Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AndrewC wrote:No, for some reason we sold them to the US Marines?!!!

Bad thing to do. Brilliant aircraft!

Because of the terrain, air superiority is a must. I know they say that you can't win a war without boots on the ground, but in this case you will lose without planes in the air.

Cheers

Andrew

Well they are good at somethings, but their performance has really fallen behind the curve over the last 20 years. While it would still be possible to defeat the Argentinian air force with them( because as I said they have not upgraded their forces either) in almost any other theater against a real air force the Harrier could never be a suitable multirole aircraft to build your naval assets around, which is why they retired them. It makes sense for the US to buy them as other craft in our arsenal could provide cover for them. But you can not base a carrier group on the harriers capabilities anymore. The would get taken apart by most semi- modern aircraft available at bargain basement prices from the former Soviet Union.

It's got a dragon on it!! And it can fire 50 missiles a minute!!!!


So much win.

They essentially look like Arliegh Burkes (SP?) with the sail covered by plating. They are very sleek and predatory, just the way a cruiser should be.

AustonT wrote:They essentially look like Arliegh Burkes (SP?) with the sail covered by plating. They are very sleek and predatory, just the way a cruiser should be.

It's a destroyer...

There's a reason for the hull design, its a new type of stealth hull we came up with to make it appear the same size as a small boat on radar systems.

The Sea Viper missile system on the other hand, was a joint French/British/Italian system that was designed to negate the weaknesses of the previous Sea Dart system, which was shown in the 80's in the Falklands to be vulnerable to mass attacks, and low flying strike aircraft. So it was basically designed to make numbers irrelevant.


The Navy has been substantially overhauled based on Falklands experience actually. The Carriers are simply the last thing to be upgraded. The new Type 45 Destroyers and Astute class submarine are quite probably the most advanced unit types of their class in the world (including the US), and the new amphibious assault ships are designed with force projection in mind.

No, if the Argentinians tried it again, we're loaded for bear.

The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:No, if the Argentinians tried it again, we're loaded for bear.

But Argentina has such wonderful beef, perhaps you should load for cattle.

AustonT wrote:The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.

Can we call them Destroying Cruisers then?
Or Cruising Destroyers?

People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.

Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.

purplefood wrote:

AustonT wrote:The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.

Can we call them Destroying Cruisers then?
Or Cruising Destroyers?

Meh, I think they are going to call them Destroyers, meanwhile the Japs are sailing Carriers they are calling Destroyers that are according to wiki 18,000 tons, you know the size of the Invincibles that were sold as "Aircraft carrying Command Cruisers" in the way back, and the US sails the previously mentioned Burkes that are the same size as the Ticonderoga class and carry the same Aegis and more capable radar system that caused the Ti's to be classified as Cruisers.
I like Cruising Destroyers, it's catchy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.

Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.

Even if they did China's blue water Navy is outclassed in terms of experience and training by the RN, and their involvement would FORCE the USN to enter the fray. Oh yeah, France would never let you use the De Gaulle, his spirit alone would smite you.

purplefood wrote:

AustonT wrote:The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.

Can we call them Destroying Cruisers then?
Or Cruising Destroyers?

True bu they are more capable then the ship that was twice the size that they replaced and perform the same role, so I don't really see an issue.

Albatross wrote:
The Type 45 operates Sea Viper, which is capable of launching something along the lines of 50 missiles a minute.
Yeah, I googled it - the type 45s look badass, too! HMS Dragon:

That looks seriously badass.
At risk of sounding like a dumbass, where the hell are the guns/missiles?
Apart from the one at the front, obviously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.

Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.

That would essentially mean a declaration of war on NATO...unlikely to happen over a rock in the south Atlantic.
Taiwan, maybe.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.

Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.

The problem is you don't have any good carrier bases aircraft right now, also the harrier if it was brought out of mothballs is not built to be launched off of the De gaulls carrier deck catapults. Also as noted the French would never let you use it, not because they are jerks, but because there really is no reason or precedent for them to do such.

China would not want to go toe toe to toe with the west right now.

Joey wrote:

Albatross wrote:
The Type 45 operates Sea Viper, which is capable of launching something along the lines of 50 missiles a minute.
Yeah, I googled it - the type 45s look badass, too! HMS Dragon:

That looks seriously badass.
At risk of sounding like a dumbass, where the hell are the guns/missiles?
Apart from the one at the front, obviously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.

Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.

The primary armament are the missiles which are in vertical launch cells in the after portion of the ship, I have no idea where the anti missile guns are, but there are only four of them, relatively small on a very large ship.
That would essentially mean a declaration of war on NATO...unlikely to happen over a rock in the south Atlantic.
Taiwan, maybe.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

AustonT wrote:The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.

