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.

Joey wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue

...the UK has no carriers.

We have the HMS Ocean, the HMS Albion and the HMS Bulwark.
Though the Ocean is a helicopter carrier and the Albion and the Bulwark are amphibious assault carriers...

Joey wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue

...the UK has no carriers.

Yes we do. HMS Illustrious is still operational, and we could reactivate the Ark Royal within a week (it's sitting in a drydock).

Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.

Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.

Not right now but if we needed to we could just unpack the Ark Royal as Ketara said...

purplefood wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.

Not right now but if we needed to we could just unpack the Ark Royal as Ketara said...

Yeah but you would have nothing to fly off of it and no pilots rated for them if you did. Look, I wasn't seriously saying you guys should buy a-10's and fly them off carriers. It was ......oh never mind

You guys have a good and capable navy, you don't need carriers for the Falklands you have airstrips on the Islands you just need mid air refueling.

Andrew1975 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.

Not right now but if we needed to we could just unpack the Ark Royal as Ketara said...

Yeah but you would have nothing to fly off of it. I wasn't seriously saying you guys should buy a-10's and fly them off carriers. It was ......oh never mind

I dunno...
Add a few rockets-boostery type things onto it and maybe some pointing the opposite way to stop it...
It could work... though it would probably just explode.
Though we do have the harriers packed away somewhere so we could just get those...
Though we don't have anyone to fly them...

purplefood wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.

Not right now but if we needed to we could just unpack the Ark Royal as Ketara said...

Yeah but you would have nothing to fly off of it. I wasn't seriously saying you guys should buy a-10's and fly them off carriers. It was ......oh never mind

I dunno...
Add a few rockets-boostery type things onto it and maybe some pointing the opposite way to stop it...
It could work... though it would probably just explode.
Though we do have the harriers packed away somewhere so we could just get those...
Though we don't have anyone to fly them...

You know they call the old Harriers widowmaker for a good reason, good luck getting pilots trained on those in a rush.

Andrew1975 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.

Not right now but if we needed to we could just unpack the Ark Royal as Ketara said...

Yeah but you would have nothing to fly off of it. I wasn't seriously saying you guys should buy a-10's and fly them off carriers. It was ......oh never mind

I dunno...
Add a few rockets-boostery type things onto it and maybe some pointing the opposite way to stop it...
It could work... though it would probably just explode.
Though we do have the harriers packed away somewhere so we could just get those...
Though we don't have anyone to fly them...

You know they call the old Harriers widowmaker for a good reason, good luck getting pilots trained on those in a rush.

He's probably referring to the GR7s being sold to the US Navy.
To fly an A-10 off a carrier would require an almost total redesign it a totally unworkable concept; its just funny to say.

AustonT wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.

Not right now but if we needed to we could just unpack the Ark Royal as Ketara said...

Yeah but you would have nothing to fly off of it. I wasn't seriously saying you guys should buy a-10's and fly them off carriers. It was ......oh never mind

I dunno...
Add a few rockets-boostery type things onto it and maybe some pointing the opposite way to stop it...
It could work... though it would probably just explode.
Though we do have the harriers packed away somewhere so we could just get those...
Though we don't have anyone to fly them...

You know they call the old Harriers widowmaker for a good reason, good luck getting pilots trained on those in a rush.

He's probably referring to the GR7s being sold to the US Navy.
To fly an A-10 off a carrier would require an almost total redesign it a totally unworkable concept; its just funny to say.

Yes hence the after my statement.

Sonophos wrote:

Umm... A10s aren't maritime aircraft and aren't designed for carrier deployment are they? I know the USMC have a number but I thought they use them from airfields not carriers.

Then what you know is wrong. The entire fleet of A-10s are, have been, and always will be US Air Force assets.

purplefood wrote:

Joey wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue

...the UK has no carriers.

We have the HMS Ocean, the HMS Albion and the HMS Bulwark.
Though the Ocean is a helicopter carrier and the Albion and the Bulwark are amphibious assault carriers...

and last time i served on her, Ocean was also an Amphibious assault ship and LPH (landing platform helicopter) (although that might have been re-tasked now bulwark and albion (also amphibious assault ships) are now in service) due to fearless and invincible being retired.

However, HMS Queen Elizabeth, and Prince Of Wales (both carriers) are due to enter service in 2016 and 2018 respectively, although, i guess we will be relying on the AAS till then if there is a major crisis....

This has gone off-topic onto one of the most inane of topics... why do smart alecks (spelling?) have to leap on someone for suggesting we get lent some A10s? Does anyone *really* care that they can't launch off of carriers? It's humour, y'all... don't let it kill an interesting thread.

With regards to the carriers, I dunno about our planes or our capabilities to relaunch the things, but I think we can at least agree that the Royal Navy is in a laughable state. *Initiate The Sun Mode* NELSON WOULD BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE. GOTCHA, ARGIES!

Henners91 wrote:This has gone off-topic onto one of the most inane of topics... why do smart alecks (spelling?) have to leap on someone for suggesting we get lent some A10s? Does anyone *really* care that they can't launch off of carriers? It's humour, y'all... don't let it kill an interesting thread.

