Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Falklands War The Second?

1…89101113

Comments

  • #362
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Type 43 frigates? Are they a new top secret type?


  • #363
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    One thing is for sure - if they are going to invade then they will need to construct a navy pretty damned soon.

    I'd certainly agree that Britain would be incapable of sending a task force capable of retaking the islands should the Argentines somehow get their hands on them. In 6 to 10 years however the Navy will be as strong as its ever been with the new carriers and escort ships and at that point the Argies will not have a hope of withstanding a counter invasion.

    The thing is, they do not have any form of landing platform available to them to land a force capable of taking the islands. More to the point, they aren't even in the process of creating such a fleet.


  • #364
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    bwatson wrote: »
    One thing is for sure - if they are going to invade then they will need to construct a navy pretty damned soon.

    I'd certainly agree that Britain would be incapable of sending a task force capable of retaking the islands should the Argentines somehow get their hands on them. In 6 to 10 years however the Navy will be as strong as its ever been with the new carriers and escort ships and at that point the Argies will not have a hope of withstanding a counter invasion.

    The thing is, they do not have any form of landing platform available to them to land a force capable of taking the islands. More to the point, they aren't even in the process of creating such a fleet.

    Plus their economy is on the skids.
    Linking their peso to the US dollar destroyed them forcing them to go cap in hand to the IMF.
    They have never made any attempt to persuade the islanders either.
    Bit like Eire and NI come to think of it!


  • #365
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    SNAKEDOC wrote: »
    all in all it would be a bad day at the office for the Argentine military and another embarrassment for the junta.

    I don't think you actually know what the word 'junta' means there, sport.


  • #366
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    The other point is the UK armed forces have had a couple of decades of very experience of recent wars under their belt. Thats a huge advantage right there. I'd say Britain could acquire, commandeer all the ships they needed, if they had the motivation.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    BostonB wrote: »
    The other point is the UK armed forces have had a couple of decades of very experience of recent wars under their belt. Thats a huge advantage right there. I'd say Britain could acquire, commandeer all the ships they needed, if they had the motivation.

    From whom? The british merchant fleet is mostly flagged in protectorates, and owned by non UK residents.


  • #368
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    goldie fish wrote: »
    From whom? The british merchant fleet is mostly flagged in protectorates, and owned by non UK residents.

    while that is entirely true - faced with the same STUFT requirements as in 82, the RN would be fcuked - and a matter of more than a little strategic concern, however the current RN has a much greater organic amphibious capability than was the case in 82 - the two LPD's, Ocean, Lusty, the 3 LSD(A)'s, and most importantly, no one would bother sending 5 Bde!


  • #369
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    OS119 wrote: »
    while that is entirely true - faced with the same STUFT requirements as in 82, the RN would be fcuked - and a matter of more than a little strategic concern, however the current RN has a much greater organic amphibious capability than was the case in 82 - the two LPD's, Ocean, Lusty, the 3 LSD(A)'s, and most importantly, no one would bother sending 5 Bde!

    Like for like, while the RN may have a greater Amphib capacity, it also lacks the means to defend them at sea, and particularly while landing troops. Aircraft carriers? With Fixed wing? Apache's on Ocean can't do CAP.
    The current atlantic conveyer is swedish flagged....


  • #370
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    BostonB wrote: »
    The other point is the UK armed forces have had a couple of decades of very experience of recent wars under their belt. Thats a huge advantage right there. I'd say Britain could acquire, commandeer all the ships they needed, if they had the motivation.

    There has only been ONE day since the end of WW2 when British troops have not been operationally deployed somewhere on the planet.

    tac


  • #371
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    What day was that?


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    goldie fish wrote: »
    Like for like, while the RN may have a greater Amphib capacity, it also lacks the means to defend them at sea, and particularly while landing troops. Aircraft carriers? With Fixed wing? Apache's on Ocean can't do CAP.
    The current atlantic conveyer is swedish flagged....

    I think the argies getting on the Islands in the first place is a bigger problem.


  • #373
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    gatecrash wrote: »
    Do you HONESTLY think that if the Argentinians invaded the Falklands, that the US, would not bring it's diplomatic weight firmly down on the side of the UK? Militarily, not so sure, but you can be certain that the US will stand beside the UK if this were to come to pass.

    It is a long thread so maybe it has already been discussed.
    My recollection is the US stood on the sidelines the first time. What makes you think it will be any different the next time?


  • #374
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Last time they helped them with getting the latest Sidewinders and Shrikes, and I think fuel, and some other supplies. But otherwise stayed out out it. I don't think they would need US help. Maybe the US would give them their harriers back and they could use them by adding a ski ramp to HMS Ocean (helicopter) or a converted cargo ship for example.


  • #375
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    goldie fish wrote: »
    Like for like, while the RN may have a greater Amphib capacity, it also lacks the means to defend them at sea, and particularly while landing troops. Aircraft carriers? With Fixed wing? Apache's on Ocean can't do CAP.
    The current atlantic conveyer is swedish flagged....

    again, entirely true - and not a defence policy that could be defended by any sentient being - however, Counter Air isn't just shooting sh1t out of the sky (which the T45's are quite good at, but are no substitute for an FA2 with AMRAAM and a SK AS7 providing AWACS-lite), its also destroying aircraft on the ground, cratering their runways, and killing their pilots, which TLAM can do, if not perfectly...

    the 'no carriers' RN is by no stretch of the imagination where you would start out if you were building an expeditionary force, no argument, but even sans carriers it is a powerful force with a significant capability against Air, land, Surface and Sub-Surface enemies - and against an Argentine force on the FI, denied the use of MPA and PSA by SSN's and TLAM, it would be a right handful.

    i'm on the 'CVF with F/A-18F' wing, because i know the RN needs more escorts and SSN more than it needs F-35C/B, infact if push came to shove i'd ditch CVF in favour of a dozen T45/26 with Harpoon and TLAM...


  • #376
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I've not been following this thread, so this may have been mentioned - can the UK launch a nuke independently of the USA?


  • #377
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    goldie fish wrote: »
    What day was that?

    Aaaaw, shoot, you caught me out. :rolleyes:

    According to the UN, there have been just 26 days of 'peace' since May of 1945 when there has not been a conflict of some kind.

    Meanwhile, back to the thread about how the Argentinians are going to wish they had never been born if they try and take The Falkland Islands off the British.

    tac


  • #378
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    mike65 wrote: »
    I've not been following this thread, so this may have been mentioned - can the UK launch a nuke independently of the USA?

    If you are thinking about submarine-launched cruise missiles, well, they don't have to be nuclear to smart quite a lot.

    Catching one of them as it comes through your office window can be off-putting, I would have thought.

    And you can bet that every building or structure worth getting one is already a set of numbers waiting to be fed in to the launch data.

    From around a thousand miles away....

    tac


  • #379
    Donny5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    mike65 wrote: »
    I've not been following this thread, so this may have been mentioned - can the UK launch a nuke independently of the USA?

    Yes, so says the MOD, anyway.


  • #380
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Cheers, I've never got the presumption (if there is one) that a surface naval force would need sending 8000 miles in a re-run of 1982. A few fvck-you missiles would surely make the point?


  • #381
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    I don't think anyone wants the collateral damage caused by that.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Using those would pretty much be political suicide.


  • #383
    Cardinal Richelieu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,407 ✭✭✭Cardinal Richelieu


    mike65 wrote: »
    I've not been following this thread, so this may have been mentioned - can the UK launch a nuke independently of the USA?

    UK would be better off using Anthrax to wipe out Argentina beef herds.


  • #384
    Cardinal Richelieu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,407 ✭✭✭Cardinal Richelieu


    SNAKEDOC wrote: »
    the islands are much more protected these days with the constant rotation of the type 43 frigates from the uk typhoons on station with tanker support. a squadron of light and medium helicopters a detachment of 500 plus troops with support squadron signals and transport group. if an attack happened, even a surprise on like in 82 the islanders would have some limited warning, enough for the military to dig in fighters to scramble choppers to get troops to key areas and to be used as gun platforms for advance troops. the frigates would be no match for the arges navy which is out of date. all in all it would be a bad day at the office for the Argentine military and another embarrassment for the junta. the PM wouldnt even have to dispatch the fleet never mind there are no harriers or carriers

    Is the junta still in power? The open and free elections are a fraud?


  • #385
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Well I'm not suggesting blasting down town Buenos Aires, rather a few Tomahawks at any hostile navy actions.


  • #386
    Donny5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    mike65 wrote: »
    Well I'm not suggesting blasting down town Buenos Aires, rather a few Tomahawks at any hostile navy actions.

    The U.K.'s Tomahawks are completely separate from her nuclear capabilities. Her nuclear warheads are delivered by Trident IIs from Vanguards, which don't carry Tomahawks. Their other submarines and plenty of surface combatants all carry TLAMs, though.


  • #387
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »
    Is the junta still in power? The open and free elections are a fraud?

    depends on your view: is CFK a dictator? no, she is not. has her government recently made it an offence for newspapers to use 'unofficial' inflation figures? yes.

    if the Irish or UK governments tried a similar trick there'd firstly be howls of laughter, followed by total derision - rightly so - and lots of entirely justifiable talk about them attempting to subvert democracy by telling the (formerly)free press what it can and can't print.

    is it different if she does it?


  • #388
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    tricky D wrote: »
    Using those would pretty much be political suicide.

    depends.

    using a 500Kt warhead on Buenos Aires would be politically disasterous - the UK would be disarmed, split up etc.. and rightly so.

    on the other hand, a 0.2Kt warhead exploded 300m over Rio Gallegos Air Base (unpopulated area, very low yeild etc..), or a 5Kt detonation over an Argentine naval force near the Islands would, while difficult politically, and there'd be lots of condemnation and the UK would have few friends, not be on the same scale. military targets, low yeild weapons, minimal, or indeed no, civilian casualties or collateral damage - it'd be noisy, but it wouldn't be nation ending.

    its important to not view such a concept soley through the prism of an Irish political viewpoint - the US reserves the right to use Nukes, as do the French, and most countries in NATO, even while non-nuclear powers themselves, maintained 'dual-key' nuclear arrangements with the US. even the 'green' Germans built and maintained their tactical aircraft and artillery to be nuclear compatible - and still do...

    such actions are not neccesary with the current correlation of forces, but imv the chances of peace/avoidence of war are not well served by minimising to potential consequences of war.


  • #389
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    OS119 wrote: »
    depends.

    using a 500Kt warhead on Buenos Aires would be politically disasterous - the UK would be disarmed, split up etc.. and rightly so.

    on the other hand, a 0.2Kt warhead exploded 300m over Rio Gallegos Air Base (unpopulated area, very low yeild etc..), or a 5Kt detonation over an Argentine naval force near the Islands would, while difficult politically, and there'd be lots of condemnation and the UK would have few friends, not be on the same scale. military targets, low yeild weapons, minimal, or indeed no, civilian casualties or collateral damage - it'd be noisy, but it wouldn't be nation ending.

    its important to not view such a concept soley through the prism of an Irish political viewpoint - the US reserves the right to use Nukes, as do the French, and most countries in NATO, even while non-nuclear powers themselves, maintained 'dual-key' nuclear arrangements with the US. even the 'green' Germans built and maintained their tactical aircraft and artillery to be nuclear compatible - and still do...

    such actions are not neccesary with the current correlation of forces, but imv the chances of peace/avoidence of war are not well served by minimising to potential consequences of war.

    It would demand a complete reversal of British nuclear policy though. Aren't they one of only two nations who are commited to only ever considering the use of nuclear weapons in a second strike scenario?


  • #390
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    bwatson wrote: »
    It would demand a complete reversal of British nuclear policy though. Aren't they one of only two nations who are commited to only ever considering the use of nuclear weapons in a second strike scenario?

    the flippant answer to that is 'meh, politicians'.

    the serious answer is 'meh, politicians' - nuclear release policy can be changed in the time it takes the PM to have a thought and then telephone Northwood. 5 minutes, max...

    the 'no first strike' policy is as see through as that, and it invalidates the counter-force concept, as well as the CASD - which are, unlike this or that declared policy, the holy of unholies of British nuclear strategy.

    my personal, political, view is that a British PM faced with an irrelersable military defeat, the loss of 3000 UK citizens and an indifferent US reluctant/unwilling to assist in the conventional defence of those citizens - especially where the state they'd be lost to isn't that nice, and where incompetence on the UK governments' part was the prime cause of the loss of those citizens - would consider the use of very low yield nuclear weapons on strictly military targets.

    that does not mean they would order it, or indeed that they would definately seriously consider it - it just means that the UK has that capability, and its normally considered extremely unwise to take on face value the the words of someone you're at war with.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Donny5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    bwatson wrote: »
    It would demand a complete reversal of British nuclear policy though. Aren't they one of only two nations who are commited to only ever considering the use of nuclear weapons in a second strike scenario?

    Not at all. The only countries will a No-First-Use policy are China, India and (for whatever their word is worth) North Korea. All other countries have warned they would consider using nuclear weapons first, and although Britain has stated that they would only use nuclear weapons defensively, retaliation to an invasion of the Falklands would certainly be defensive. The Blair administration even threatened Iraq with a nuclear strike should they deploy chemical or biological weapons against British troops during the 2003 invasion.


Advertisement