More Argie Bargie

Author
Discussion

jmorgan

36,010 posts

283 months

Wednesday 21st December 2011
quotequote all
dealmaker said:
Yup I think a carrier loaded with some Harrier's is the answer.....oh wait......

....phew...good job we can rely on our friends the French to help us out and lend us one!!!.....

.....oh bks!
Seems the gist so far is the carrier is the Falklands. Hard to sink that.

Jim the Sunderer

3,238 posts

181 months

Wednesday 21st December 2011
quotequote all
They'd probably complain that we've not cleared up the mines they dropped.

MX7

7,902 posts

173 months

Wednesday 21st December 2011
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
MX7 said:
I doubt that a NATO member would actively supply a country in conflict with another NATO member.
The US supplies Greece and Turkey. They are always playing chicken with each other's F-16s.
They are both NATO members, unlike Argentina, and they aren't at war.

If France did supply Argentina, they would violate the Treaty.

psgcarey

611 posts

161 months

Wednesday 21st December 2011
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
Apart from the fact that neither Astute nor the Type 45 are fully operational yet.
The Type 45 I was shown around in September was certainly very operational, and by now is either already at the Falklands or will be there soon, it was their next assignment.

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Wednesday 21st December 2011
quotequote all
Let's not forget that the only reason our carriers were so vital in the war was that we didn't have any planes on Falkland in the first place. We've corrected that now - there's no chance of the Argentinians managing a surprise attack again, and they don't have the capability to gain air superiority at such long range, even with the limited number of planes we have.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 21st December 2011
quotequote all
If I were a Falklander, I'd be a bit wary of Somali pirates...

Puggit

48,355 posts

247 months

Wednesday 21st December 2011
quotequote all
idea

We can pay the bankrupt Frogs to borrow their carrier. I can't think of better funny money than promises to pay them out of Falkland oil funds.

sjn2004

4,051 posts

236 months

Wednesday 21st December 2011
quotequote all
Caulkhead said:
It's the blatant hypocrisy that gets me. The Argentinians keep trying to portray themselves as the 'natives' and the British as colonisers. Yes, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, that's a right typical South Amerindian name isn't it? It's not like you're all actually european colonisers as well is it?
But their in the right because they murdered millions and shipped all the gold back to Spain.

JMGS4

8,734 posts

269 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
davepoth said:
Let's not forget that the only reason our carriers were so vital in the war was that we didn't have any planes on Falkland in the first place. We've corrected that now - there's no chance of the Argentinians managing a surprise attack again, and they don't have the capability to gain air superiority at such long range, even with the limited number of planes we have.
Corrected that, BUT we've now built a hige airport big enough to take any aircraft so a quick sneak attack by paratroopers could take it and open the air bridge for the args to land a pile more troops. Then we'd be royally fooked as the labour scum scrapped our carriers and we couldn't fly down anything now.
We should have kept small independant strips and a much larger force of Harriers flown by the RNAS... but the Brylcreem boys wanted their part of the Falklands action as they did feck all during the conflict (apart from one or two excellent pilots who were posted to the RN during the strife..) not even mentioning a vastly expensive and totally ineffective Vulcan strike (x2) which didn't even hit the target... probably scared a few penguins though!

Neil H

15,323 posts

250 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
They must be fking bored in Argentina to make such a big deal about some crappy little islands. I think they only reason they want them is because they can’t have them. If we actually gave them back, they’d probably go “actually, we changed our minds, we’re going to play with some Lego instead”.

Puggit

48,355 posts

247 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
Neil H said:
They must be fking bored in Argentina to make such a big deal about some crappy little islands. I think they only reason they want them is because they can’t have them. If we actually gave them back, they’d probably go “actually, we changed our minds, we’re going to play with some Lego instead”.
They want them to deflect attention from internal problems - same as 30 years ago. The nationalist card is always popular!

superlightr

12,842 posts

262 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
JMGS4 said:
Corrected that, BUT we've now built a hige airport big enough to take any aircraft so a quick sneak attack by paratroopers could take it and open the air bridge for the args to land a pile more troops. Then we'd be royally fooked as the labour scum scrapped our carriers and we couldn't fly down anything now.
We should have kept small independant strips and a much larger force of Harriers flown by the RNAS... but the Brylcreem boys wanted their part of the Falklands action as they did feck all during the conflict (apart from one or two excellent pilots who were posted to the RN during the strife..) not even mentioning a vastly expensive and totally ineffective Vulcan strike (x2) which didn't even hit the target... probably scared a few penguins though!
That would be my main concern. The runway being captured and held which would prevent our aircraft taking off/landing.

