How long til the Argies kick off?
Discussion
Asterix said:
Not a huge change, just means we have to keep the Chileans on side with the odd gift.Jeex I would have thought better of the Telegraph. The bloody picture of a RFA landing ship called Largs Bay. You can even see the b
d name on her bow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Clyde_(P257)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Largs_Bay_(L3006)
As for the story. Interesting. We have recently had a big deployment to Brazil where we apparenlty tried to flog HMS Ocean to them. This was pre-the defence review.
Also most of their naval kit is of British origin. They have old RN T 22 Frigats and another class of ships based on a UK frigate design. They have an ex-British landing ship too.
I had thought the UK was schmoozing Brazil to be part of our new T26 frigate programme.
So an odd turn of affairs.
But now that we have no dedicated Ice Patrol Vessel down there and no maritime based air power, why piss around pretending the UK is a force to be reckoned with.
Its not as we could even deploy a Nimrod on Maritime Patrol duties down there to keep an eye on things.
Cameron has put us in a position were we have no strength to negotiate. Afterall, Brazil has a fully functioning convential carrier. The can mount Maritime Patrol Ops - or support more hostile operations. What is in it for them to be mates with us?
A South American alliance, able to deploy a (Neuteral) Carrier off the coast of Stanley. Decent ASW frigate force, amphibious capability???
Sure we would win. But at what cost. Firing Spearfish torpedoes and Stormshadows around the place. We'd win, sink a lot of ships at quite a political cost. The whole of South America aginast us for a very long time.
Where would that put the Yanks? Spain? elements of the EU? China and Russia would love that.
My gut feeling is that nothing will happen re the Falklands, but it could.
d name on her bow.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Clyde_(P257)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Largs_Bay_(L3006)
As for the story. Interesting. We have recently had a big deployment to Brazil where we apparenlty tried to flog HMS Ocean to them. This was pre-the defence review.
Also most of their naval kit is of British origin. They have old RN T 22 Frigats and another class of ships based on a UK frigate design. They have an ex-British landing ship too.
I had thought the UK was schmoozing Brazil to be part of our new T26 frigate programme.
So an odd turn of affairs.
But now that we have no dedicated Ice Patrol Vessel down there and no maritime based air power, why piss around pretending the UK is a force to be reckoned with.
Its not as we could even deploy a Nimrod on Maritime Patrol duties down there to keep an eye on things.
Cameron has put us in a position were we have no strength to negotiate. Afterall, Brazil has a fully functioning convential carrier. The can mount Maritime Patrol Ops - or support more hostile operations. What is in it for them to be mates with us?
A South American alliance, able to deploy a (Neuteral) Carrier off the coast of Stanley. Decent ASW frigate force, amphibious capability???
Sure we would win. But at what cost. Firing Spearfish torpedoes and Stormshadows around the place. We'd win, sink a lot of ships at quite a political cost. The whole of South America aginast us for a very long time.
Where would that put the Yanks? Spain? elements of the EU? China and Russia would love that.
My gut feeling is that nothing will happen re the Falklands, but it could.
joebongo said:
Presumably we won't deploy the Rapier missiles this time now we know they don't work in hilly locations (d'oh).
As Talksteer mentions, Rapier is a whole different game now and they are deployed full time in the Falklands.Ross1988 said:
You are aware the type 45 has no missiles?
I think you might need to update that....Two T45s could be brought forward to being in a position to live fire fairly quickly.
They are undergoing trials and testing - doesn't mean the weapons can't be delpoyed. I know we've only fired one so far but that means nothing.
Sea Skua - which had a kill in the Falklands in 1982 wasn't officially in service when it was used.
But the remaining Type 42s we have with Sea Dart would be a decent match for anything the Argies/S American alliance can chuck at us. It's by no means state of the art, but it's a much better weapon than it was back in 1982. The problems of littoral engagement have been sorted, plus the sensors the missile carries and the sensors on teh ships are much better than then.
Having said that, the T45 is another world in terms of what it can do.
They are undergoing trials and testing - doesn't mean the weapons can't be delpoyed. I know we've only fired one so far but that means nothing.
Sea Skua - which had a kill in the Falklands in 1982 wasn't officially in service when it was used.
But the remaining Type 42s we have with Sea Dart would be a decent match for anything the Argies/S American alliance can chuck at us. It's by no means state of the art, but it's a much better weapon than it was back in 1982. The problems of littoral engagement have been sorted, plus the sensors the missile carries and the sensors on teh ships are much better than then.
Having said that, the T45 is another world in terms of what it can do.
wildcat45 said:
Two T45s could be brought forward to being in a position to live fire fairly quickly.
They are undergoing trials and testing - doesn't mean the weapons can't be delpoyed. I know we've only fired one so far but that means nothing.
Sea Skua - which had a kill in the Falklands in 1982 wasn't officially in service when it was used.
But the remaining Type 42s we have with Sea Dart would be a decent match for anything the Argies/S American alliance can chuck at us. It's by no means state of the art, but it's a much better weapon than it was back in 1982. The problems of littoral engagement have been sorted, plus the sensors the missile carries and the sensors on teh ships are much better than then.
Having said that, the T45 is another world in terms of what it can do.
Surely the T23's would be a good bet for knocking stuff out of the air with sea wolf?They are undergoing trials and testing - doesn't mean the weapons can't be delpoyed. I know we've only fired one so far but that means nothing.
Sea Skua - which had a kill in the Falklands in 1982 wasn't officially in service when it was used.
But the remaining Type 42s we have with Sea Dart would be a decent match for anything the Argies/S American alliance can chuck at us. It's by no means state of the art, but it's a much better weapon than it was back in 1982. The problems of littoral engagement have been sorted, plus the sensors the missile carries and the sensors on teh ships are much better than then.
Having said that, the T45 is another world in terms of what it can do.
Sea Wolf is a point defence missile system. Good at what it does, but it is designed to protect the ship it is being carried on - and other vessels close by. It has a shorter range a few miles only.
Sea Dart is an area air defence weapon with a greater range - something ike 30 miles.
During the '82 war, they deployed Type 22/42 Combos. The long range reach of Sea Dart, backed up by the short range protection of Sea Wolf. It idn't always work - HMS Coventry was sunk while operating with a Type 22. It also highlighted the shortcomings in the Type 42 design as built, no close in weapon systems.
The Sea Viper/PAAMS system used by the Type 45 destroyers is a two missile system combining medium and short range missiles. In simple terms, it is like a modern day T22 in one hull.
Sea Dart is an area air defence weapon with a greater range - something ike 30 miles.
During the '82 war, they deployed Type 22/42 Combos. The long range reach of Sea Dart, backed up by the short range protection of Sea Wolf. It idn't always work - HMS Coventry was sunk while operating with a Type 22. It also highlighted the shortcomings in the Type 42 design as built, no close in weapon systems.
The Sea Viper/PAAMS system used by the Type 45 destroyers is a two missile system combining medium and short range missiles. In simple terms, it is like a modern day T22 in one hull.
wildcat45 said:
Sea Wolf is a point defence missile system. Good at what it does, but it is designed to protect the ship it is being carried on - and other vessels close by. It has a shorter range a few miles only.
Sea Dart is an area air defence weapon with a greater range - something ike 30 miles.
During the '82 war, they deployed Type 22/42 Combos. The long range reach of Sea Dart, backed up by the short range protection of Sea Wolf. It idn't always work - HMS Coventry was sunk while operating with a Type 22. It also highlighted the shortcomings in the Type 42 design as built, no close in weapon systems.
The Sea Viper/PAAMS system used by the Type 45 destroyers is a two missile system combining medium and short range missiles. In simple terms, it is like a modern day T22 in one hull.
Ah ok thanks.Sea Dart is an area air defence weapon with a greater range - something ike 30 miles.
During the '82 war, they deployed Type 22/42 Combos. The long range reach of Sea Dart, backed up by the short range protection of Sea Wolf. It idn't always work - HMS Coventry was sunk while operating with a Type 22. It also highlighted the shortcomings in the Type 42 design as built, no close in weapon systems.
The Sea Viper/PAAMS system used by the Type 45 destroyers is a two missile system combining medium and short range missiles. In simple terms, it is like a modern day T22 in one hull.
I could see this developing into something below war.
An invasion of the islands would be a very risky venture.
More likely I would say would be warships - or South American civvy ships - causing problems for fishing vessels and doing their best to hamper oil exploration.
That way they keep things on the boil witout getting shot. If for example an Argie vessel did no more than hang around and watch, there is no way we'd use a Trafalgar or an Astute to sink it.
Brazil could deploy its carrier well North of the Islands, probing air defencde with it's jets. Again, we ain't going to go blowing it out of the water for that.
If however he had a deployable carrier, we would be able to mount amore flexibile defence. We could take our airfield closer to an agressive country, up the pressure a bit.
Without our carriers though the RN is not much more than a very well equipped coast guard.
An invasion of the islands would be a very risky venture.
More likely I would say would be warships - or South American civvy ships - causing problems for fishing vessels and doing their best to hamper oil exploration.
That way they keep things on the boil witout getting shot. If for example an Argie vessel did no more than hang around and watch, there is no way we'd use a Trafalgar or an Astute to sink it.
Brazil could deploy its carrier well North of the Islands, probing air defencde with it's jets. Again, we ain't going to go blowing it out of the water for that.
If however he had a deployable carrier, we would be able to mount amore flexibile defence. We could take our airfield closer to an agressive country, up the pressure a bit.
Without our carriers though the RN is not much more than a very well equipped coast guard.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff