 1982 we have lost all of our strategic bomber force, and we're losing carriers and we're losing escorts. We still have the say 5 mile ranged SAMs on our ships. It's utter rubbish and isnt letting our military do its job properly.

Liverbreath']I am very much aware of when the Falklands War was fought. In fact I had to help pack out one of your commandos who was bunking with me at Fort Bragg when it kicked off. You have force projection capabilities right now that most are very unaware of. The past twenty years has brought about some changes that are the equivilant to the introduction of the crossbow to warfare. It wiped out hundreds of years of accepted standards. While in flight refueling was a British capability at the time, it was very much more limited than now. As far as the other two, no one had them at that time. They make a difference that the world has never seen, and the British fully enjoy their capabilities. One platoon of British troops now has more firepower avaliable than an entire batallion did 20 years ago.

All of which is true, but without fighter escorts we can't do any of the following:

- Gain air superiority
- Stop enemy bombing raids before they become a threat
- Project airpower against enemy fleets
- Project airpower against enemy ground targets
- Carry out airborne recon flights

All of this means we're going to be terribly vulnerable in a Falklands type scenario where we're beyond range of friendly CAP's. The carriers would be butchered and the merchant fleet sunk.

Also, what are you going to use as your long range bomber?

20 years ago we had the Vulcan, which could carry a fair payload a long way with in flight refueling.

Now we have... no long range bombers at all. The nearest we have is the Nimrod, which is a maritime patrol aircraft that currently isn't equipped for bombing at all.

Want to use the Tornado bombers? We'd have to refuel each one fourty times in order to project very limited power, and they'd have to be escorted by fighters that were also using air to air refueling.

Even with the UK's resources, we couldn't mount more than a raid or two per day, if that. Hardly force projection.

To project force ashore you need carrier based bombers, and fighters to protect them. Well for six years we're only going to have half of those capabilties, and what's more it'll be the most important half that we'll be without.

I tell a lie, we use the Harpoon. A cheap stop-gap missile designed in the 1970s and now one of the worst pieces of rubbish in service anywhere in the world.

I agree that harpoon is a piece of shit, but it did do a fine job during Operationg Praying Mantis in 1988. As for British ships, they have serious design flaws. I'd much rather have an American DDG than a British one. The Brits have aluminum hulls. That is why so many were lost in 1982. When they took hits, they were more likely to sink due to fire than a steel ship. The Royal Navy also doesn't have a great air defense system like the Aegis on the Burke and Ticonderoga class destroyers.

Liverbreath']Not very up to date on who the Native people are in the US, are we? You are about 10 years behind in the identification of the rightful holders to that title are, and it is not the people who are making the claims. Of couse this is a story still unfolding so there is pleanty of time for you to catch up.
Are we talking about America or the US? Because I was talking about American peoples, not necessarily and not only those in the US. And I'm quite aware that the claims are being made by the native nations and not individuals (although there may be the odd case).

Anyway, what's your point?

I agree that harpoon is a piece of shit, but it did do a fine job during Operationg Praying Mantis in 1988. As for British ships, they have serious design flaws. I'd much rather have an American DDG than a British one. The Brits have aluminum hulls. That is why so many were lost in 1982. When they took hits, they were more likely to sink due to fire than a steel ship. The Royal Navy also doesn't have a great air defense system like the Aegis on the Burke and Ticonderoga class destroyers.

IIRC the RN ships at the time only had Aluminium superstructures and Steel hulls, and IIRC the Aluminium didn't burn but it was in fact something to do with the paint used. I'm not 100% on that though.

Anyway, it's unsurprising that some ships were lost, they were hit by freaking EXOCETS! Exocet will blow a chunk in the side of a ship the size of a small house, and it doesn't tend to matter what your ship is made of at that point.

The RN does have Vertically launched Sea Wolf, which is better than AEGIS at short range, and we're getting PAAMS which should equate to AEGIS on an operational basis, once the Type 45's are in service.

Size will help survival however, so if my ship was actually certain to be hit, I'd rather be on a US cruiser-sized 'escort'... ;)

I agree that harpoon is a piece of shit, but it did do a fine job during Operationg Praying Mantis in 1988.
I agree it's not awful but we could do a lot better. I'd like to see Britain made her own missile and sell it abroad. The US has the Harpoon, France has the Exocet, even Italy has one. Russia has world beating missiles.

As for British ships, they have serious design flaws. I'd much rather have an American DDG than a British one. The Brits have aluminum hulls. That is why so many were lost in 1982. When they took hits, they were more likely to sink due to fire than a steel ship. The Royal Navy also doesn't have a great air defense system like the Aegis on the Burke and Ticonderoga class destroyers.
They used to be. We stopped making ships out of aluminium after the first war. On the other hand, we would have lost far more ships (regardless of what they're made of) if the Argies had bombed from the correct height. I doubt they'll make the same mistake again.

The RN does have Vertically launched Sea Wolf, which is better than AEGIS at short range, and we're getting PAAMS which should equate to AEGIS on an operational basis, once the Type 45's are in service.
Sea Wolf is too short ranged... when we have PAAMS (which will outrange our radar pickets until we get some aircraft again :S) things will be different, but then things will be different when we have some carriers, which will happen around the same time.

On the other hand, we would have lost far more ships (regardless of what they're made of) if the Argies had bombed from the correct height. I doubt they'll make the same mistake again.

Or if they'd set the timing fuse properly... a five minute job that would have meant at least another half dozen, maybe more, detonations.

Can't fault the bravery of their pilots though.

One thing people are forgetting is that after 1982 Argentina was practically left without a fleet and air force, and haven't recovered. I doubt they're able or willing to carry out a new invasion in the same scale. Besides, the government now is totally different today as it was then.

So, maybe the UK is unnable to fight another Falkland War, but so are the Argentinians.

One thing people are forgetting is that after 1982 Argentina was practically left without a fleet and air force, and haven't recovered. I doubt they're able or willing to carry out a new invasion in the same scale. Besides, the government now is totally different today as it was then.

So, maybe the UK is unnable to fight another Falkland War, but so are the Argentinians.

Actually they have recovered, they once again have a modern and well equipped armed forces.

Lucky they're a democracy now, because democracies never invade other countries!

Or if they'd set the timing fuse properly... a five minute job that would have meant at least another half dozen, maybe more, detonations.

Can't fault the bravery of their pilots though.
Indeed not. It was just sad that most of their army, navy and airforce was made up of 19 year old conscripts from what I read.

One thing people are forgetting is that after 1982 Argentina was practically left without a fleet and air force, and haven't recovered. I doubt they're able or willing to carry out a new invasion in the same scale. Besides, the government now is totally different today as it was then.
There is actually talk in Argentina about trying to invade again. It's by no means certain, but I wouldnt be suprised if it happened. The British Government has given Chile some BAT (British Antarctic Territory) land in exchange for basing positions for the SAS along the Argentinian border.

An interesting discussion.

My thoughts: Before wondering how UK would retake the Falklands in the event of another invasion, one must ask what the Argentinos are using. As I recall, in the '82 war they had to make their own sorties from bases in Argentina, limiting their loiter time and payloads. Has the air field in Stanley been upgraded? According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Air_Force), their air force is still armed with a handful of Mirages, Skyhawks, and Pucaras. Air superiority does not always mean fighters. Could an amphibious UK force armed with SAMs be able to retake the islands?

What other such scenarios exist for the UK? The need for these fighters is fairly apparent for a Falklands scenario, but what others? France invades the Channel Islands? Cyprus takes the sovereign bases? Ireland invades the north?

Type 22 Batch 3 Frigates still use the Exocet, the real reason they're kept around is because their anti-ship capapbility was designed from beginning whereas the newer Type 23s had it hastily fitted following the Falklands War, amongst other things.

Regardless of what Argentina may or may not be thinking about doing under circumstances the article listed was about a Falklands-esque war not another war in the Falklands.

Lots of valuable experience gained during the Falklands, prevented other more serious cuts to the defence forces but as is usual with politicans they change and the lessons are forgotten, so it'll take another bloody nose before we remember the lessons again. For a little while.

To be honest I'm not surprised they've come to the decision to remove one jet fleet, they were taking about it in 1999, there was a leaked memo suggesting that one of the jet fleets in service needed to be removed in order to save funding but at that time all of the fleets were potential targets. I shudder at the idea of the RAFs Tornado ADVs having been retired at the time or around then.

Politicians just don't understand, as it was in the 60s a Labour government is ripping the heart out of the armed forces and hasn't quite realised it.

Interesting article - but why would we invade Argentina again anyways? God knows there probably isn't anything there we want anyway. We can always beat them at football... :p

Prae, is your msn working?

Err... we didn't invade Argentina, they invaded the Falklands in 82 and the article mentioned at the start states how we wouldn't be able to fight a Falklands esque conflict. Once again it does not say we're about to fight a war in the Falklands, the point being a conflict on British territory beyond the range of friendly land-based aircraft.

There is actually talk in Argentina about trying to invade again. It's by no means certain, but I wouldnt be suprised if it happened. The British Government has given Chile some BAT (British Antarctic Territory) land in exchange for basing positions for the SAS along the Argentinian border.
I'm sure there's talk, there's always talk, but I doubt it's serious talk. I think Argentina is, or should be, more concerned with increasing trade with Europe and their neighbors than getting in a war over the Falklans.

Do you have a link or source to that deal with the Chileans? I find it unlikely that Britain would cede part of their claim to Antarctica, especially if you consider that any attacking force from Chile would have to be supplied through the Magellan strait and then go over the Andes. That's bloody difficult.

Interesting article - but why would we invade Argentina again anyways? God knows there probably isn't anything there we want anyway. We can always beat them at football... :p
What about the beef? That's very good beef, you know.

Wow. I don't think I've ever read so much concentrated ignorance of naval hardware and tactics in a single place. Especially that bit about the Sea Wolf being as good as Aegis. That one was pretty funny. The sensor package attached to the Sea Wolf is comparable to that on an Aegis ship only after the Aegis ship has suffered a 100% casualty to the SPY-1.

With SPY-1 operational, the Aegis ship can engage as many targets as it likes simultaneously, since it only needs the 3 (4 on a cruiser) Mk99 FCS Directors for the last couple of seconds for terminal guidance. So as long as the intercepts are timed so the directors can be switched adequately, the ship can have hundreds of missiles in the air at the same time. More than it carries, actually. The Sea Wolf has two FCS radars, the Marconi 911s, which would be needed for the entire engagement. Two radars means two simultaneous engagements maximum. Enemies can fire three Exocets and forget about the target.

The Seawolf missile itself has a rather glaring shortcoming. With a max altitude of 3000m, it can't reach a high-altitude bomber. Bad news. The SM2 missile fired by Aegis ships, by contrast, is about to receive an upgrade that will allow it to hit ballistic missiles mid-flight. The current SM-2 MR has a max altitude of 24km, and it goes that high on a typical air engagement as part of its natural attack profile. The newer Extended Range version goes even higher.

I also enjoyed all the hand-wringing over the Harpoon missile, and about surface ship engagements in general. After all, it has only been sixty-five years since the Japanese and Americans proved that surface ships will never get anywhere near each other in battle again. The Harpoon is good enough, considering that the chances of two surface ships firing at each other in combat are slim to none. The US even discontinued its alternative, the TASM (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile, which was developed along with its famous twin, the TLAM - Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile) because the need simply isn't there.

Then there's all that delightful stuff about the Brits making their own hardware. Since the Sea Harrier was the start of this topic, I thought you might like to know what goes into it. Read this article and count the number of times "Raytheon" appears. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fa2/

Then take a look at this picture of the HMS Manchester and tell me what the white R2-D2 shaped thingy is near the bottom right. http://www.hazegray.org/features/nato/uk/t42b3/man10.jpg

I'm sure there's talk, there's always talk, but I doubt it's serious talk. I think Argentina is, or should be, more concerned with increasing trade with Europe and their neighbors than getting in a war over the Falklans.
...and so we should just ignore it and hope it'll go away? That's a rather naive and dangerous attitude for a government to take with peoples' lives at stake, dont you think? And believe it or not a government is capable of doing more than one thing at once :S. And trade with Europe? There's already a free market. What more do you want from us?

Do you have a link or source to that deal with the Chileans? I find it unlikely that Britain would cede part of their claim to Antarctica, especially if you consider that any attacking force from Chile would have to be supplied through the Magellan strait and then go over the Andes. That's bloody difficult.
No they ceaded part of the BAT to get the agreement to an SAS base, not because of fear of invasion. Another reason is probably that the US and Russia dont recognise Antarctic claims and so HMG is trying to get as many nations to recognise it as possible before the oil runs out in the rest of the world and Britain becomes ultra rich.

Apparently the UK and Argentina do.


LooL A bit of land who cares who's name is on the paperwork, as long as its policed I couldn't give a rats ass... At the end of the day land is mud and mud is crap, another war over mud is pointless and stupid !!

It would never happen again.

<Rangling about US SAM equipment>
Yes, the RN's air defence is crap right now. Type 45, however, will be equipped with the best RADAR ever built, and PAAMS (Aster 15 and Aster 30) which is superior to SM3 and those silly little Phalanx plink-guns.

<Rangling about the Harpoon not being an out of date piece of rubbish and how the US and Japan invented the aircraft carrier (err... no, that was the RN>
You're right, the chances of a ship armed with Harpoon getting into range of another ship? Virtually 0. The chance of a ship with Yakhont getting in range, pentrating the CIWS systems and SAAMs due to its multimach speed and then destroying or disabling its target due to its large warhead? Pretty high. According the official US government reports US anti-missile defences couldnt stand up to a Yakhont attack, and the Taiwanese have decided that the only way they can protect their navy from the Yakhont armed Sovermenies is just not to get in range of anything.

Now, despite the undeniable usefulness of the aircraft, aircraft need to actually fire something. What, you ask? A missile, I reply. We need a good missile that can rival Yakhont and fast, and the US doesnt look like it's going to make one.

<Rangling about the US making most of British tech>
And who actually invented the concept of a VTOL aircraft? Britain. Not bad considering your massive economic advantage. Oh, and look at a list of who makes all of the systems for the F35 and see how many times "BAe Systems" appears.


Anyway, sorry about that. According to the "Who would have been a Nazi" test I rate 76% on the blind patriotism rating comapred to the average of 35%. I have to let it out somewhere.

Bluestrips2']LooL A bit of land who cares who's name is on the paperwork, as long as its policed I couldn't give a rats ass... At the end of the day land is mud and mud is crap, another war over mud is pointless and stupid !!

It would never happen again.
That's not the point. It's our mud, and the people who live there want said mud to belong to Her Majesty, not some Argentinian.

<Insert Churchill-esqu speech>

Cabinia, nobody said the Sea Wolf is as good as Aegis, the comparison was between PAAMS and Aegis. Considering Aegis is a system and Sea Wolf is a missile I don't think I've seen such ignorance of naval hardware.

For it's illustrious tradition, the British Navy has basically been an anti-submarine arm of NATO for years. :(and how did the Anti-Submarine arm of Europe did at the Falklands War ???

Cabinia, nobody said the Sea Wolf is as good as Aegis, the comparison was between PAAMS and Aegis. Considering Aegis is a system and Sea Wolf is a missile I don't think I've seen such ignorance of naval hardware.

Nobody?

The RN does have Vertically launched Sea Wolf, which is better than AEGIS at short range...

How do those words taste?

And if you can read, you'll notice that I compared them on a missile-to-missile basis (SM-2 vs. Seawolf) as well as a system level (Aegis sensor package versus Type-23 sensor package). The only ignorance involved here stems from your inability to interpret the written word.

Nukes arent actually all that expensive either.how much?

More like 150, actually. And the claim is legitimate since they've been protesting the British invasion, when they ilegally expelled the Argentinian settlers, since the beginning.interesting...

Cabinia, nobody said the Sea Wolf is as good as Aegis, the comparison was between PAAMS and Aegis. Considering Aegis is a system and Sea Wolf is a missile I don't think I've seen such ignorance of naval hardware.


Seawolf submarines... quality made in Connecticut at the Electic Boat shipyard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter_%28SSN-23%29

and how did the Anti-Submarine arm of Europe did at the Falklands War ???

Against Argentina? Fine, fine... Good thing they had American satellite recon, tho. ;)

I tell a lie, we use the Harpoon. A cheap stop-gap missile designed in the 1970s and now one of the worst pieces of rubbish in service anywhere in the world.isnt the Harpoon a poor's-man Exocet?

It's effectively saying that those soldiers died for nothing.Soldiers died for nothing....

It happens very often...

Yes, the RN's air defence is crap right now. Type 45, however, will be equipped with the best RADAR ever built, and PAAMS (Aster 15 and Aster 30) which is superior to SM3 and those silly little Phalanx plink-guns.

PAAMS is pretty sweet, but I wouldn't rush off to say the Aster 15 and Aster 30 are superior to the SM3. They're not ready for primetime when it comes to Theater Ballistic Missile Defense. Check out the comparison on this page... just scroll down to the heading, "Anti-Ballistic Missile Capability."
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/paams.htm

As for the Phalanx, you're comparing apples and orangutans.


You're right, the chances of a ship armed with Harpoon getting into range of another ship? Virtually 0. The chance of a ship with Yakhont getting in range, pentrating the CIWS systems and SAAMs due to its multimach speed and then destroying or disabling its target due to its large warhead? Pretty high. According the official US government reports US anti-missile defences couldnt stand up to a Yakhont attack, and the Taiwanese have decided that the only way they can protect their navy from the Yakhont armed Sovermenies is just not to get in range of anything.

Official US government reports that they can't defend against the Yakhont? Surely you have a link to back up that claim.

Considering the force projection of an aircraft carrier, it's still highly unlikely that a surface combatant would have the opportunity to fire one at another surface combatant. A sub has a decent chance of popping up and firing one, as does an attack aircraft. But surface ships don't sneak up on anyone.

And I never said Japan and the US invented aircraft carriers. What is obvious, however, is they were the first to employ them in war and, together, rewrote the manual on naval combat.

Now, despite the undeniable usefulness of the aircraft, aircraft need to actually fire something. What, you ask? A missile, I reply. We need a good missile that can rival Yakhont and fast, and the US doesnt look like it's going to make one.
I agree that it's an area of need. But it doesn't really matter if your anti-ship missile is outdated if you can easily launch fifty of them at once on a single target. At the moment that project has to wait in line behind the JSF project, TBM advancement, and development of a viable naval gunfire support solution. The last two are quite a bit more important.

And who actually invented the concept of a VTOL aircraft? Britain. Not bad considering your massive economic advantage. Oh, and look at a list of who makes all of the systems for the F35 and see how many times "BAe Systems" appears.

Anyway, sorry about that. According to the "Who would have been a Nazi" test I rate 76% on the blind patriotism rating comapred to the average of 35%. I have to let it out somewhere.
I never said the British didn't invent the Harrier engine, nor did I say the JSF was a strictly American project. I'm not such a blind homer.

...and so we should just ignore it and hope it'll go away? That's a rather naive and dangerous attitude for a government to take with peoples' lives at stake, dont you think? And believe it or not a government is capable of doing more than one thing at once :S.
It has to be taken as seriously as it is. Just talk doesn't mean it will happen or that that government has real plans to take action. Of course, a responsible government is prepared to react to changing signals.

And trade with Europe? There's already a free market. What more do you want from us?
From you? Nothing, my statement was along the lines that Argentina should be more interested in promoting its own products in Europe and attracting foreign investment. Hostility towards the UK certainly won't help that.

No they ceaded part of the BAT to get the agreement to an SAS base, not because of fear of invasion. Another reason is probably that the US and Russia dont recognise Antarctic claims and so HMG is trying to get as many nations to recognise it as possible before the oil runs out in the rest of the world and Britain becomes ultra rich.
I don't think that'll happen. The member countries, including the UK, decided to ratify the Antarctic treaty, so I doubt that the claims there will go anywhere in several decades.

I wouldn't worry too much about another Falklands war. They all know that Britain backed America when everyone else wouldn't, and America has their back. We will make them our bitch if they messed with Britain!

I wouldn't worry too much about another Falklands war. They all know that Britain backed America when everyone else wouldn't, and America has their back. We will make them our bitch if they messed with Britain!They are already "your" bitch.

I wouldn't worry too much about another Falklands war. They all know that Britain backed America when everyone else wouldn't, and America has their back. We will make them our bitch if they messed with Britain!

Assuming it comes to a head in 2008 it will be the acid test for Tony Blair. If the US leaves us to it Labour might well take the biggest hit ever.

Assuming it comes to a head in 2008 it will be the acid test for Tony Blair. If the US leaves us to it Labour might well take the biggest hit ever.

Assuming a Democrat gets elected in '08, the chances are good Britain ends up going it alone. If a Republican is elected, though, he'll just spin us a bunch of lies about how the Falklanders are harboring Bin Laden. Them thar re-publicans can't hardly pass up a chance to whup some ass. Yee haw!

Assuming a Democrat gets elected in '08, the chances are good Britain ends up going it alone. If a Republican is elected, though, he'll just spin us a bunch of lies about how the Falklanders are harboring Bin Laden. Them thar re-publicans can't hardly pass up a chance to whup some ass. Yee haw!

As I understood it the election happens late in the year and the actual investiture in 2009. So it'll be Bush either

a) Showing his skills as CinC by taking an easy win in the Falklands make the Repulicans look strong and honourable.

b) Saying 'your problem' and quite possibly killing Anglo-American relations, at least the UK would be a lot more wary.

Dont you think ppl?.... hundreds of nations all paying for the upkeeps of their armies and navies etc.. billions upon billions of dollars every single year, money spent on weapons+equipment+machines and so forth that are all primarily designed to kill humans.
What sheer lunacy, homo sapiens is the most psychotic species on earth, without any doubt!
A complete waste of money that instead could be eradicating child poverty or curing cancers or exploring Mars.

Why not a one world army to police the planet, from within and without? (and everyone helps a little or a lot with the cost)

Dont you think ppl?.... hundreds of nations all paying for the upkeeps of their armies and navies etc.. billions upon billions of dollars every single year, money spent on weapons+equipment+machines and so forth that are all primarily designed to kill humans.
What sheer lunacy, homo sapiens is the most psychotic species on earth, without any doubt!
A complete waste of money that instead could be eradicating child poverty or curing cancers or exploring Mars.

Why not a one world army to police the planet, from within and without? (and everyone helps a little or a lot with the cost)
Sure, and who gets to control that "one world army"? If it's not the USA I'm out. If it is the USA I'm sure alot of others wouldn't want anything to do with it. If it's the UN, we're all screwed. Corruption, child molestation, and thumb-up-the-ass ineffectiveness would be the rule, judging from the UN's past performance.

Why not a one world army to police the planet, from within and without? (and everyone helps a little or a lot with the cost)

And who would you trust with all ther power in the world? I wouldn't trust myself with it.

if Argentina started another war over the falklands, i hope that we blow their military into a million pieces and then make Argentina part of the United Kingdom.

The people in the Falklands are British citizens who have even voted to remain part of the UK.. if they invade there the UK would respond with its full force and Argentina would again, lose.

Sides, if war was declared its not extremely difficult to bring Harriers back out of mothball.

lol and the Irish republic's government has no real interest in Northern Ireland, the people in Northern Ireland were given a poll on the matter a while back and the majority wanted to remain citizens of Great Britain.

Cabinia: Before you go off on one again about how the US has a superior navy and superior equipment to the British, I wonder if you knew that Britain designed (the);
Turreted Naval Gun
Torpedo
Aircraft Carrier
Submersible Aircraft Carrier
RADAR
SONAR
VTOL Aircraft
Chobham Armour (the best tank armour in the WORLD. not relevant but I thought I'd throw it in >.>)

As they say, history repeats itself. There will always be a point were some nation is greater than another in $Characteristic. I wonder how many seamen aboard USS Massachusetts would have been killed if HMS Gloucester hadn't used it's "inferior" missile defence systems to knock out that Iraqi missile?

Praetonia: I heard you give reference to HMS QE and HMS POW.. is that what they are naming the two CVF'? I think they should use Royal Oak and Royal Sovereign but..bleh. This is why Britain needs it's own air superiority fighter..GDV is a fighter bomber as is Typhoon..still I don't doubt Gr9 could completely destroy anything that the Argentinians could put up against it. Three aircraft carriers, both operating 14 Gr7/9s..that's 42 aircraft, not to mention the possibility of striking Argentinian airfields with SSBNs. I have my utmost respect for the Royal Marine Commandos who I am sure would be given the job as well as the SAS and SBS. Against such proffessionals the Argie regulars would stand no chance.

The arguments stating that 2 ships aren't likely going to get close enough to use a harpoon is absolutely false. I point to 1988's Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf. US cruisers and A-6 Intrudersengaged 3 Iranian frigates with harpoon missiles during the operation. They sank 2 Iranian frigates with harpoons and a 3rd was heavily damaged, and she would've been sunk had the SECDEF not called off the attack to finish her. The Harpoon has been used in actual ship-ship combat and in a big enough battle it may have to be used in that role again.

Ahh good the thread came alive again.

Cabinia: Before you go off on one again about how the US has a superior navy and superior equipment to the British, I wonder if you knew that Britain designed (the);
Turreted Naval Gun
Torpedo
Aircraft Carrier
Submersible Aircraft Carrier
RADAR
SONAR
VTOL Aircraft
Chobham Armour (the best tank armour in the WORLD. not relevant but I thought I'd throw it in >.>)

We also invented the Ski-jump launch, allowing aircraft carriers as small as 12,000 tons.

Woopie for us.

...still I don't doubt Gr9 could completely destroy anything that the Argentinians could put up against it. Three aircraft carriers, both operating 14 Gr7/9s..that's 42 aircraft, not to mention the possibility of striking Argentinian airfields with SSBNs. I have my utmost respect for the Royal Marine Commandos who I am sure would be given the job as well as the SAS and SBS. Against such proffessionals the Argie regulars would stand no chance.

Didn't I cover this earlier? You can put up as many Gr9's into the air as you want, but since they don't have a proper A2A radar and their only missiles are defensive sidewinders which only work when in visual range, the bomber force would be toast.

FA2 is known as the little plane with the big radar for a reason... for such a small aircraft it is a superlative air superiority fighter and without it, we've just got mud movers.

And umm, I don't think striking Argentinian airbases with SSBNs is a good idea unless you really would like South America better if it was glow-in-the-dark... do you mean SSNs?

If so, I can't see us having more than three SSNs in-theatre, which means no more than thirty (at the very most) cruise missiles. In an intense warfighting situation, that's a small strategic asset, but it's not going to win the war.

All our kit is superior in quality yes, but without fighters the fleet wouldn't have a chance of making landfall and then supporting the invasion ashore without a huge loss of life.

The arguments stating that 2 ships aren't likely going to get close enough to use a harpoon is absolutely false. I point to 1988's Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf. US cruisers and A-6 Intrudersengaged 3 Iranian frigates with harpoon missiles during the operation. They sank 2 Iranian frigates with harpoons and a 3rd was heavily damaged, and she would've been sunk had the SECDEF not called off the attack to finish her. The Harpoon has been used in actual ship-ship combat and in a big enough battle it may have to be used in that role again.

Harpoon is only really suitable against targets without modern point-defence IMHO or as a last ditch defensive effort.

To have allowed the Iranian ships close enough to be within Harpoon range, it seems to me that the US captain had no real concerns about the safety of his ship. Let me guess, these frigates had neither point defence nor attack missiles of their own?

..The Vanguard Class can launch tomahawks too, you know?

..The Vanguard Class can launch tomahawks too, you know?

I... ummm... no.


EDIT: Perhaps you're thinking of the US converted OHIO class subs? IIRC they have made some of those into cruise missile batteries.

SECOND EDIT: Yup, looks like they're converting four of them, though they're not in service yet.

Cabinia: Before you go off on one again about how the US has a superior navy and superior equipment to the British, I wonder if you knew that Britain designed (the);
Turreted Naval Gun
Torpedo
Aircraft Carrier
Submersible Aircraft Carrier
RADAR
SONAR
VTOL Aircraft
WOW... i didnt know...

Thumbs up to the British Inventors.

Harpoon is only really suitable against targets without modern point-defence IMHO or as a last ditch defensive effort.

To have allowed the Iranian ships close enough to be within Harpoon range, it seems to me that the US captain had no real concerns about the safety of his ship. Let me guess, these frigates had neither point defence nor attack missiles
of their own?
The Iranian frigates were armed with missiles. They in fact fired the first shots of the engagement, but they were unable to hit the American ships because they were well protected by their SAM systems. They even had the Aegis cruiser with the group. BTW, the missile launched by the British built Iranian frigate was a harpoon. The US Captain was close enough to the Bandar Abbas base that the Iranians were within harpoon range while at their piers.

Back to an earlier point on the Exocet and ship design. American ships are superior to British ships in their ability to survive hits. Many of the British ships lost at the Falklands were killed by a single exocet hit. The Perry class Frigate USS STARK (FFG-37) was smaller than most of the sunken British ships. She took 2 exocet hits in the Persian Gulf and survived the attack. Larger British ships were easily sent to the bottom with half the firepower.

I also point to the USS COLE. She had a 40 x 40 foot hole in her port side as a result from the attack. The fact that she survived the attack shows how well of a job the builders at Ingalls did.

Off course it can be done again. On one condition regarding the old and lamentable state of the so called UK"carriers" that are in fact only VTOL ships (only one capable to sail now) with 1970'ies Hariers on board- when they ask their French friends to sail with a modern and nuclear Charles The Gaulle (in the Indian Ocean for the moment) or her sistership that will be ready in 2008, for them. Armed with Rafalles (compared to 1970 Hariers) and with support of the French and UK submarines, Argentina would not stand a chance, with or without the now obsolete Exocet.

Cabinia: Before you go off on one again about how the US has a superior navy and superior equipment to the British, I wonder if you knew that Britain designed (the);
Turreted Naval Gun
Torpedo
Aircraft Carrier
Submersible Aircraft Carrier
RADAR
SONAR
VTOL Aircraft
Chobham Armour (the best tank armour in the WORLD. not relevant but I thought I'd throw it in >.>)

And the Greeks invented thier owndrama, but do you really consider all of thier work superior to anyone after them who put it to use.

As they say, history repeats itself. There will always be a point were some nation is greater than another in $Characteristic. I wonder how many seamen aboard USS Massachusetts would have been killed if HMS Gloucester hadn't used it's "inferior" missile defence systems to knock out that Iraqi missile?

I can imagine why the Massachusetts had to rely on British missile defense systems, it hasn't been in active service since World War II, and has no missiles.

Off course it can be done again. On one condition regarding the old and lamentable state of the so called UK"carriers" that are in fact only VTOL ships (only one capable to sail now) with 1970'ies Hariers on board- when they ask their French friends to sail with a modern and nuclear Charles The Gaulle (in the Indian Ocean for the moment) or her sistership that will be ready in 2008, for them. Armed with Rafalles (compared to 1970 Hariers) and with support of the French and UK submarines, Argentina would not stand a chance, with or without the now obsolete Exocet.
the UK does not need either French or US help.

"thanks...but no thanks" (if I was the Brit PM)
after all we are only talking about one single South-american country.

Off course it can be done again. On one condition regarding the old and lamentable state of the so called UK"carriers" that are in fact only VTOL ships (only one capable to sail now) with 1970'ies Hariers on board- when they ask their French friends to sail with a modern and nuclear Charles The Gaulle (in the Indian Ocean for the moment) or her sistership that will be ready in 2008, for them. Armed with Rafalles (compared to 1970 Hariers) and with support of the French and UK submarines, Argentina would not stand a chance, with or without the now obsolete Exocet.

The only problem is the possibility of France getting in a war with Argentina over a minute set of islands in the South Atlantic. I mean no disrespect to France, and this is most definitely not and anti-French post, but I see little reason why we should assume the French will send the Charles De Gualle into the South Atlantic to recover the Falklands.

I belive Hogsweat was referring to the USS Missouri anyway. But there isn't anything special about what the Gloucester did. It wasn't like the Missouri had an incoming missile and was struggling with all its defences to destroy it. The Gloucester was doing its job. That was what it was assigned to do, as an escort for the Missouri. It is the reason battlegroups exist.

The only problem is the possibility of France getting in a war with Argentina over a minute set of islands in the South Atlantic. I mean no disrespect to France, and this is most definitely not and anti-French post, but I see little reason why we should assume the French will send the Charles De Gualle into the South Atlantic to recover the Falklands.

Off course not,you're absolutely right, explain that to the French public. But since this topic is a "What if" one, I just gave my (simple because NS) opinion about the millitary. Mostly I am on WWII specialised topics (and military in general on that site) like Axishistory and others. The French would indeed only send their fleet when the UK would be threathened by some nation instead of supporting a UK attack in that region.

the UK does not need either French or US help.

"thanks...but no thanks" (if I was the Brit PM)
after all we are only talking about one single South-american country.
If you don't have any air superiority fighters and you are sending a large naval task force into an area well within range of land based fighter/bombers, you will need US or French help. WHen you have a poor SAM system too, then you definitely need them. Especially the US. You really need them to provide Aegis SAM cover for the task force. Otherwise, you are sending your ships off to Davy Jones Locker.

Off course not,you're absolutely right, explain that to the French public. But since this topic is a "What if" one, I just gave my (simple because NS) opinion about the millitary. Mostly I am on WWII specialised topics (and military in general on that site) like Axishistory and others. The French would indeed only send their fleet when the UK would be threathened by some nation instead of supporting a UK attack in that region.

As am I, however my circle is feldgrau (to a great lesser extent than once was), and the Hearts of Iron boards, along with NS.

the UK does not need either French or US help.

"thanks...but no thanks" (if I was the Brit PM)
after all we are only talking about one single South-american country.

That happens to be wanting a piece of your territory that was once thiers that is isolated and thousands of miles away from your nearest base, only approachable via the water. Whereas in a quick assault the Argentinians could take over the Falklands (debatable, I'm not exactly sure on British defences, but the Portland and Dumberton Castle are in the area, and could be a pain) and establish an air presence there (Other than that one exists, I'm not exact on size), the British have to send thier forces from another hemisphere, without air superiority or even a challenge to it.

If the Fleet Air Arm loses air superiority capability, the only way I can see Britain ensuring the Falklands don't fall is to station a group of RAF fighters in the Falklands, along with beefing up the land defence of the islands, though I doubt they can afford it.

As am I, however my circle is feldgrau (to a great lesser extent than once was), and the Hearts of Iron boards, along with NS.

Hi friend, I am Feldgrau since the beginning. I am "Groscurth" who are you? Must know eachother then, I brought the "Immortals" Commisar Dave the Evile (a moderator on Axis) over here with lots of Axis and Feldgrau guys but most stopped after troubles with some neocon mods. Some had even problems with Dave C Clarcks post name: "Ost Perversia." Thought I was the only one here, nice to meat you. :fluffle:

Hi friend, I am Feldgrau since the beginning. I am "Groscurth" who are you?

Good question, a long time ago I had a name, probably either MarshalFoch or the name I have here, but I was only active for a relatively short time (maybe 2 or 3 months), culminating in a debate over a Soviet-US War post-45. Since then I have only been reading, not posting, and probably won't return until I am a professional historian.

and probably won't return until I am a professional historian.

Can't give more details of myself here on this emotional instead of factual site, have more identities here to. Feel free to contact at Feldgrau or Axis (in the lounge when you have enough posts) or send a PM, I studied history at the VUB , the (flemish)Free University of Brussels. But my real speciality are the middle ages, my thesis went about the Cathars and Simon de Montfort (the guy who destroyed the South French Cathars) but I still use the technique of what we call "historical critique" to analyse texts or politics in my life now.

...
I heard you give reference to HMS QE and HMS POW.. is that what they are naming the two CVF'? I think they should use Royal Oak and Royal Sovereign but..bleh. This is why Britain needs it's own air superiority fighter.
...
The CVFs are going to to enter service in 2012 and 2015 respectively... but the delays in construction are a real possibility. The UK won't have a 'true' aircraft carrier for a long time.

If Argentina actually tries it again...you could always ask Brazil for help.

They have a fixed wing capable aircraft carrier, and could position ground forces near the Argentinan border, forcing Argentina to deal with two threats instead of one.

Add in the threat of American B2/B1 raids on Argentinan air and naval bases, and you'd have the Argentinan government at the table pretty damn quick.

Brazil has a CV? Is it nuclear, how big is it? what displacement, length, how many aircraft? :P

Brazil has a CV? Is it nuclear, how big is it? what displacement, length, how many aircraft? :P

Conventional...

Not very big, about 40 aircraft.

Brazil bought it from France, it used to be the Foch

More here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/sao-paulo.htm

Of course Britain is incapable they should have learnt a lesson from last time.

If they had a next time they would surely get it right.

And why on Earth are Brazil going to go to war with Argentina in order to help the UK win back the Falkland islands?

The original scenario posited another Falklands-type conflict, which means the UK has to capture or recapture some islands at least 8000 miles from home, 4000 miles from the nearest UK airbase, 6000 miles from the nearest UK naval port, and they have to do it on their own, against a modern military threat.

Come next year, we won't be able to do it, full stop.

yet another reason why a European Army would be a good idea. the USA is sick of providing (pretty much) all the EU's military needs, and the EU needs to grow some balls. its too expensive and would be too radical (for want of a different word) to have each country build up their arms to a suitable level again, so band together under the EU and take advantage of economies of scale!

All you Americans listen right now, Britain and europe do not want your help in arms, you are a overpowering nation that europe has no choice but to bow to, incase i am very much mistaken your government and people of the forties refused to join the second world war, because us Britains and the resistance in europe had it handled, or similar to that excuse, you only got involved after Pearl harbour got hit, because you realised if Britain was to fall YOU would have to take Japan Germany and the rest on your selves, this shows you that America is a self obsessed nation, that could not give a rats ar** about the rest of the world, the last wars in American history where used to create public opinions on the president to get people to vote for him, one big sick campain. So you American people who think your armed forces are the best thing to happen to this planet, think about this, Britain has the most powerful and most organized Navy in the world, we do not need you!!! So stick your noses out of the rest of the worlds business!!!

PAAMS is pretty sweet, but I wouldn't rush off to say the Aster 15 and Aster 30 are superior to the SM3. They're not ready for primetime when it comes to Theater Ballistic Missile Defense. Check out the comparison on this page... just scroll down to the heading, "Anti-Ballistic Missile Capability."
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/paams.htm
And who launches ballistic missiles at ships?

As for the Phalanx, you're comparing apples and orangutans.
Phalanx is an anti-missile system. PAAMS is an anti-air and anti-missile system. Did you know that in the First Gulf War a British frigate using a SeaSlug (yes, really) missile was the first to shoot down an enemy missile in active combat?



Official US government reports that they can't defend against the Yakhont? Surely you have a link to back up that claim.
No. I read it a while ago. I could search for it but frankly I have better things to do with my life.

Considering the force projection of an aircraft carrier, it's still highly unlikely that a surface combatant would have the opportunity to fire one at another surface combatant.
Did you read that Yakhont thing? It has a several hundred mile range.

And I never said Japan and the US invented aircraft carriers. What is obvious, however, is they were the first to employ them in war and, together, rewrote the manual on naval combat.
Search for "Battle of Taranto" on google. I think you'll find that your yanky propaganda service (sorry, Hollywood) got it wrong yet again. Britain launched several airborne naval attacks before America even entered the war. Also the RN was planning a massed carrier aircraft attack on Kiel at the end of world war one, when Japan was an ally and the US didnt have any aircraft carriers.

I agree that it's an area of need. But it doesn't really matter if your anti-ship missile is outdated if you can easily launch fifty of them at once on a single target.
What? No ship equipped with Harpoon carries more than 8 missiles. I should also note that the Harpoon's range is a third that of the Yakhont, so whilst they have time to launch their entire arsenal and run away, you cant even fire one missile. It's our only major US built naval weapon, and it's crap.

At the moment that project has to wait in line behind the JSF project, TBM advancement, and development of a viable naval gunfire support solution. The last two are quite a bit more important.[/qutoe]
You realise that development teams that make planes dont also make SSMs? Ditto for guns. You can make more than one thing at a time, you know. And I doubt that Britain would buy another missile from you even if you did make one. Based on our recent decisions, we're buying joint EU (well, German-French-British-Italian) projects that Britain actually has a stake in.

[quote=Cabinia]I never said the British didn't invent the Harrier engine, nor did I say the JSF was a strictly American project. I'm not such a blind homer.
*ahem* I hardly think it matters that you made the forward control light or the cockpit window or even the radar. It was British engineers who made the harrier a world beating aircraft.

Would Argentina really launch another attack on the Falklands?

The decline of the Royal Navy since the war is not really relevant to this question. The problem at the time of the Falklands war was that we were not capable of landing large aircraft on the island, and so could do little to reinforce the garrison of Royal Marines, despite having a reasonable warning of the invasion (48 hours I believe.)

After the war, £20 million was spent extending the airstrip at Port Stanley, allowing it to take C130 Hercules aircraft. The British army always has a Battlegroup ready to deploy anywhere at 24 hours notice, and brigade that could follow up within a few more days. If the Argentines had landed and faced a Battlegroup of Paratroopers with Anti-Armour, Anti-Air and mortar capability instead of 20 inadequately equipped Marines, the invasion may have been a very different story. The islands are small, and if a landing were seriously opposed by properly trained and equipped troops its chances of success would have been greatly dimished.

Conventional...

Not very big, about 40 aircraft.

Brazil bought it from France, it used to be the Foch

More here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/sao-paulo.htm
rofl I heard about that. The Foch is actually better than the Charles de Gaulle and now the French want it back. The French are so funny.... Still, it's sad that the Barzillian navy is (on paper at least) more powerful than the RN.

Apologies to Cabinia and I withdraw my remarks.

As to other user who mentioned the Seawolf submarine why don't you go look up a dozen other military systems that use the name seawolf/sea wolf/wolf of the sea and other combinations. As was fairly obvious I was referring to missiles and their systems so the linking of a submarine while abstractly relevant was somewhat pointless.

Cabinia: Before you go off on one again about how the US has a superior navy and superior equipment to the British, I wonder if you knew that Britain designed (the);
Turreted Naval Gun
Torpedo
Aircraft Carrier
Submersible Aircraft Carrier
RADAR
SONAR
VTOL Aircraft


I love patriotism. It's blinding capacities are on an equal footing with religion.

1) You probably mean to say the British invented the self-propelled torpedo, since Americans invented the very first torpedoes, called "spar torpedoes", and used them against each other in the Civil War.

2) Submersible Aircraft Carrier - about as useful as a left-handed crescent wrench.

3) The first sonar was patented by a Brit only after the device had already been described by Austrian physicist Alexander Behm. The first sonar device useful for locating subs was invented by Frenchman Paul Langevin.

4) Russian physicist Nikola Tesla invented VTOL.

Thanks for playing.

And who launches ballistic missiles at ships?
You've totally missed the point. A few years ago there was no defense against a ballistic missile. Aegis now has the capacity to engage one in terminal phase at up to 100 miles from shore, and plans are in place to improve that to midcourse intercept capability. PAAMS has no such capability at present, and is less capable for future developments than Aegis.


Phalanx is an anti-missile system. PAAMS is an anti-air and anti-missile system. Did you know that in the First Gulf War a British frigate using a SeaSlug (yes, really) missile was the first to shoot down an enemy missile in active combat?
Phalanx is a close-in defense system. If you want to compare it to something similar, bring up Goalkeeper. Except it's not British, it's Dutch. Britain has nothing of that capability.


No. I read it a while ago. I could search for it but frankly I have better things to do with my life.
Laziness is not an excuse, so I will have to assume your US report is a myth.


Did you read that Yakhont thing? It has a several hundred mile range.
And your point is? Surface ship movements are easily tracked by satellite.

Search for "Battle of Taranto" on google. I think you'll find that your yanky propaganda service (sorry, Hollywood) got it wrong yet again. Britain launched several airborne naval attacks before America even entered the war. Also the RN was planning a massed carrier aircraft attack on Kiel at the end of world war one, when Japan was an ally and the US didnt have any aircraft carriers.

Ooh, you beat the Italians in port in a surprise attack. How very impressive. It doesn't exactly compare with, say, Midway, when carrier warfare was put to its first real test.


What? No ship equipped with Harpoon carries more than 8 missiles. I should also note that the Harpoon's range is a third that of the Yakhont, so whilst they have time to launch their entire arsenal and run away, you cant even fire one missile. It's our only major US built naval weapon, and it's crap.

Ships travel in battlegroups. The battlegroups include an aircraft carrier, with lots of fixed-wing aircraft capable of adding to the Harpoon total.

You realise that development teams that make planes dont also make SSMs? Ditto for guns. You can make more than one thing at a time, you know. And I doubt that Britain would buy another missile from you even if you did make one. Based on our recent decisions, we're buying joint EU (well, German-French-British-Italian) projects that Britain actually has a stake in.

It must be nice to live in your world where naval research teams have an unlimited budget.

By the way, I don't make missiles, so it would be very difficult for anyone to buy one.

*ahem* I hardly think it matters that you made the forward control light or the cockpit window or even the radar. It was British engineers who made the harrier a world beating aircraft.
Raytheon makes avionics. Those are those sensors and thingies that enable the Harrier to be a world-beating aircraft. Without them it's a hovering target. Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin also make the thingies the Harrier fires at the bad guys.

Oh, what a tragedy, the royal navy will be completely incapable of winning a war against a tin pot military dictatorship the next time our government gives them a long series of diplomatic winks and nods that we don't really care about a fly-speck remnant of the Empire, then clothes itself in patriot clothes when they take those winks and nods seriously...which has - of course - nothing whatsoever to do with deflecting any internal criticism of the government of the time.

You can see me, literally, weeping.

You've totally missed the point. A few years ago there was no defense against a ballistic missile. Aegis now has the capacity to engage one in terminal phase at up to 100 miles from shore, and plans are in place to improve that to midcourse intercept capability. PAAMS has no such capability at present, and is less capable for future developments than Aegis.
Who cares? No one fires ballistic missiles at ships so it's useless. Im sure it's very good at what it does, but Euromissile recognised that they dont need an anti-ballistic missile on ships and so they didnt build one.

Phalanx is a close-in defense system. If you want to compare it to something similar, bring up Goalkeeper. Except it's not British, it's Dutch. Britain has nothing of that capability.
When we have PAAMS we will have something which is actually effective. CIWS is pretty much useless.

Laziness is not an excuse, so I will have to assume your US report is a myth.
Provide links which demonstrate:

1) The existance of AEGIS.
2) The capabilities of AEGIS.
3) The capabilities of AEGIS compared to PAAMS.

None of these may be from a European or American author or they are biased.

4) The existance of the torpedo.
5) The existance of Spr torpedoes.
6) America's inventing of them.
7) Every other human being in the world's not inventing them.

None of these may be from an American or they are biased.

8) That VTOL exists.
9) That Russia exists.
10) That a Russian scientist invented it.
11) That prior to that no one else in the world had invented it (a report on each person, please).

None of these may be written by a Briton or a Russian.

12) The existance of the sea.
13) The existance of the world.

I could go... but I think I've made my point.

And your point is? Surface ship movements are easily tracked by satellite.
Satellites only point directly down, and they orbit. It's nigh-on impossible to track something around the clock via satellite.

Ooh, you beat the Italians in port in a surprise attack. How very impressive. It doesn't exactly compare with, say, Midway, when carrier warfare was put to its first real test.
So you're saying that you didnt invent the carrier, you didnt plan the first raid, you didnt execute the first raid but that your battle was "better" and so you invented carrier warfare? Riiiiiight.

Ships travel in battlegroups. The battlegroups include an aircraft carrier, with lots of fixed-wing aircraft capable of adding to the Harpoon total.
Which completely disproves your earlier point that no two battlefleets will ever get into Harpoon range because of carrier warfare.

It must be nice to live in your world where naval research teams have an unlimited budget.
I think that what, by your own admission, is the primary anti-surface weapon carried by aircraft deserves some attention, m'yes?

By the way, I don't make missiles, so it would be very difficult for anyone to buy one.
:confused:

Raytheon makes avionics. Those are those sensors and thingies that enable the Harrier to be a world-beating aircraft. Without them it's a hovering target. Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin also make the thingies the Harrier fires at the bad guys.
Avionics dont make the harrier a world beating aircraft. Every aircraft in the service of a 1st world nation has avionics. What makes the harrier a world beating aircraft is VTOL - a British invention (in case you're interested, we also invented the steam, combustion and jet engines, so there isnt very much in your military which doesnt have British ingenuity included).

Avionics dont make the harrier a world beating aircraft. Every aircraft in the service of a 1st world nation has avionics.

Actually, seeing as avionics include the control systems and all the sensors that tell the HUD exactly what the hell is going on I'd say they are important. Not to say we couldn't make our own or get them from whoever does the Typhoon gear of course.

Who cares? No one fires ballistic missiles at ships so it's useless. Im sure it's very good at what it does, but Euromissile recognised that they dont need an anti-ballistic missile on ships and so they didnt build one.
They don't fire them at ships, they fire them at your hometown. Being able to intercept them is a pretty good idea.

When we have PAAMS we will have something which is actually effective. CIWS is pretty much useless.
Clearly you have no idea what Phalanx does. Need I point out that every Aegis ship carries two Phalanx mounts? Aegis does what PAAMS does. Phalanx does something Aegis does not.


Provide links which demonstrate:

1) The existance of AEGIS.
2) The capabilities of AEGIS.
3) The capabilities of AEGIS compared to PAAMS.

1) You don't know Aegis exists?
2) I worked on the system for six years. Ask me.
3) Already provided in this conversation. Didn't you notice?

None of these may be from a European or American author or they are biased.

And how do you expect to get any useful information about the capabilities of a classified weapon system from an outside source, smartass? Any information a foreigner has about it would have had to have gotten it from the US.


4) The existance of the torpedo.
5) The existance of Spr torpedoes.
6) America's inventing of them.
7) Every other human being in the world's not inventing them.

4) You don't know torpedoes exist, either?
5) I assume you mean spar torpedoes. Done: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/t/to/torpedo.htm
6) Done: http://www.mocivilwar.org/history/features.php?ID=9
7) Now you're just getting stupid.



8) That VTOL exists.
9) That Russia exists.
10) That a Russian scientist invented it.
11) That prior to that no one else in the world had invented it (a report on each person, please).

None of these may be written by a Briton or a Russian.

12) The existance of the sea.
13) The existance of the world.

I could go... but I think I've made my point.

No, you haven't made any point. I simply asked you for a reference to a US government report that says Aegis can't deal with Yakhont. I've seen several reports that say the same thing, but they originate from the Russian government and the company that developed it. So either you have a source, or you're making shit up. Based on all the other patriotic nonsense statements you've made, I'd say it's the latter.


Satellites only point directly down, and they orbit. It's nigh-on impossible to track something around the clock via satellite.
That is the most ignorant thing I've ever read. Do you have any idea at all how satellites operate?


So you're saying that you didnt invent the carrier, you didnt plan the first raid, you didnt execute the first raid but that your battle was "better" and so you invented carrier warfare? Riiiiiight.
I never tried to take credit for inventing anything, and I've never been in a battle. I don't know where you're coming from on this.


Which completely disproves your earlier point that no two battlefleets will ever get into Harpoon range because of carrier warfare.
Apparently you've misunderstood. We were talking about surface ships firing on surface ships at the time.


I think that what, by your own admission, is the primary anti-surface weapon carried by aircraft deserves some attention, m'yes?

Once again, we were talking about ship-launched missiles. If you want to talk about air-launched versions, then sure, we have something to talk about.


Avionics dont make the harrier a world beating aircraft. Every aircraft in the service of a 1st world nation has avionics. What makes the harrier a world beating aircraft is VTOL - a British invention (in case you're interested, we also invented the steam, combustion and jet engines, so there isnt very much in your military which doesnt have British ingenuity included).
Of course every first-world plane has avionics, since without them they'd be flying blind, and the weapons would be useless. And Raytheon puts the avionics in the Harrier.

And apparently I need to mention, once again, that VTOL was invented by Nikola Tesla. The Harrier accomplishes it one way. The US-built Osprey, on the other hand, achieves VTOL capability in a way totally unrelated to any developments in the Harrier. To say Britain deserves full credit for VTOL is laughable.

1) Jet engines were simultaneously invented by a German, Hans von Ohain, and both he and Frank Whittle share credit for the invention. http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm

2) Heron of Alexandria invented the first steam engine in AD 50. http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HeronAlexandria.htm

3) The first internal combustion engine was built by a Dutchman. http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsgasa.htm

You really should stop paying so much attention to nationalistic propaganda.

yet another reason why a European Army would be a good idea. the USA is sick of providing (pretty much) all the EU's military needs, and the EU needs to grow some balls. its too expensive and would be too radical (for want of a different word) to have each country build up their arms to a suitable level again, so band together under the EU and take advantage of economies of scale!

*waits to be flamed*
I actually rather agree with you. We need teeth. Euro-teeth! (sounds like a toothpaste brand...)

yet another reason why a European Army would be a good idea. the USA is sick of providing (pretty much) all the EU's military needs, and the EU needs to grow some balls. its too expensive and would be too radical (for want of a different word) to have each country build up their arms to a suitable level again, so band together under the EU and take advantage of economies of scale!

*waits to be flamed*

You have my vote! :D

A combat between Soviet (As like the British the Russian Navy is now on the decrease) and American naval forces wouldn't be a fight..it would be a massacre. If the USSR went into the pacific rather than face the more powerful GIUK line with German/UK/Canadian forces (who would do a better job than the US in this situation) then it would face the US carrier force..Soviet destroyers armed with yakhont's would simple blow the American destroyers out the sky while Soviet aircraft from mainland bases (refueled) or their CVNs would keep American aircraft from harrasing the fleet. The Soviets would then use Tu160 Blackjack's to launch ballistic/yakhontesque missiles in combination with Kirov' SSM19 Granit to knock out the carriers.

I don't ever recall the Tu-160 ever being assigned an anti-ship role, since they were designed and is still being used in the nuclear strike role with both subsonic cruise missiles and supersonic stand-off missiles, all armed with nuclear warheads. On land or at sea, the only thing the Soviets did have was numbers in their aircraft (and this has been admitted multiple times even by NATO pilots themselves), and it doesn't mean that the American commander would sit around there like an idiot either. With this whole Yakhont vs Harpoon debate... they were designed on the basis of two different design philosophes and for different purposes. I can tell you this: the Harpoon, which is already a combat-proven weapon, serves its purpose superbly and is in no accounts a rubbish just because someone is too quick to judge it on its cruise speed.

A combat between Soviet (As like the British the Russian Navy is now on the decrease) and American naval forces wouldn't be a fight..it would be a massacre. If the USSR went into the pacific rather than face the more powerful GIUK line with German/UK/Canadian forces (who would do a better job than the US in this situation) then it would face the US carrier force..Soviet destroyers armed with yakhont's would simple blow the American destroyers out the sky while Soviet aircraft from mainland bases (refueled) or their CVNs would keep American aircraft from harrasing the fleet. The Soviets would then use Tu160 Blackjack's to launch ballistic/yakhontesque missiles in combination with Kirov' SSM19 Granit to knock out the carriers.

1) I didn't realize American destroyers sailed the skies. That's pretty cool, and I doubt anyone else's destroyers can match the feat.

2) Soviets don't have Yakhonts, since the Yakhont was not ready for delivery until well after the fall of communism.

3) Even before the fall of communism, the state of readiness in the Soviet Navy was atrocious.

4) Your assumption that the Soviets would easily establish air superiority has no basis in fact. American land-based aircraft would have greater range and require less refueling, since they would be based out of Japan, Hawaii, Guam, the Aleutian Islands, and Alaska, so they have a strategic advantage. The Soviets had some good hardware, but they possessed no clear technological advantage.

5) Germany/UK/Canada could do a better job? ROFL. How many carriers do they have combined?

<snip!>If the USSR went into the pacific rather than face the more powerful GIUK line with German/UK/Canadian forces (who would do a better job than the US in this situation) <snip!>.

(chuckle) That's the most inane thing I've read on NS in ten minutes! Okay, why not, I'll bite.
The UK has a respectable fleet. As for the others... well...

Canada's Navy: http://www.navy.dnd.ca/mspa_fleet/fleet_home_e.asp

Destroyers: IROQUOIS class (DDH) air defence / anti-submarine destroyer (4)
Frigates: HALIFAX class (FFH) multi-purpose frigate (12)
Submarines: VICTORIA class (SSK) submarine (4)
Mine Countermeasures Ships: KINGSTON class (MM) Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel (13)
Replenishment Vessels: PROTECTEUR class (AOR) multi-cargo supply ship (2)
Auxiliary Vessels: QUEST (AGOR) research ship (1)

Germany's Navy: http://www.die-marine.de/english/home.html
Destroyers (3) "Luetjens-class"
Frigates (4) "Brandenburg-class"
Frigates (8) "Bremen-class"
Fast Patrolboat (10) "Albatros-class"
Fast Patrolboat (16)"Tiger-class"
Fast Patrolboat (10)"Gepard-class"
Fast Minesweeper "Hameln-class"
Submarines (18)"class 206"
Submarines (2)"class 205"

Hmm. Let's compare to...
The US Coast Guard:
Polar-Class Icebreaker (WAGB): 3
High Endurance Cutter (WHEC):12
Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC): 13 Famous class
Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC): 14 Reliant class
Patrol Boat (WPB): 49
Coastal Patrol Boat (WPB): 56
Plus 1400 boats less than 65 feet long.

I'm doubt Canada & Germany could outperform the US Coast Guard ...never mind the actual US Navy! :rolleyes:

287 ships. I'm not even going to bother listing.
Suffice it to say, a single Carrier Battle Group could eradicate the combined Canadian & German fleets in a couple of hours. The US has 12 of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group

I'm also not going to compare it with Russia's current, or even the Soviet Navy of 1988. You're correct, it'd be a massacre... but in the other direction. Only nine carriers, none of which had steam catapults (VTOL jets only). Subs that can only stay out for 3 weeks at a time. Then there's the quality of Soviet ships, and their (ahem) maintainence.

It's like comparing a Cadillac to a Skoka. Sure, both might get you around. But which one do you want to rely on?

Also, the Soviets had no CVN's to speak of. All of thier carriers are conventionally powered (The Ul'Yanovsk class would have been the first CVNs in the Soviet Navy), and are probably better compared to the British Invincible Class than any American ship. The only true carriers they had were probably on par or behind the Foch, I'm speaking of the Kuznetovs of course. Add to that the fact that Soviet experience with operating carriers, whether on an organizational level or actual employment of them, is far behind any of the major Western powers.

Actually One British Sub would have detered Argentina the Government decided it would cost too much to station it there.
Funny thing is the War costed more.

Another issue would be Would Argentinian Bombs actually work this time?
And Would British vessels have their Anti Air defences set up to recognise Argentinian Planes as Unfriendlies?

Two Bald men Fighting over a Comb! :p

Jeez, doesn't anyone remember the two Su-27's buzzing an American flightdeck, and the Americans raising an A-6 to chase him off, only to hear his screams over the radio that he "can't shake em!" then the Russian naval commander at Vladvistok sending pictures of the American Aircraft Carrier to the American Commander?

Or am I just crazy?

*Runs off to find links*

AHA!

http://www.analisidifesa.it/numero10/eng/russiattaccoeng.htm
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-6018.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15625
http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Digest/2000Digest/November/u.s._fleet_no_match_for_russian_airforce.htm
http://www.pstripes.com/dec00/ed120200h.html

"we finally launched the first aircraft off the deck...an EA-6B Prowler! That's right. We launched a ****ing Prowler and he ended up in a 1 v 1 with a Flanker just in front of the ship. The Flanker was all over his ass (kind of like a bear batting around a little bunny right before he eats it). He was screaming for help"
My bad, I sad it was an A-6, it was actually an EA-6B.

And the Americans try to save face (Yeah like I'm going to believe a writer tucked so deeply into Washington's pockets)
http://www.pstripes.com/dec00/ed120200h.html

Oh no ... Britain won't be ablle to get involved in another pointless war over a largely useless underpopulated rock in the Atlantic Ocean. This means they won't be able to get involved when the dispute between Canada and Denmark over that Arctic Island really gets ugly ...

They don't fire them at ships, they fire them at your hometown. Being able to intercept them is a pretty good idea.
I live in a village, and it isnt in the middle of the sea. :rolleyes:

Clearly you have no idea what Phalanx does. Need I point out that every Aegis ship carries two Phalanx mounts? Aegis does what PAAMS does. Phalanx does something Aegis does not.
Phalanx is an anti-missile system. AEGIS (among other things) is an anti missile system omgogmogmg teh link.

No, you haven't made any point. I simply asked you for a reference to a US government report that says Aegis can't deal with Yakhont. I've seen several reports that say the same thing, but they originate from the Russian government and the company that developed it. So either you have a source, or you're making shit up. Based on all the other patriotic nonsense statements you've made, I'd say it's the latter.
I am no more a Russian patriot than I am a US patriot, and I veer much to the side of the US in that particular battle, so I wouldnt accuse me of being biased on that front. All I am pointing out if that you havent provided any evidence to back up anything you've said either, but I accept it because I have a fundamental believe that people dont make up an intricate series of lies to win a debate about the relative capabilities of navies. I would expect that to be returned.

That is the most ignorant thing I've ever read. Do you have any idea at all how satellites operate?
Do you? Seemingly you dont.

I never tried to take credit for inventing anything, and I've never been in a battle. I don't know where you're coming from on this.
Thanks for that. Pedantics add an awful lot to a debate :rolleyes: and in case you dont understand this either, that was "sarcasm".

Apparently you've misunderstood. We were talking about surface ships firing on surface ships at the time.
We were talking about the Harpoon missile being rubbish or otherwise. Perhaps you've misunderstood? It was all in my original post on this matter.

Once again, we were talking about ship-launched missiles. If you want to talk about air-launched versions, then sure, we have something to talk about.
I was referring to the part when you said:

At the moment that project has to wait in line behind the JSF project, TBM advancement, and development of a viable naval gunfire support solution. The last two are quite a bit more important.
Now clearly if carrier warfare is as important as you think it is then this is not the case? Or perhaps I made a spelling mistake in this sentence which you'll choose to respond to instead of the actual point :rolleyes:

Of course every first-world plane has avionics, since without them they'd be flying blind, and the weapons would be useless. And Raytheon puts the avionics in the Harrier.
That's nice... and it makes the Harrier and the VTOL aircraft less of a British invention... how?

And apparently I need to mention, once again, that VTOL was invented by Nikola Tesla. The Harrier accomplishes it one way. The US-built Osprey, on the other hand, achieves VTOL capability in a way totally unrelated to any developments in the Harrier. To say Britain deserves full credit for VTOL is laughable.
Did Mr Tesla actually make a VTOL aircraft? No. Is Osprey a fighter/bomber used by some of the world's most powerful navies? No.

1) Jet engines were simultaneously invented by a German, Hans von Ohain, and both he and Frank Whittle share credit for the invention. http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm
Ok, and? The British scientist invented it independently.

2) Heron of Alexandria invented the first steam engine in AD 50. http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HeronAlexandria.htm
And does the lineage of that steam engine exist today? No. A Briton invented the first of the steam engines which had a practical use in the past and continue to have one today. An invention is useless if it is not emplyoed to do anything and is subsequently lost until after someone else invented it. Britons both invented the steam engine, perfected the steam engine and built the first successful steam engine.

3) The first internal combustion engine was built by a Dutchman. http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsgasa.htm
"Designed but never built" "Powered by gunpowder" Riiiiiiight.

You really should stop paying so much attention to nationalistic propaganda.
Yeah. Nationalist propaganda like "encylopedia".

This is the Telegraph who wrote this. So it must be bullshit! It's like saying in the Battle of Britain, we could not fight another Battle of Britain without Americasn help, or some crap!

"we finally launched the first aircraft off the deck...an EA-6B Prowler! That's right. We launched a ****ing Prowler and he ended up in a 1 v 1 with a Flanker just in front of the ship. The Flanker was all over his ass (kind of like a bear batting around a little bunny right before he eats it). He was screaming for help"

Hahaha!! I'm sure more than one admiral pooped his pants when told about this!

Su-24 and 27s, eh? Not even the best the Russian military has available. :)

Does anyone really care about the Falklands? They're a pile of rocks with even worse weather than Britain.

Yeah especially so now they have found oil there (lots of it to). :)

AHA!

http://www.analisidifesa.it/numero10/eng/russiattaccoeng.htm
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-6018.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15625
http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Digest/2000Digest/November/u.s._fleet_no_match_for_russian_airforce.htm
http://www.pstripes.com/dec00/ed120200h.html

"we finally launched the first aircraft off the deck...an EA-6B Prowler! That's right. We launched a ****ing Prowler and he ended up in a 1 v 1 with a Flanker just in front of the ship. The Flanker was all over his ass (kind of like a bear batting around a little bunny right before he eats it). He was screaming for help"
My bad, I sad it was an A-6, it was actually an EA-6B.

And the Americans try to save face (Yeah like I'm going to believe a writer tucked so deeply into Washington's pockets)
http://www.pstripes.com/dec00/ed120200h.html

Naturally, if an incident like this really occurred, the USN would downplay it.

Naturally, if an incident like this really occurred, the Russian Air Force would exaggerate it.

So, since neither side in this incident is particularly trustworthy, where is the evidence? The Russians say they have close-up photos of sailors running around the deck in a scramble to get planes launched. Why haven't they released those pictures to back up their claim?

I suspect the reality lies somewhere in between the Russian and American claims. I think the Russians did pass over and get good photos, and I think the Americans did struggle to get planes launched to escort them out of the area. I also think the planes were tracked all the way in, and weren't flagged as a threat because they were identified as Russian planes, and the Cold War is over. The Russians could theoretically have attacked the carrier, but they weren't going to, because it would have triggered a war between the two countries, and the US commanders knew it as well as the Russian pilots did. That's why the Russian pilots did not fire anti-ship missiles, and that is also why the AAWC aboard the Aegis escorts did not shoot the planes down before they got close enough to get photographs.

The Americans did not have a CAP in flight to escort the Russians out of the area, as is normally done in such situations. But they were far from defenseless.

I personally find it illogical to compare an air superiority aircraft, such as the Su-27, with an attack jet - converted to - electronic attack jet, such as the EA-6B, as if they are all on equal terms. It's entirely like stating that the EF-111 is in every way superior than a Mirage F1, regardless of their roles, just because the EF-111 managed to maneuver the French jet into the ground in Desert Storm.

Oh no ... Britain won't be ablle to get involved in another pointless war over a largely useless underpopulated rock in the Atlantic Ocean. This means they won't be able to get involved when the dispute between Canada and Denmark over that Arctic Island really gets ugly ...

I've already done a variant of that joke you PLAGIARIST

;)

I've already done a variant of that joke you PLAGIARIST

;)

Sorry ... I missed that one!

Um... no navy in their right mind would allow foreign aircraft to buzz their aircraft carrier.
"Hey jim, theres a couple of Russian planes coming! One Su-24 which is a ground attack aircraft, and an Su-27 which is pretty much an escort. Its heading straight for us."
"Oh yeah? Well isn't there a cold war or something?"
"Nah not anymore! That ended about 10 years ago."
"Oh, well then who cares if they get within a critical distance to our Fleet Flagship! We can trust them, because we all know that theres no such thing as a rogue pilot."

And OMZ, the fact remains... why would you send up an EA-6B to engage an Su-27? Why not raise an F-18 or F-14...

Um... no navy in their right mind would allow foreign aircraft to buzz their aircraft carrier.
"Hey jim, theres a couple of Russian planes coming! One Su-24 which is a ground attack aircraft, and an Su-27 which is pretty much an escort. Its heading straight for us."
"Oh yeah? Well isn't there a cold war or something?"
"Nah not anymore! That ended about 10 years ago."
"Oh, well then who cares if they get within a critical distance to our Fleet Flagship! We can trust them, because we all know that theres no such thing as a rogue pilot."

And OMZ, the fact remains... why would you send up an EA-6B to engage an Su-27? Why not raise an F-18 or F-14...

I think Cabinia gave you a good answer. You'll find the answer if you'll thoroughly read this link, which you posted:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-6018.html

"Without any offence, I would like to ask you several questions. Do you really expect the USN to open fire at some Russian aircraft because these are flying close to its carriers? Do you know how often such things happened? If somebody would have fired every time, we would wait for the "World War 15" in the meantime. Have you never seen any of pictures taken by US, British or Russian aircraft flying low over "enemy" ships (if not, just call, I'll send you some pics where you can see the colour of eyes of crewmembers on the deck of Minsk)? Do you belive it suited Russians in 1996 when one of British Nimrods flew only some 300 meters past Gorshkow, during air ops? They also had to turn into the wind and start an Su-27 (or whatever the carrierborne version is called...). As said, except that Russians are claiming they closed "undetected" this time, nothing is speciall in the event at all."

I have a family member who served as a B/N flying in an A-6 in the Pacific Fleet. He reported seeing, and participating in, flyovers of ships, and I have seen cockpit photos of Soviet warships being overflown at low-level. Fly-overs were somewhat routine, though they were sometimes viewed with hostility. Some Soviet ships used targeting lasers to attempt to blind US Navy pilots.

Phalanx is an anti-missile system. AEGIS (among other things) is an anti missile system omgogmogmg teh link.

That is almost like saying a wheel is a tool used to move, as is an internal combustion engine, yea it works, but it's not really a good comparison for performance.

Who cares if the current CIWS guns are crap? The USN is phasing them out for the new RAM.

Who cares if the current CIWS guns are crap? The USN is phasing them out for the new RAM.

I wonder if anyone has gotten them to work long enough to see if they are crap or not. I hope the new system will be a lot more readily repairable.