Is England trying to stir the pot over the Falkland Islands?

Message boards : Politics : Is England trying to stir the pot over the Falkland Islands?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 9 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 3387
Credit: 4,182,900
RAC: 10
United States
Message 1190762 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012, 21:48:18 UTC

I read a news feed about Prince William being included with a Royal Navy visit to the Falklands this spring. The Argentine President is apparently upset about the situation. I think it is a whole lot of hot air over nothing.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1190762 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1190771 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012, 22:33:16 UTC
Last modified: 1 Feb 2012, 22:33:43 UTC

I don't think it is hot air at all. When the oil finds become proven & oilfields are setup, even though "money talks & honesty walks", there is no way in hell the current, or future for that matter, British Forces have the capacity to hold or even retake them shoud the Argentenians attack once more.

We may have the air power & the ground forces with the same determination as in 1982 but without aircraft carriers, it is not possible.

Can you see the French taking their carriers into a war zone just so that British aircraft can land/take off?
ID: 1190771 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1190793 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012, 23:47:06 UTC - in response to Message 1190771.  

We may have the air power & the ground forces with the same determination as in 1982 but without aircraft carriers, it is not possible.

How many anti-ship missiles does it take to put a carrier task force in Davy Jones locker?

Naval surface warfare is a thing of the past.

ID: 1190793 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 16,982,517
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1190809 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 0:13:51 UTC - in response to Message 1190762.  

Before this announcement, the Argentine were already saber rattling about the Malvinas. They are working on getting most South American countries to refuse port access to ships stopping at the Falklands. Remember when the Eqyptians closed access to Aqaba back in 1967....

Sirius is right, there is the possibility of oil and natural gas finds around the Falklands -- and, notwithstanding that the long time residents of the Falklands (the Brits can trace British habitation there to before the Argentine was independent), the Argentines want 'their' Malvinas 'liberated'.


I read a news feed about Prince William being included with a Royal Navy visit to the Falklands this spring. The Argentine President is apparently upset about the situation. I think it is a whole lot of hot air over nothing.

ID: 1190809 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1190836 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 2:32:06 UTC - in response to Message 1190804.  

Naval surface warfare is a thing of the past.


I rather think not, and nor does the Royal Navy.

The Daring class are often considered the most powerful air-defence warships in the world. The ship's capabilities centre on the SAMPSON Multi Function Radar which can detect hundreds of targets out to a distance of 400 km (250 mi) and the Sea Viper missile system. In addition Daring's S1850M 3D air surveillance radar is capable of detecting 1,000 targets up to 400 km (250 mi). It is also capable of detecting outer atmosphere objects such as ballistic missiles

I'm sure she can. However today that can be useless. If I were the type to plan an attack on a surface ship, I'd find out how many anti-missiles she carries. All I need do is throw a few more drones at her than she has ammo then follow up with real bombs. The drones can have electronics on board that makes a single target look like multiple targets. The price of drones is cheap today, the price of a carrier isn't. Of course they need not be drones they could all have warheads. Another possible is to find out how fast she can launch anti-missiles and how many launchers she has. I just need to send more missiles than she can defend against in a given time frame. I might also be able to exploit a time issue by sending them from different directions and the time for the launcher to swing through a 180 degree arc slows down the number of anti-missiles that can be launched. There are other was to overwhelm the defensive capabilities. The Iranians just pulled off a good one tricking GPS, real issue if you attack yourself that way.

A surface vessel is a sitting duck.

ID: 1190836 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11354
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1190838 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 2:45:24 UTC - in response to Message 1190836.  

Gary, that is why submarine people call skimmers targets.
ID: 1190838 · Report as offensive
Profile Orgil

Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 05
Posts: 979
Credit: 103,527
RAC: 0
Mongolia
Message 1190891 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 8:31:01 UTC

Watched some video of that place looked very much like england scenary.
Mandtugai!
ID: 1190891 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1190933 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 13:16:36 UTC - in response to Message 1190793.  

How many anti-ship missiles does it take to put a carrier task force in Davy Jones locker?

Naval surface warfare is a thing of the past.



Is that a fact? Then explain this....

CVN 70 North Arabian Sea
CVN 71 RCOH scheduled for completion Dec 2012
CVN 72 Persian Gulf scheduled for RCOH 2013
CVN 73 Still at Yokosuka?
CVN 74 South China Sea
CVN 75 DPIA scheduled for fleet return Summer 2012

CVN 78 & 79 planned to enter the fleet in 2015 & 2018 - Or have they been cancelled?
ID: 1190933 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1190941 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 13:38:41 UTC

Well the best way to project force without the need to use it is by having a carrier force off the coast (or within striking distance anyway) of a potential enemy.

At this, even though they have always been know to be brash & liking the axiom "Bigger & Better", the yanks are the top dogs.

And until something better enters the picture, carrier forces will still be with us for sometime to come.
ID: 1190941 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1190961 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 14:56:46 UTC - in response to Message 1190933.  

How many anti-ship missiles does it take to put a carrier task force in Davy Jones locker?

Naval surface warfare is a thing of the past.



Is that a fact? Then explain this....


The government likes to waste money and lives.

Note that they are keeping the front line ones well away from China because the top command knows the truth of the matter. Sitting ducks.

