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


log in

Advanced search

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

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 12 · Next
Author Message
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1362
Credit: 547,035
RAC: 301
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.

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10175
Credit: 1,528,691
RAC: 270
United Kingdom
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?
____________

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31007
Credit: 11,207,668
RAC: 19,541
United Kingdom
Message 1190785 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012, 23:29:55 UTC

At the moment it's all mainly sabre rattling. Although you can be pretty much sure that the UK has a nuclear sub already down there.

Guardian

Dauntless

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12075
Credit: 6,381,088
RAC: 8,409
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.

____________

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31007
Credit: 11,207,668
RAC: 19,541
United Kingdom
Message 1190804 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 0:07:53 UTC

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


BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 11,885,807
RAC: 4,046
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.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12075
Credit: 6,381,088
RAC: 8,409
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.

____________

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2101
Credit: 4,376,279
RAC: 7,739
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.
____________

Profile Orgil
Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 05
Posts: 971
Credit: 102,795
RAC: 1
Mongolia
Message 1190891 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 8:31:01 UTC

Watched some video of that place looked very much like england scenary.
____________
Mandtugai!

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10175
Credit: 1,528,691
RAC: 270
United Kingdom
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?
____________

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31007
Credit: 11,207,668
RAC: 19,541
United Kingdom
Message 1190934 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 13:28:40 UTC

I think that if Naval surface warfare was really a thing of the past, then every country with a navy would disband it and save some money. I didn't take Gary's comment too seriously and I don't think he or anyone else has :-)

CVN 78 & 79 are still planned to go ahead as far as I know.

There are expected to be ten ships of this class. To date, three have been announced:

Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), (2015) – Scheduled to replace Enterprise (CVN-65).
John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)[1], (2018) – Scheduled to replace Nimitz (CVN-68).
CVN-80 – Scheduled to replace Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69).


CVN Carriers

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10175
Credit: 1,528,691
RAC: 270
United Kingdom
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.
____________

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31007
Credit: 11,207,668
RAC: 19,541
United Kingdom
Message 1190945 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 13:53:59 UTC

Worth a comment that Russia appears to be going the Sub route rather than top end surface warships or Carriers.

Russian Navy

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12075
Credit: 6,381,088
RAC: 8,409
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.

____________

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1362
Credit: 547,035
RAC: 301
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.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
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

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31007
Credit: 11,207,668
RAC: 19,541
United Kingdom
Message 1191193 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 12:42:55 UTC
Last modified: 3 Feb 2012, 12:45:08 UTC

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.

Er excuse me? Aren't you talking about WWII battleships? HMS Dauntless doesn't have any 16" guns nor do any other modern ships.

HMS Dauntless

Anti-air missiles;
Sea Viper air defence system.
48 cell SYLVER A50 VLS, for a combination of 48;
Aster 15 missiles (range 2-30 km)
Aster 30 missiles (range 3-120 km)

Guns;
1× BAE 4.5 inch Mk8 Mod. 1 gun
2× 30 mm guns
2× Phalanx CIWS
2× Miniguns
6× General-purpose machine guns

Provision for but not fitted with;
2× Quad Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon launchers (8 anti-ship missiles)
BGM-109 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles


Skildude mate, we are in the 21st century now, there can't be many old style warships with those sort of main guns still being used on the frontline. If there are, they must be being rapidly replaced. And in any case missiles do not have to be launched in line of sight to their targets, they home in electronically or by heat seeking technology.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
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

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10175
Credit: 1,528,691
RAC: 270
United Kingdom
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.
____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
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

End terrorism by building a school

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 12 · Next

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

Copyright © 2014 University of California