More Argie Bargie
Discussion
DamienB said:
A few years back I did some research into what sort of training the RN did with their shiny new Type 42s etc. back in the 1970s to prepare them for air attack. Lots of predictable and 'safe' training with aircraft coming in at set intervals, altitudes of 500ft+, clear radar backdrops etc. Even that showed up the inadequacy of gun defences on just about every type of ship in the fleet. Post-Falklands and the bloody mess the Argies made out of several of our ships, I wonder how much better the training has been against Type 45s. I certainly don't believe for one minute that a single 45 would survive for long against determined opposition. But then hopefully it would have been raining Tomahawks on every Argie airfield before we got to that point.
I imagine FOST is a bit more imaginative when he dreams up his Thursday wars these days; in the 1970s the 42's primary role was protecting REFORGER convoys from the predation of Soviet naval strike aircraft lobbing anti-ship missiles so understandably the focus was on those, which is exactly what Sea Dart was designed to deal with. Sea skimmers didn't appear until the mid-1970s and until the Argies fired one into Sheffield perhaps the danger was not fully appreciated.DamienB said:
A few years back I did some research into what sort of training the RN did with their shiny new Type 42s etc. back in the 1970s to prepare them for air attack. Lots of predictable and 'safe' training with aircraft coming in at set intervals, altitudes of 500ft+, clear radar backdrops etc. Even that showed up the inadequacy of gun defences on just about every type of ship in the fleet. Post-Falklands and the bloody mess the Argies made out of several of our ships, I wonder how much better the training has been against Type 45s. I certainly don't believe for one minute that a single 45 would survive for long against determined opposition. But then hopefully it would have been raining Tomahawks on every Argie airfield before we got to that point.
Define determined opposition. Anyone willing to fire more than 48 missiles at the ship will make a mess of it.Trying what the Argentines did will get you very dead very quickly. The system is designed to stop supersonic anti ship missiles in a saturation attack. Hence it can have 16 missiles in the air and because they are active radar they only need to be cued into the vague area of the target. The systems behind it are pretty world-class. The only things letting it down are a lack of cooperative engagement (there is no physics based reason why any platform capable of resolving a target shouldn't be capable of guiding a missile to it though this hasn't been implemented due to cost/lack of forward planning/compatiblity) and lack of testing. It has only recently shot down a fast low-level target.
That said I think with the exception of the Chinese ballistic missile taking this system on force on force is not likely to be a good idea. Very few nations actually have a saturation attack capability the UK isn't one of them.
More of an issue would be straight up cock ups, subterfuge or using the system improperly.
Which actually if you look at the Falklands (which remember is as far away from today as WWII/Korea was from it) is pretty much what happened. Only Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyer were hit in open water there was elements of cock-up in both cases. I'd actually argue that in hindsight the RN should have brought the carriers in relatively close to San Carlos but still in open water and protected by the T42 and T22s. The missile systems would have worked pretty effectively in the open ocean conventional bombing would have been suicide the Exocets attacks would have been less effective as the T22s would not have been damaged in San Carlos and the Sea Harriers could have mounted a far more effective CAP over San Carlos as they would be closer and not have to deconflict with the ships.
Isn't it part of the equation that the only reason that 2 ships were hit by missiles, is that the argies didn't have many! IF they had considerably more then it goes to argument that more ships would have been sunk. Keeping the carriers out of range of any aircraft deployed missile was the only sensible option.
As to the FOST Thursday wars games. Before 1982, it was a bit of a joke and fun, after a lot more serious. I did both....a few times.
As to the FOST Thursday wars games. Before 1982, it was a bit of a joke and fun, after a lot more serious. I did both....a few times.
Talksteer said:
Define determined opposition. Anyone willing to fire more than 48 missiles at the ship will make a mess of it.
Trying what the Argentines did will get you very dead very quickly. The system is designed to stop supersonic anti ship missiles in a saturation attack. Hence it can have 16 missiles in the air and because they are active radar they only need to be cued into the vague area of the target. The systems behind it are pretty world-class. The only things letting it down are a lack of cooperative engagement (there is no physics based reason why any platform capable of resolving a target shouldn't be capable of guiding a missile to it though this hasn't been implemented due to cost/lack of forward planning/compatiblity) and lack of testing. It has only recently shot down a fast low-level target.
That said I think with the exception of the Chinese ballistic missile taking this system on force on force is not likely to be a good idea. Very few nations actually have a saturation attack capability the UK isn't one of them.
More of an issue would be straight up cock ups, subterfuge or using the system improperly.
Which actually if you look at the Falklands (which remember is as far away from today as WWII/Korea was from it) is pretty much what happened. Only Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyer were hit in open water there was elements of cock-up in both cases. I'd actually argue that in hindsight the RN should have brought the carriers in relatively close to San Carlos but still in open water and protected by the T42 and T22s. The missile systems would have worked pretty effectively in the open ocean conventional bombing would have been suicide the Exocets attacks would have been less effective as the T22s would not have been damaged in San Carlos and the Sea Harriers could have mounted a far more effective CAP over San Carlos as they would be closer and not have to deconflict with the ships.
20/20 hindsight is fine; Woodward had to bluff the Argies with a pair of twos, if he lost a flattop the whole show would have been off. Also exocets were not the only hazard, there were two fairly new and very quiet submarines in the Argentine Navy which were a major concern.Trying what the Argentines did will get you very dead very quickly. The system is designed to stop supersonic anti ship missiles in a saturation attack. Hence it can have 16 missiles in the air and because they are active radar they only need to be cued into the vague area of the target. The systems behind it are pretty world-class. The only things letting it down are a lack of cooperative engagement (there is no physics based reason why any platform capable of resolving a target shouldn't be capable of guiding a missile to it though this hasn't been implemented due to cost/lack of forward planning/compatiblity) and lack of testing. It has only recently shot down a fast low-level target.
That said I think with the exception of the Chinese ballistic missile taking this system on force on force is not likely to be a good idea. Very few nations actually have a saturation attack capability the UK isn't one of them.
More of an issue would be straight up cock ups, subterfuge or using the system improperly.
Which actually if you look at the Falklands (which remember is as far away from today as WWII/Korea was from it) is pretty much what happened. Only Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyer were hit in open water there was elements of cock-up in both cases. I'd actually argue that in hindsight the RN should have brought the carriers in relatively close to San Carlos but still in open water and protected by the T42 and T22s. The missile systems would have worked pretty effectively in the open ocean conventional bombing would have been suicide the Exocets attacks would have been less effective as the T22s would not have been damaged in San Carlos and the Sea Harriers could have mounted a far more effective CAP over San Carlos as they would be closer and not have to deconflict with the ships.
Bomb attack against a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires is "not a crime".
Corrupt to the core Banana republic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-3207...
Corrupt to the core Banana republic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-3207...
Martin4x4 said:
Bomb attack against a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires is "not a crime".
Corrupt to the core Banana republic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-3207...
Suggest you read it again until you understand it. Corrupt to the core Banana republic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-3207...
Martin4x4 said:
Ayahuasca said:
Suggest you read it again until you understand it.
Suggest you stay off the psychedelics until you understand it.Ayahuasca said:
Hahaha. Sorry for being harsh. The article doesn't say the bombing was not a crime, it says that the Witch of the South was not involved in a cover up of knowledge of Iran's involvement in the bombing. Not quite the same thing.
But was she involved in the cover up of the cover up?Ayahuasca said:
Hahaha. Sorry for being harsh. The article doesn't say the bombing was not a crime, it says that the Witch of the South was not involved in a cover up of knowledge of Iran's involvement in the bombing. Not quite the same thing.
Well that is not how it really reads.The two judges said that "no crime had been committed" that is straight forward blanket statement.
It is not made specific with regard to Kirchner's interfere in the investigation.
The initial explosion was clearly a crime, the death of the prosecutor looks like a crime, as does the Kirchner's interference in the investigation and now the the politicised judgement's very clear mendacious nature.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 28th March 13:54
Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 28th March 13:56
http://news.sky.com/story/1457488/drilling-finds-o...
Oil!
Oil I tell you!
If there's a viable quantity, this could get interesting.
Oil!
Oil I tell you!
If there's a viable quantity, this could get interesting.
NailedOn said:
http://news.sky.com/story/1457488/drilling-finds-o...
Oil!
Oil I tell you!
If there's a viable quantity, this could get interesting.
I'm certainly looking forward to the bile shortly to be emanating from Buenos Aires Oil!
Oil I tell you!
If there's a viable quantity, this could get interesting.
Martin4x4 said:
Ayahuasca said:
Hahaha. Sorry for being harsh. The article doesn't say the bombing was not a crime, it says that the Witch of the South was not involved in a cover up of knowledge of Iran's involvement in the bombing. Not quite the same thing.
Well that is not how it really reads.The two judges said that "no crime had been committed" that is straight forward blanket statement.
It is not made specific with regard to Kirchner's interfere in the investigation.
This could be interesting (I like openness except to help an enemy):
Argentinian president Fernández orders declassification of Falklands war files
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/argen...
Argentinian president Fernández orders declassification of Falklands war files
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/argen...
NicD said:
This could be interesting (I like openness except to help an enemy):
Argentinian president Fernández orders declassification of Falklands war files
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/argen...
Ooh, scary. Not that they will not have an impeccable provenance and mention why a dictator who made a lot of people disappear.... what am I thinking, she likes the truth in the open.Argentinian president Fernández orders declassification of Falklands war files
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/argen...
Meanwhile, this been brought up before?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-3217...
They want to prosecute oil companies operating in their territory.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-3217...
They want to prosecute oil companies operating in their territory.
jmorgan said:
Meanwhile, this been brought up before?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-3217...
They want to prosecute oil companies operating in their territory.
enforcing that, how I wonder? she's just asking for a slap reallyhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-3217...
They want to prosecute oil companies operating in their territory.
Snowdon has released documents that claim that the UK spied on Argentina between 2006 and 2011;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32172669
I think most British people will be mentally filing this under "no st Sherlock".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32172669
I think most British people will be mentally filing this under "no st Sherlock".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff