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.

Motion seconded!

Eh, sure I'm game.

I was merely attempting to be theatrical lol

No harm in pride. But we spend so much on ours that we do have to have some pride in it, too.

Joey wrote:Seems that things are hotting up in the Falklands.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346094/Brazil-sides-Argentina-Britain-Falklands-warship-turned-away-Rio.html
The Brazilians are re-affirming their support for the Argentine cause, and today's National Security Council meeting was entirely on the matter of the Falkland Isles (they most often dicuss multiple matters).
Britain is currently lacking an aircraft carrier, but with two large carriers on the way Argentina's best chance would be to strike sooner rather than later.
British navy at present is still pretty effective, with a few of the higher tech type 45 destroyers and missiles. Argentinia's navy is considerably smaller, though they'd be able to lauch sorties from the mainland in a conflict.
Do people think a conflict in the near future is likely?

nah.

the casus beli of Falkland war was solely Argentinian politics, by then the brits aren't hostile towards Args.
Remember that by the time of the Falkland war. Argentina was ruled by a group of military despots. for this kind of government. which it was about to crumble. so what will you do. if it is clear that witch huntings rally the folks into the opposition's banner instead of scaring them?

you need WAR to reunite people under your banner.

so whoever 'weaks' enough falls victim to the war.

today Argentina rules differently. i don't think that the president will rally the folks with the war agaisnt 'common enemy'.

Dont discount the influence from the bottom at the top... if the Argentinian people feel that the Malvinas should truly be under the Argentinian banner, then popular support for the idea could influence the president to go to war rather than the other way around. Especially with the British military strength currently waning, popular opinion could lead them to believe it is time to strike once more.

chaos0xomega wrote:Especially with the British military strength currently waning, popular opinion could lead them to believe it is time to strike once more.

Where on earth does this idea that our strength is waning come from? We're as capable as we've been at any point since the dissolution of Empire. Probably moreso, thanks to technological advancement.

Lone Cat wrote:

Joey wrote:Seems that things are hotting up in the Falklands.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346094/Brazil-sides-Argentina-Britain-Falklands-warship-turned-away-Rio.html
The Brazilians are re-affirming their support for the Argentine cause, and today's National Security Council meeting was entirely on the matter of the Falkland Isles (they most often dicuss multiple matters).
Britain is currently lacking an aircraft carrier, but with two large carriers on the way Argentina's best chance would be to strike sooner rather than later.
British navy at present is still pretty effective, with a few of the higher tech type 45 destroyers and missiles. Argentinia's navy is considerably smaller, though they'd be able to lauch sorties from the mainland in a conflict.
Do people think a conflict in the near future is likely?

nah.

the casus beli of Falkland war was solely Argentinian politics, by then the brits aren't hostile towards Args.
Remember that by the time of the Falkland war. Argentina was ruled by a group of military despots. for this kind of government. which it was about to crumble. so what will you do. if it is clear that witch huntings rally the folks into the opposition's banner instead of scaring them?

you need WAR to reunite people under your banner.

so whoever 'weaks' enough falls victim to the war.

today Argentina rules differently. i don't think that the president will rally the folks with the war agaisnt 'common enemy'.

I'd believe this but considering the apparent popular support for talks at the very least i'd say that war is a possibility if it isn't likely.

There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.

Also keep in mind that i'm rather well read (compared to the average person) in regards to global military activities, etc. If I think the British military is on the decline, then the average Argentinian will no doubt think its hit rock-bottom.

chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.

I would honestly question that air projection in this specific case is entirely relevant. There's been much debate in strategic circles of late over the value of the Carrier in different types of operations. Now I'm not a purist who claims that Carriers are essential to any kind of operation, or that they're on the way out in the same way as the battleship.

However, I do find that insisting that any kind of operation HAS to be supported by a Carrier is a mark of arrested strategic development.


Considering the capabilities of the Argenine Airforce, the ability to get aircraft over there via in flight refueling, and the upgraded aerial defence capabilities of the Type 45, and British ground forces, it would be my educated opinion that air power/superiority would not play the kind of role in a new conflict that it did in the last one. It would not be nearly so decisive. Important? Yes. The deciding factor? Far from it. I believe that the factors listed above would come into play enough, that the air combat would be more of a sideline conflict (assuming the 4 jets on the ground are destroyed by some covert means).

chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.

Also keep in mind that i'm rather well read (compared to the average person) in regards to global military activities, etc. If I think the British military is on the decline, then the average Argentinian will no doubt think its hit rock-bottom.

but before the Args declare war against the declining UK.
let's check who backs who?
1. what will the U.S. of America do about this?
2. will China and Russia backs Args to further crippling the UK once more? if China believes that the UK should be tied in another losing war so they can consolidate its power in far-east ,Indochina, and Africa?

Lone Cat wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.

Also keep in mind that i'm rather well read (compared to the average person) in regards to global military activities, etc. If I think the British military is on the decline, then the average Argentinian will no doubt think its hit rock-bottom.

but before the Args declare war against the declining UK.
let's check who backs who?
1. what will the U.S. of America do about this?
2. will China and Russia backs Args to further crippling the UK once more? if China believes that the UK should be tied in another losing war so they can consolidate its power in far-east ,Indochina, and Africa?

The US didn't do a lot about the previous one...
Why would Russia care? Many have said that China probably will not assist Argentina though i don't see why it's apparently the UK stopping China from doing that...

I'm going to talk with some of the Argintinians I work with about this to see what "the man on the street" from there, so to speak, thinks about the whole deal.
One of the guys I know from there is blonde haired and blue eyed, and said he put up with a bunch of crap during the war in the 80's because he so resembled a Brit.
In my own opinion I say we stand by Britain or our stated friendship isn't worth crap. Britain has stood with us on more than one occasion when it wasn't convenient.

chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.

Also keep in mind that i'm rather well read (compared to the average person) in regards to global military activities, etc. If I think the British military is on the decline, then the average Argentinian will no doubt think its hit rock-bottom.

Why do you need a carrier when you have island based air fields and in-flight refueling? Not to mention the best air defense system ever created will destroy those 1960's era rust buckets the Argentinians are flying. Yes they did well in the first war, but that will not happen this time as the Argentinian air force has gotten older, while the UK air defense is now state of the art. Yes they may not be able to project the same kind of air power that the US can, but they can certainly project enough to stop Argentina.

It's one thing to think they have hit rock bottom when you have a good military. It's another to think that the UK's current "Rock Bottom" is not enough to handle Argentina. Michael Jordan has probably hit rock bottom so far as basketball performance, he is still probably going to wipe the floor with me in a pick up game.

Relapse wrote:I'm going to talk with some of the Argintinians I work with about this to see what "the man on the street" from there, so to speak, thinks about the whole deal.
One of the guys I know from there is blonde haired and blue eyed, and said he put up with a bunch of crap during the war in the 80's because he so resembled a Brit.
In my own opinion I say we stand by Britain or our stated friendship isn't worth crap. Britain has stood with us on more than one occasion when it wasn't convenient.

does the 'piece of crap' he speaks of refers to that "The Argentinian despot of that time wants war to save them" . right?

chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed.

Aegis (or whatever the British equivalent is) cruisers are wonderful things.

do Args have AEGIS cruiser if in the next war, they're expected to fight an evenmore advanced aircraft? of someone here said that Args SAM systems aren't upgraded since then ??

Lone Cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:I'm going to talk with some of the Argintinians I work with about this to see what "the man on the street" from there, so to speak, thinks about the whole deal.
One of the guys I know from there is blonde haired and blue eyed, and said he put up with a bunch of crap during the war in the 80's because he so resembled a Brit.
In my own opinion I say we stand by Britain or our stated friendship isn't worth crap. Britain has stood with us on more than one occasion when it wasn't convenient.

does the 'piece of crap' he speaks of refers to that "The Argentinian despot of that time wants war to save them" . right?

No the 'crap he had to put up with' more likely refers to the abuse he recieved because he looked British in a time where the country was at war with Britain...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lone Cat wrote:do Args have AEGIS cruiser if in the next war, they're expected to fight an evenmore advanced aircraft? of someone here said that Args SAM systems aren't upgraded since then ??

We (Britain) have it...
Argentina haven't upgraded their military (AFAIK) since the last war.

Ketara wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.

I would honestly question that air projection in this specific case is entirely relevant. There's been much debate in strategic circles of late over the value of the Carrier in different types of operations. Now I'm not a purist who claims that Carriers are essential to any kind of operation, or that they're on the way out in the same way as the battleship.

However, I do find that insisting that any kind of operation HAS to be supported by a Carrier is a mark of arrested strategic development.


Considering the capabilities of the Argenine Airforce, the ability to get aircraft over there via in flight refueling, and the upgraded aerial defence capabilities of the Type 45, and British ground forces, it would be my educated opinion that air power/superiority would not play the kind of role in a new conflict that it did in the last one. It would not be nearly so decisive. Important? Yes. The deciding factor? Far from it. I believe that the factors listed above would come into play enough, that the air combat would be more of a sideline conflict (assuming the 4 jets on the ground are destroyed by some covert means).

I'll be the first to say I think the carrier age is largely coming to a close, but that doesn't change the fact that you need air-cover. If the Argentines launch a ground assault with naval support they won't need to put their own Air Force in danger, they can very easily storm the island if they land in sizable numbers, and if they dont capture/destroy the planes on the ground, they can and will take the airfield while the planes are up leaving the pilots two options: land the planes and be captured or ditch over open water and most likely commit suicide in the process. Yes, Argie losses will be heavy, but once they have the island, it will be very difficult for the Brits to take it back. The RAF is not going to be launching combat sorties from 4,000 miles away (Ascension Island). Most people dont realize it but a ~10 hour long flight (guesstimating) in a fighter jet is extremely phyiscally demanding and rather exhausting. Its also abhorrently expensive. The average combat sortie for the USAF lasts about 4 hours. There are stories about pilots conducting 8+ hour combat sorties and having to be literally pulled out of the cockpit and carried to bed by the ground crew because they were too physically exhausted to walk. Not to mention the physicaly wear-and-tear on the airframe, it takes x number of hours of maintenance for every hour that a plane is in the air, a 10 hour sortie means about 50 hours of maintenance per plane. At that point, even legacy platforms like the A-4 will make a difference, and the RAF most likely won't be able to maintain a high enough ops tempo to provide top cover for helo-CAS missions. Its simply an unfeasible situation in which to wage a war. I'm not saying that British crews aren't excellently trained and that they wont be able to conduct such ridiculous operations, but the human body has its limits and the RAF has a finite number of planes and aircrews, and if its like the USAF/USN then it has an 8 hour "crew rest" policy, meaning for every 24 hour period aircrew must spend approx 8 hours sleeping/resting. The logistics of simply conducting these operations are unrealistic unless theres a carrier involved or the RAF finds a nice rock somewhere to build an airfield on.

Simply put, the Royal Marines/Royal Army are not going to be able to land on the islands without close air support, it will be a slaughter. The Royal whatever cannot provide close air support without top-cover to protect the vulnerable helicopters from (ancient) jet fighters. Top cover cannot be provided if there isn't an air base nearby (the 6000km to Ascension does not qualify as 'nearby') or a carrier capable of launching jet aircraft in the area. Needless to say its a very difficult situation, of course I am going out on a limb and assuming that the Argentines can successfully launch an invasion in the first place, let alone taking the entirety of the islands before a military response occurs.

'ey. remember WW2 Finale? when Germany falls. many Germans left towards Argentina to avoid getting caught and persecuted by the victorius Allies. so I don't think 'White' args are uncommon.
i guess he might descent from the German immigrants.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Ketara wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.

I would honestly question that air projection in this specific case is entirely relevant. There's been much debate in strategic circles of late over the value of the Carrier in different types of operations. Now I'm not a purist who claims that Carriers are essential to any kind of operation, or that they're on the way out in the same way as the battleship.

However, I do find that insisting that any kind of operation HAS to be supported by a Carrier is a mark of arrested strategic development.


Considering the capabilities of the Argenine Airforce, the ability to get aircraft over there via in flight refueling, and the upgraded aerial defence capabilities of the Type 45, and British ground forces, it would be my educated opinion that air power/superiority would not play the kind of role in a new conflict that it did in the last one. It would not be nearly so decisive. Important? Yes. The deciding factor? Far from it. I believe that the factors listed above would come into play enough, that the air combat would be more of a sideline conflict (assuming the 4 jets on the ground are destroyed by some covert means).

I'll be the first to say I think the carrier age is largely coming to a close, but that doesn't change the fact that you need air-cover. If the Argentines launch a ground assault with naval support they won't need to put their own Air Force in danger, they can very easily storm the island if they land in sizable numbers, and if they dont capture/destroy the planes on the ground, they can and will take the airfield while the planes are up leaving the pilots two options: land the planes and be captured or ditch over open water and most likely commit suicide in the process. Yes, Argie losses will be heavy, but once they have the island, it will be very difficult for the Brits to take it back. The RAF is not going to be launching combat sorties from 4,000 miles away (Ascension Island). Most people dont realize it but a ~10 hour long flight (guesstimating) in a fighter jet is extremely phyiscally demanding and rather exhausting. Its also abhorrently expensive. The average combat sortie for the USAF lasts about 4 hours. There are stories about pilots conducting 8+ hour combat sorties and having to be literally pulled out of the cockpit and carried to bed by the ground crew because they were too physically exhausted to walk. Not to mention the physicaly wear-and-tear on the airframe, it takes x number of hours of maintenance for every hour that a plane is in the air, a 10 hour sortie means about 50 hours of maintenance per plane. At that point, even legacy platforms like the A-4 will make a difference, and the RAF most likely won't be able to maintain a high enough ops tempo to provide top cover for helo-CAS missions. Its simply an unfeasible situation in which to wage a war. I'm not saying that British crews aren't excellently trained and that they wont be able to conduct such ridiculous operations, but the human body has its limits and the RAF has a finite number of planes and aircrews, and if its like the USAF/USN then it has an 8 hour "crew rest" policy, meaning for every 24 hour period aircrew must spend approx 8 hours sleeping/resting. The logistics of simply conducting these operations are unrealistic unless theres a carrier involved or the RAF finds a nice rock somewhere to build an airfield on.

Simply put, the Royal Marines/Royal Army are not going to be able to land on the islands without close air support, it will be a slaughter. The Royal whatever cannot provide close air support without top-cover to protect the vulnerable helicopters from (ancient) jet fighters. Top cover cannot be provided if there isn't an air base nearby (the 6000km to Ascension does not qualify as 'nearby') or a carrier capable of launching jet aircraft in the area. Needless to say its a very difficult situation, of course I am going out on a limb and assuming that the Argentines can successfully launch an invasion in the first place, let alone taking the entirety of the islands before a military response occurs.

The new Royal Navy type 45 Destroyers have one of the most advanced anti-air systems about...
Would they not be able to do it?

It really just depends on how ready the UK is at the time if Argentina chooses to attack. If they catch England with their pants down then I say they have a chance. If England gets even some decent naval assets and and one of it's latest anti aircraft cruisers in position first, then Argentina would be at an incredible disadvantage.

Argentina has a military in name only. Yes it may be enough to handle threats that come from South America, but they are in no ways ready to fight a real military power, and yes the UK is still a real military power.

chaos0xomega wrote:If the issue is truly the Falkland Islanders right to be citizens of the crown, then the solution seems obvious: agree to give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina under the conditions that the Islanders be allowed to retain their British citizenship and their full rights thus concerned, but also be given full rights as citizens of Argentina. There, problem solved. The Argentinians get the land they so desperately want, the Islanders get to be British nationals/expats but will still be treated fairly by the Argentinian government. Caso cerrado.

I take issue with the term "give it back" since that implies that the Falklands used to belong to Argentina, which they never did. There was a British colony on the Falkland islands before Argentina ever existed as a country. Back then there was a Spanish colony in Buenos Aires. The Spanish colony declared independence from Spain and formed their own country, which eventually became Argentina. Ever since then They have been claiming that the Falkland Islands is part of their country. But clearly they have no more right to govern the Falkland Islands, than the Falkland Islands have a right to govern Argentina.

Also the issue is not just about the Islanders having British citizenship, it is about them being independent. At the moment they are dependant on Britain for their defence and such, but are otherwise free to govern themselves. Why should they give that up to be dictated to by Argentina?

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'll be the first to say I think the carrier age is largely coming to a close, but that doesn't change the fact that you need air-cover.

This is ultimately the tripping block in your thinking here to me. Why do you need air cover? Sounds nonsensical to you probably, but allow me to extrapolate.

You need air cover for two reasons essentially. To defend your own soldiers/equipment from airborne attack. And to attack the enemy from the air. In a nutshell. (reconnaisance is a third possibility, but with GPS, helicopters, and various sensory devices, I'll leave that out here).

If we're examining a scenario whereby the airfield there has already been taken, the odds are that the Argentine airforce will already have taken some pretty severe losses, damaging their capability. However, if we assume worst case scenario, and some covert means delivers the base to them without a single aircraft loss, things are still not so simple. The Argentinan airforce is rendered relatively impotent at attacking the British fleet (due to the Type 45 being advanced enough to have the effect on 50 year old planes that machine guns did on soldiers crossing No Mans Land in WW1). Land based portable anti-air has undergone upgrade as well (Starstreak is infinitely more advanced than the classic stinger missiles and blowpipe). In short, the British have sufficiently upgraded quality AA to deter any kind of assault on their forces.

The second category was remote strike capability. Now British Tomahawk Missiles provide remote strike capability the Argentines can only dream of. In short, the British can launch aerial attacks on the foe, whilst remaining relatively secure against Argentine reprisals. Whilst aerial superiority wouold not be gained, the deterrence would be enough to render the Argentine airforce fairly impotent, resulting in a stalemate.

If the Argentines launch a ground assault with naval support they won't need to put their own Air Force in danger, they can very easily storm the island if they land in sizable numbers,

Fortunately, a submarine lurking in the area, and infinitely superior sensory capabilities mean the Argenine's might not have much luck landing any sizeable force (due to torpedoes and Tomahawk missiles being nasty things when they hit landing craft and troop transports). The second they leave port for the Falklands, we'll know. And once we stick a few more subs in the area, good luck with resupply. You can have all the troops in the world, if you can't get them where they need to be, or keep them supplied and reinforced, its all relatively irrelevant. The second we stick a blockade on that island, the Argentine's aren't going anywhere, or doing anything.

Bare in mind part of the reason I bought this up now was Britain's current lack of capital ships.
Our technology advantage now is nothing to what it will be when we have two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and another half dozen type 45s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier
Those things will be beasts.

I dont know what the range is on the Type 45s anti-air missiles are, but I would assume that it is not sufficient enough to project anti-air capability over the islands themselves (unless you're parking a destroyer on the beach...), which is where the airpower would matter as the Argentines don't need to strike at British ships, they merely need to threaten ground forces and their airborne assets (in the form of helo's).

You are right against tomahawks being a potent threat against ground targets, however against landing craft and troop transports, last I checked the upgraded version capable of striking moving ships was still being developed/tested, not sure if that has hit the USN/RN yet. Also, torpedoes against landing craft is unlikely, they are rather small fastmoving targets, troop transports are another story, but we are of course assuming that the initial landings arent in the form of a surprise attack to begin with (again...). Also, since WW2 there have only been a few instances of submarines successfully attacking surface shipping with torpedoes. The last time that it occurred was in fact the sinking of the Belgrano during the last conflict there... then again, that means that if anyone is going to do it again, the Royal Navy is the most likely to have some sort of crew somewhere with some sort of experience with it (doubtful considering its been almost 30 years, but it should still be a point of pride).

chaos0xomega wrote:I dont know what the range is on the Type 45s anti-air missiles are, but I would assume that it is not sufficient enough to project anti-air capability over the islands themselves (unless you're parking a destroyer on the beach...), which is where the airpower would matter as the Argentines don't need to strike at British ships, they merely need to threaten ground forces and their airborne assets (in the form of helo's).

Which is why any naval anti-air assets would be placed between the Falklands and the mainland.

And, yes, Argentina would need to target the Type 45s, or any similar ship, if they meant to land on the Islands themselves.

chaos0xomega wrote:I dont know what the range is on the Type 45s anti-air missiles are, but I would assume that it is not sufficient enough to project anti-air capability over the islands themselves (unless you're parking a destroyer on the beach...), which is where the airpower would matter as the Argentines don't need to strike at British ships, they merely need to threaten ground forces and their airborne assets (in the form of helo's).

The range doesn't actually need to be sufficient to cover the entire island, simply cover the fleet, and ground forces in the local vicinity of the fleet. The Falklands being comprised of a multitude of islands however, and ships being portable, redeployment in accordance to cover major pushes would be more than feasible. All that needs to be provided is localised anti-air defence cover after all. You also have to take into account the capability of British ground AA, which should be capable of downing Pucaras and the like with relative ease.

You are right against tomahawks being a potent threat against ground targets, however against landing craft and troop transports, last I checked the upgraded version capable of striking moving ships was still being developed/tested, not sure if that has hit the USN/RN yet. Also, torpedoes against landing craft is unlikely, they are rather small fastmoving targets, troop transports are another story, but we are of course assuming that the initial landings arent in the form of a surprise attack to begin with (again...).

I didn't intend to imply that Tomahawks should be used against Argentine naval assets, my apologies if that's what you got. I meant Tomahawks for softening up and eliminating ground assets deployed on the islands, in place of bomber craft or strafing runs, reduce the requirement for having your own aircraft operating locally.

As to the submarines, if there is a substantial force embarked, I'm pretty sure the Royal Navy will have a field day with that one. Hitting landing craft themselves may be a challenge, but lumbering troop transports? The newest British submarines are quite possibly the most advanced in the world, I'm not even sure Argentine naval assets are capable of detecting them with the application of the new stealth hulls and whatnot.

Joey wrote:Bare in mind part of the reason I bought this up now was Britain's current lack of capital ships.
Our technology advantage now is nothing to what it will be when we have two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and another half dozen type 45s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier
Those things will be beasts.

Only if the f-35 proves to be a worthy air craft........which is really up in the air.

http://www.jdnews.com/articles/problems-98498-martin-pentagon.html

As of note, it has failed every carrier landing simulation, this appears to be a issue and has to do with the frame not being strong enough and the engine not leaving enough room for a proper arresting hook. Leaving those carriers with nothing to carry.

chaos0xomega wrote:
You are right against tomahawks being a potent threat against ground targets, however against landing craft and troop transports, last I checked the upgraded version capable of striking moving ships was still being developed/tested, not sure if that has hit the USN/RN yet.

The Harpoon would be the more likely weapon of choice.

dogma wrote: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?

Australia has six states, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Tasmania is the smallest of these states, but is just as much a state as any of the others. It puts six senators in the Australia Upper House, like all the others.

And it's really just one big island.