If you were the Argies how would you go about taking the Islands?
Could we stop them now?

ianash

3,274 posts

182 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
All I know is the PH UKIP militants would be well hacked off if the Isle of Man was part of Argentina!!
Isle of Man approx 40 miles from UK - Falklands approx 250 miles from Argentina. Faroe Isles approx 223 miles from UK, but is part of Denmark. Perhaps we should bomb those Danish bds for stealing our land?

bp1

796 posts

207 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
psgcarey said:
The Type 45 I was shown around in September was certainly very operational, and by now is either already at the Falklands or will be there soon, it was their next assignment.
Are these the type 45's that can turn up anywhere in the world and defend themselves but have very little in the way of offensive armament?

Although the chap who told me that did have dolphins as his service badge, so may have been biased wink

DrMekon

2,492 posts

215 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
ianash said:
Isle of Man approx 40 miles from UK - Falklands approx 250 miles from Argentina. Faroe Isles approx 223 miles from UK, but is part of Denmark. Perhaps we should bomb those Danish bds for stealing our land?
Well, I wouldn't have considered it until you pointed that out.

TTwiggy

11,500 posts

203 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
bp1 said:
psgcarey said:
The Type 45 I was shown around in September was certainly very operational, and by now is either already at the Falklands or will be there soon, it was their next assignment.
Are these the type 45's that can turn up anywhere in the world and defend themselves but have very little in the way of offensive armament?

Although the chap who told me that did have dolphins as his service badge, so may have been biased wink
I believe that air defence is their primary remit, and they are very well equipped for that role.

Still, they've got a 4.5in gun, and can launch Tommahawk missiles, so hardly toothless.

warch

2,941 posts

153 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
Puggit said:
Neil H said:
They must be fking bored in Argentina to make such a big deal about some crappy little islands. I think they only reason they want them is because they can’t have them. If we actually gave them back, they’d probably go “actually, we changed our minds, we’re going to play with some Lego instead”.
They want them to deflect attention from internal problems - same as 30 years ago. The nationalist card is always popular!
Didn't this all kick off again when BP or someone announced there were huge oil reserves within Falklands waters. Argentina is and has been for a long time completely fked financially, its all the other South American countries I'm suprised by, they don't exactly have a long tradition of getting on with each other. I wouldn't be that suprised if the US weighed in on their side too, they have a traditional dislike of the UK hanging onto our colonial assets and they weren't exactly on our side last time round...

ApexJimi

24,864 posts

242 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
Mr_B said:
Look back at the Falklands war and something that keeps coming up is the claim that had they lost a carrier, it was game over. If you do beleive that to be true, then they were one lucky missle strike away from victory, and a very different Britain.
I see we have solved this problem by just not having any carriers to Exocet now. Out of interest, do they still have Exocet or a similar weapon that could take out a carrier ?
I'm not sure how this is supposed to read, is it -

A) If we lost a carrier?
or
B) If they lost a carrier?

bp1

796 posts

207 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
TTwiggy said:
bp1 said:
psgcarey said:
The Type 45 I was shown around in September was certainly very operational, and by now is either already at the Falklands or will be there soon, it was their next assignment.
Are these the type 45's that can turn up anywhere in the world and defend themselves but have very little in the way of offensive armament?

Although the chap who told me that did have dolphins as his service badge, so may have been biased wink
I believe that air defence is their primary remit, and they are very well equipped for that role.

Still, they've got a 4.5in gun, and can launch Tommahawk missiles, so hardly toothless.
I dont believe they are tomahawk capable, but I am no expert on it, so happy to be proven wrong. They 'can' be fitted with Harpoons, the hardpoints are there for 2 quadrupple launchers but the launchers are no longer standard equipment. I believe it was a cost saving measure rolleyes

As was the decision to cut the number ordered from 12 to 6.

TTwiggy

11,500 posts

203 months

Thursday 22nd December 2011
quotequote all
bp1 said:
TTwiggy said:
bp1 said:
psgcarey said:
The Type 45 I was shown around in September was certainly very operational, and by now is either already at the Falklands or will be there soon, it was their next assignment.
Are these the type 45's that can turn up anywhere in the world and defend themselves but have very little in the way of offensive armament?

Although the chap who told me that did have dolphins as his service badge, so may have been biased wink
I believe that air defence is their primary remit, and they are very well equipped for that role.

Still, they've got a 4.5in gun, and can launch Tommahawk missiles, so hardly toothless.
I dont believe they are tomahawk capable, but I am no expert on it, so happy to be proven wrong. They 'can' be fitted with Harpoons, the hardpoints are there for 2 quadrupple launchers but the launchers are no longer standard equipment. I believe it was a cost saving measure rolleyes

As was the decision to cut the number ordered from 12 to 6.
Still, it's better than the old Type 21 frigates, that were launched with little more than harsh words with which to harangue the enemy.