Can we call them Destroying Cruisers then?
Or Cruising Destroyers?

True bu they are more capable then the ship that was twice the size that they replaced and perform the same role, so I don't really see an issue.

You seem to have missed something here, I'll let you figure it out.

AustonT wrote:The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:No, if the Argentinians tried it again, we're loaded for bear.

But Argentina has such wonderful beef, perhaps you should load for cattle.

No . Their steaks are awesome.

Good wine, too.

Really? Whenever I try an Argentinian wine all I think to myself is, "Really, all those Germans and not ONE of them a vinter?"

They send the good stuff to Europe.

Kilkrazy wrote:They send the good stuff to Europe.

KK you say that...but you always show a Japanese flag, and I'm 99% sure I saw a picture of you with shockingly red hair...WHO IS THIS ENIGMA?!

Andrew1975, it's horses for courses. The Harrier is the first 'out the box' jet. That the UK conceived, developed and built, by itself. It's a case of rose tinted specs I admit.

Anyway, the FI have a secret weapon. Killer penguins! Trained to attach limpet mines to ships and peck unsuspecting ankles. Weiner Dogs beware!

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:Andrew1975, it's horses for courses. The Harrier is the first 'out the box' jet. That the UK conceived, developed and built, by itself. It's a case of rose tinted specs I admit.

Anyway, the FI have a secret weapon. Killer penguins! Trained to attach limpet mines to ships and peck unsuspecting ankles. Weiner Dogs beware!

Cheers

Andrew

Oh don't get it wrong the Harrier WAS great for it's time, it's just shown it's age. It was never meant to go toe to toe with the best fighters even at the time. The problem now comes from the proliferation of advanced Soviet and US fighters that have been sold to the rest of the world. When the Harrier was designed it was not meant to go up against a f-16 or a fulcrum which can be bought for almost nothing now. It could handle the Mirages and Jaguars of it's time just fine though.

Frazzled wrote:unless they want to fight of course. There's oil there and national politics. Britain's ability to project force is limited and if Brazil supports its no bueno.
Unless Matty pulls a NEO of course...

Whereas Brazil's ability to project force is... what exactly? Their primary sea vessels are old warships sold to them by the British when they became too obselete for the British and French, and their support craft are newer vessels... sold to them by the British.

It's really weird that you'd continue repeating nonsense about how powerful the Brazilians are after I pointed out that isn't true, though it is good that when Ketara and some others explained the same thing you accepted it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Damn it, Frazz and Chaos Omega, who's side on are you on?? What happened to Washington favours, the special relationship, the trans-atlantic alliance, Truman's visit to London etc etc

That relationship goes one way. That's what's so special about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:Especially considering how rapidly Brazil has been modernizing its Navy and Air Force... Give it a few more years and they will have commissioned their first nuclear submarine (based on French designs no less)

I'm really struggling to figure out how Brazil's plans to acquire a weapons platform the UK has had in operation for what, five decades, is an argument in favour of Brazil's military capabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:Its total military ability might not come close to the UK's but it doesn't have to. The UK barely had the force projection capabilities to retake the Falklands during the first conflict, it has even less of that capability today

One of the primary issues here is that you keep saying the above, even though it's wrong. You can't just read the headlines about very recent cuts to British military spending and assume therefore their capability is worse than it was three decades ago.

I dont see your point regarding the british sub back in 82/83... So what you're saying is that a nuclear submarine is a legitimate threat to any navy?

It would be to any fleet that lacked modern sonar system. Like, say, Brazil and Argentina.

Doubt it. The UK didnt strike Argentina the first time, the UK isnt going to strike at Argentina or Brazil this time.

The war collapsed the Argentinian economy, and led directly to the overthrow of the right wing dictatorship and free elections within a year of their defeat in the Falklands. Britain didn't have to invade, because the defeat led to regime change already.

You think Brazil is looking at that result and thinking it wants a piece of it? Come on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:Pardon? Our amphibious assault capabilities are considerably more advanced and efficient than they were then. The whole point of the Falklands was that we re-organised our assets and ordered new ones, and reconsidered doctrine and capability so that we wouldn't be in the same position again.

I'm genuinely not sure where you're pulling your British force projection capability facts from.

At a guess, I'm think he followed the debate over British decomissioning of naval assets in the last couple of years, and made the assumption that meant decreasing British naval capabilities to less than they were in 1982.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.

Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.

Why would the Chinese throw away the present system of alliances and international deals… just get their hands on some portion of Falklands oil? I mean, do you think the Chinese would be able to rely on pre-existing deals for resources with places like Australia if they were to go to war with China?

This is all beginning to feel like brainstorming for a new Tom Clancy novel.

Whereas Brazil's ability to project force is... what exactly? Their primary sea vessels are old warships sold to them by the British when they became too obselete for the British and French, and their support craft are newer vessels... sold to them by the British.

Brazil's ability to project force in the region is phenomenal. Brazil's navy is at best second rate, and Brazil seems happy with that lot. As far as the Sao Paulo is concerned they bought her for a song, I checked the cost of a Eurofighter on wiki. Their carrier and the fighters they put on her cost less than one Typhoon. That's smart spending!
Against a first rate navy like the RN they are no match, but let's go ahead and toss aside any chance of Brazil entering into conflict with Britain. It's economic and military suicide. They seem quite content to be the big fish in a small pond and stop at every once in awhile telling a RN Captain to find berth somewhere else.

Edit: I'd also point out that their 50 year old carrier and 40 year old embarked air wing are in fact 1 more carrier and embarked air wing than Britain has right now, though that may change, and while widely considered obsolete it was A-4s that caused so much havoc against the RN in the Falklands war, not the Etendards.

AustonT wrote:

Whereas Brazil's ability to project force is... what exactly? Their primary sea vessels are old warships sold to them by the British when they became too obselete for the British and French, and their support craft are newer vessels... sold to them by the British.

Brazil's ability to project force in the region is phenomenal. Brazil's navy is at best second rate, and Brazil seems happy with that lot. As far as the Sao Paulo is concerned they bought her for a song, I checked the cost of a Eurofighter on wiki. Their carrier and the fighters they put on her cost less than one Typhoon. That's smart spending!
Against a first rate navy like the RN they are no match, but let's go ahead and toss aside any chance of Brazil entering into conflict with Britain. It's economic and military suicide. They seem quite content to be the big fish in a small pond and stop at every once in awhile telling a RN Captain to find berth somewhere else.

Edit: I'd also point out that their 50 year old carrier and 40 year old embarked air wing are in fact 1 more carrier and embarked air wing than Britain has right now, though that may change, and while widely considered obsolete it was A-4s that caused so much havoc against the RN in the Falklands war, not the Etendards.

I'm not sure what you mean by the A-4s causing havoc . I also seam to remember the only UK air losses were to ground bases antiaircraft systems. The Argentinian air force was pretty much useless except for launching Exocet missiles from the Super Etendards, that was a devastating blow. Oddly enough the Brits lost more planes to accidents (Harriers were pretty fickle) during the campaign then they lost to the Argentinian airforce.

Andrew1975 wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Whereas Brazil's ability to project force is... what exactly? Their primary sea vessels are old warships sold to them by the British when they became too obselete for the British and French, and their support craft are newer vessels... sold to them by the British.

Brazil's ability to project force in the region is phenomenal. Brazil's navy is at best second rate, and Brazil seems happy with that lot. As far as the Sao Paulo is concerned they bought her for a song, I checked the cost of a Eurofighter on wiki. Their carrier and the fighters they put on her cost less than one Typhoon. That's smart spending!
Against a first rate navy like the RN they are no match, but let's go ahead and toss aside any chance of Brazil entering into conflict with Britain. It's economic and military suicide. They seem quite content to be the big fish in a small pond and stop at every once in awhile telling a RN Captain to find berth somewhere else.

Edit: I'd also point out that their 50 year old carrier and 40 year old embarked air wing are in fact 1 more carrier and embarked air wing than Britain has right now, though that may change, and while widely considered obsolete it was A-4s that caused so much havoc against the RN in the Falklands war, not the Etendards.

I'm not sure what you mean by the A-4s causing havoc . I also seam to remember the only UK air losses were to ground bases antiaircraft systems. The Argentinian air force was pretty much useless except for launching Exocet missiles from the Super Etendards, that was a devastating blow. Oddly enough the Brits lost more planes to accidents (Harriers were pretty fickle) during the campaign then they lost to the Argentinian airforce.

During the 1982 Falklands War, Argentina deployed 48 Skyhawk warplanes (26 A-4B, 12 A-4C and 10 A-4Q aircraft).[34] Armed with unguided bombs and lacking any electronic or missile self-defense, Argentine Air Force Skyhawks sank the Type 42 Destroyer HMS Coventry and the Type 21 Frigate HMS Antelope as well as inflicting heavy damage on several others: the RFA Sir Galahad (1966) (which was subsequently scuttled as a war grave), the Type 42 HMS Glasgow, the Leander Class Frigate HMS Argonaut, the Type 22 Frigate HMS Broadsword, and the RFA Sir Tristram. Argentine Navy A-4Qs, flying from Río Grande, Tierra del Fuego naval air station, also played a role in the bombing attacks against British ships, destroying the Type 21 HMS Ardent.[35]
Its on Wikipedia

I am concerned whether the Falklands face an invasion threat for the following reasons.

International support for Argentinas 'claim'.
1. Argentina has the support of pretty much all South and Central America, some of that support is very vocal, Obama will not want to speak against it either, and has not done so in the past.
2. China actively supports Argentina, and has reciprocal support to keep Tibet off the list of non self governing countries at the UN. China sniffs oil and will likely bid for the contracts after the islands are 'liberated'.
3. The South African government also lightly supports Argentina because of the colonialism mantra, though the UK also has friends who might aid them.

Military situation.
1. Brazil is a firmly pro-Argentine hard neutral, meaning they can send assets out to sea and keep tabs on where all UK assets are.
2. Argentina has a piss weak armed forces but China does not, the strongest worry is a rapid arming of Argentina with Chinese equipment in return for contracted benefits.
3. the Argentina military is better trained than it was and is motivated to do the job.


Argentina is lacking key equipment notably attack helicopters and heavy lift aircraft. However given sufficient material support, plus surprise they could launch an attack on Mount Pleasant neutralising the defenders long enough to land an invasion force.
This would require a surprise missile attack (launched from the mainland) disabling the airfield, I think China has the hardware for that. 400 mile range cruise missiles is pretty much standard tech at the moment.
Follow up with a paratroop assault, control an LZ. Then land your main body by air. This again would need China's help with the loan of heavy lift transport aircraft in sufficient numbers. This is an expensive way of doing things but politically the Argentine government may pay any price as the rewards for the party in power for a successful invasion will be substantial.

Stanley would haver to fall later as the FIDF is well armed and motivated, and there is a residual garrison at the town; but if the Argies get troops on West Falkland and Mount Pleasant they can supply a slow march with continuous reinforcements and air superiority. The UK would not be able to to do much about that, they wouldn't have time for a start and any reinforcement fleet will be pinged by Brazilian 'merchant' vessels. The UK would therefore be forced to come to terms in all likelihood.

All this includes by necessity the tacit approval of China and preferably Brazil, but can be actioned with Argentine troops alone. It still leaves a lot of British Army infantry out of the picture which should not be overlooked, but while they are brave often their politicians are not, the bulk of world opinion is against the UK due to a very successful maskirovka campaign by Argentina. Its not certain, but it is doable. The main point against it is that a massive strike may engender sympathies for the islanders which are up to now absent. argentina made many mistakes last time, but one they did not make was abusing the local populace. Had there been significant casualties amongst the islanders in 1982 this issue might have been dealt with by the UN by now.

Long term the UK has one option, offer the islanders a referendum to join the UK formally as integral territory (and be allowed to vote in an MP for parliament). If the Islands are formally incorporated into the Union they become integral British soil, not an offshore territory and the UK can call on the NATO treaty to help defend them.

AustonT wrote:Against a first rate navy like the RN they are no match, but let's go ahead and toss aside any chance of Brazil entering into conflict with Britain. It's economic and military suicide. They seem quite content to be the big fish in a small pond and stop at every once in awhile telling a RN Captain to find berth somewhere else.

True. Denying port access is a million miles from engaging in open war with a country. I mean, is anyone afraid of New Zealand declaring war on the US any time soon?

sebster wrote:

AustonT wrote:Against a first rate navy like the RN they are no match, but let's go ahead and toss aside any chance of Brazil entering into conflict with Britain. It's economic and military suicide. They seem quite content to be the big fish in a small pond and stop at every once in awhile telling a RN Captain to find berth somewhere else.

True. Denying port access is a million miles from engaging in open war with a country. I mean, is anyone afraid of New Zealand declaring war on the US any time soon?

Every day, I live in constant fear of the New Zealanders since witnessing a Haka by the All Blacks. It's why I have an arsenal of guns meant only to kill human beings and sheep (ref: Gun Politics)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That and Taz

Orlanth wrote:
This again would need China's help with the loan of heavy lift transport aircraft in sufficient numbers.

You mean purchase.

Orlanth wrote:
Stanley would haver to fall later as the FIDF is well armed and motivated...

~300 people with a budget of ~400,000 FKP per anum?

Orlanth wrote:
Long term the UK has one option, offer the islanders a referendum to join the UK formally as integral territory (and be allowed to vote in an MP for parliament). If the Islands are formally incorporated into the Union they become integral British soil, not an offshore territory and the UK can call on the NATO treaty to help defend them.

It won't matter if NATO dissolves, or significantly weakens. Long-term, Argentina will have the Falklands as their territory, at least that is what is most likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:
That and Taz

I thought Tasmania was part of Australia.

I could be wrong but I believe that Australia and the New Zealand islands are collectively the Tasmanian Isles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I looked i was wrong

Tasmania contains more than 1 island, but I don't think its inclusive of Australia and New Zealand.

Maybe they were referred to that way back in the day?