ID: 1190961 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 3387
Credit: 4,182,900
RAC: 10
United States
Message 1190985 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 16:14:58 UTC

Maybe Enland can lease a couple of the USA's carriers if push comes to shove. I've been reading that surface navies are obsolete for forty years. If Argentina had the capability to sink a fleet of surface ships they would have already tried. It's harder to attack and disable a carrier battle group than you think.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1190985 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1191153 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 4:19:43 UTC - in response to Message 1190985.  

Not surface navies but the main line battle ship is clearly out of date. no sense sending out a 16 inch dumb round when you can fire a missile and hit your target with absolute accuracy.

Though I understand we used spotter planes the size of models with GPU locators as forward observers in Iraq


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1191153 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1191197 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 13:53:25 UTC - in response to Message 1191193.  

Please read my previous post carefully. I did mention the Iraq war.

to quote a USS Missouri website

In 1955, the Missouri was decommissioned and mothballed at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. But in 1986, the USS Missouri was recommissioned after undergoing an extensive modernization and refurbishment. In 1991, the Mighty Mo was deployed to the Persian Gulf where it fired its 16-inch guns and launched Tomahawk missiles against Iraqi positions during Operation Desert Storm.


what size were those guns again. Oh yeah 16 inches.

Big Mo was retired 1 year later


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1191197 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1191213 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 14:59:19 UTC - in response to Message 1191197.  

Please read my previous post carefully. I did mention the Iraq war.

to quote a USS Missouri website

In 1955, the Missouri was decommissioned and mothballed at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. But in 1986, the USS Missouri was recommissioned after undergoing an extensive modernization and refurbishment. In 1991, the Mighty Mo was deployed to the Persian Gulf where it fired its 16-inch guns and launched Tomahawk missiles against Iraqi positions during Operation Desert Storm.


what size were those guns again. Oh yeah 16 inches.

Big Mo was retired 1 year later


Quite true. However, that was against a ragtag armed forces. Had it been against the old USSR or even Chinese forces, then & now, it wouldn't last very long. To get within range to fire those guns would have left it open to land based air attacks.

Billy Mitchell in the 1930's proved batleships are useless against air attack & he got castigated for that....it took the Japanese during WWII to explode the battleship myth when they sank HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse by air attack alone.

As Bob D stated, it really isn't easy to attack a carrier task force, at least not at this time, in the future, then maybe.

But I'm pretty sure that by then, either the US or other western nations will have found a better solution.
ID: 1191213 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1191231 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 16:45:29 UTC - in response to Message 1191213.  

I( completely agree which is why I also previously stated that Main line battleships with 16 inch guns have been obsolete for majot combat operations since WWII. THe Japanese, American and German main battleships were sitting ducks when it came to air assaults.

Current battle ships have automated defense guns and missles as well as offensive missiles that are much easier to aim using the GPS onboard.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1191231 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1191266 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 19:59:34 UTC - in response to Message 1191231.  

Current battle ships have automated defense guns and missles as well as offensive missiles that are much easier to aim using the GPS onboard.

Ah yes GPS, that can be jammed into thinking the weapon is at home and should be disarmed as Iran recently demonstrated. That does a number on drones, less so on a piloted aircraft as the pilot can use other navigation methods but he can be reduced to his machine gun if all his other weapons have GPS.

As to taking out a task force, hard only because of the scale, but can England get a task force together, or would it be a light carrier and a couple support ships? Consider how far these islands are from the enemy mainland and from resupply ports. On the mainland you can get a lot of missile launchers and pound for a considerable time. You can put up an air force from the mainland. To win all you need do it keep the enemy out of the battle field range. I doubt England has the stomach to directly attack their mainland, which leaves a defensive war. [The USA has had considerable experience is loosing that kind of war.]

There needs to be a political solution to this.

ID: 1191266 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1191292 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 21:32:31 UTC - in response to Message 1191282.  

Also as alluded to before we have a number of nuclear subs on station all over the world at any one time, and we would be getting there a bit quicker than HMS Conqueror did.

And how is a sub going to defend against a paratroop force? Surface and become a sitting duck to put up a radar antenna to fire SAM missiles, or use its deck gun? Argentina does not need to attack by boat. Don't assume your enemy has the same issues you do.

The USA has a long history of loosing defensive wars of attrition.

ID: 1191292 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1191338 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 0:08:15 UTC - in response to Message 1191303.  

And how is a sub going to defend against a paratroop force?

By firing torpedoes at the ship launching the landing craft.

Next question ...



Paratroopers parachute landing craft, land in them, then go ashore? Seems an awful lot of effort when they could arachute over land and avoid any possible encounters with torpedoes. I truly did not appreciate how much any oxymoron military intelligence was until now.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1191338 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1191340 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 0:11:48 UTC - in response to Message 1191303.  

Argentina does not need to attack by boat.

Of course not. Machine gun emplacements have been proven to be fairly effective against parachutists.

So you expect them to be manned and in place after the cruise missiles. Good show old boy.

ID: 1191340 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1191341 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 0:13:09 UTC - in response to Message 1191338.  

And how is a sub going to defend against a paratroop force?

By firing torpedoes at the ship launching the landing craft.

Next question ...



Paratroopers parachute landing craft, land in them, then go ashore? Seems an awful lot of effort when they could arachute over land and avoid any possible encounters with torpedoes. I truly did not appreciate how much any oxymoron military intelligence was until now.

I'm not sure Chris wants to be reminded that islands are sitting ducks. Ask Japan how to defend them.

ID: 1191341 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Is England trying to stir the pot over the Falkland Islands?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.