With regards to the carriers, I dunno about our planes or our capabilities to relaunch the things, but I think we can at least agree that the Royal Navy is in a laughable state. *Initiate The Sun Mode* NELSON WOULD BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE. GOTCHA, ARGIES!

The Royal navy is pretty fierce and is more then capable of handling Argentina on it's own. The fact that the Royal navy has no legitimate carriers (and or carrier based aircraft)and will not have them for some time, is rather meaningless in this case as you have airfields on the islands.

Bump because I'm sick of new threads turning up, should keep it to one epic thread.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16988614

BBC Article wrote:Our reporter says there is a fair bit of sympathy at the UN headquarters for Argentina's position that the Falklands are a British colonial holdover.

Whilst it's only the rumors of a reporter, I wouldn't be surprised. What is supposed to be a bastion of democracy is sympathising with a nation looking to force themselves onto people who do not wish to be ruled by them. Last time I checked, that was near enough to opposite of Democracy.

I fail to see how the UN can even contemplate urging talks between Argentina and the UK on a veritable non-issue, nevermind backing Argentina.

Let's try and sum this up:

Argentina wants the Falklands>Falklands says no>UK says no>Argentina whines and wants to hold talks>Falkands ignored>UK refusing talks since there is nothing to talk about>Argentina runs to the UN with its eyes streaming and its lower lip trembling and complains about the nasty British people>UN urges talks>The Falklands continues to be ignored by Argentina and the UN, despite being the ones at the centre of the issue.

How'd I do?

I really think that Argentina is suffering from a bad case of misplaced Nationalism, best that it's put down now.

Then again, I'm a bigger Imperialist than Lord Solar Macharious

Argentina wants the Falklands>Falklands says no>UK says no>Argentina whines and wants to hold talks>Falkands ignored>UK refusing talks since there is nothing to talk about>Argentina runs to the UN with its eyes streaming and its lower lip trembling and complains about the nasty British people>UN urges talks>The Falklands continues to be ignored by Argentina and the UN, despite being the ones at the centre of the issue.

Its the UN. The biggest waste of space in the world. An institution that makes even the American government look like highly-Enlightened individuals.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Henners91 wrote:This has gone off-topic onto one of the most inane of topics... why do smart alecks (spelling?) have to leap on someone for suggesting we get lent some A10s? Does anyone *really* care that they can't launch off of carriers? It's humour, y'all... don't let it kill an interesting thread.

With regards to the carriers, I dunno about our planes or our capabilities to relaunch the things, but I think we can at least agree that the Royal Navy is in a laughable state. *Initiate The Sun Mode* NELSON WOULD BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE. GOTCHA, ARGIES!

The Royal navy is pretty fierce and is more then capable of handling Argentina on it's own. The fact that the Royal navy has no legitimate carriers (and or carrier based aircraft)and will not have them for some time, is rather meaningless in this case as you have airfields on the islands.

Well the guy who was First Sea Lord at the time has said that if we lose the islands, we're not getting them back.

Henners91 wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Henners91 wrote:This has gone off-topic onto one of the most inane of topics... why do smart alecks (spelling?) have to leap on someone for suggesting we get lent some A10s? Does anyone *really* care that they can't launch off of carriers? It's humour, y'all... don't let it kill an interesting thread.

With regards to the carriers, I dunno about our planes or our capabilities to relaunch the things, but I think we can at least agree that the Royal Navy is in a laughable state. *Initiate The Sun Mode* NELSON WOULD BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE. GOTCHA, ARGIES!

The Royal navy is pretty fierce and is more then capable of handling Argentina on it's own. The fact that the Royal navy has no legitimate carriers (and or carrier based aircraft)and will not have them for some time, is rather meaningless in this case as you have airfields on the islands.

Well the guy who was First Sea Lord at the time has said that if we lose the islands, we're not getting them back.

That may be true but how would you lose them?

Henners91 wrote:
Well the guy who was First Sea Lord at the time has said that if we lose the islands, we're not getting them back.

The Americans thought that after the Argies occupied back in the 80s, they were wrong. And most top defence people are agreed that the UK has the means to defend and/or retake the Falklands.

Andrew1975 wrote:
That may be true but how would you lose them?

Depends if that Type 45 becomes a perminant fixture. The Falklands could fall to a surprise attack given how far away the fleet is.

Yeah, but the UK has it's ready face on now. I don't see it happening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16993391
Argentina are saying the UK has sent a nuclear sub to the Falklands...though a nuclear strike is obviously very unlikely, these subs are capable of launching conventional weapons and are more than a match for Argentine warships.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a sub stationed there perminantly, though. Of course we are perfectly entitled to station it there, seeing as it is our land.

Joey wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16993391
Argentina are saying the UK has sent a nuclear sub to the Falklands...though a nuclear strike is obviously very unlikely, these subs are capable of launching conventional weapons and are more than a match for Argentine warships.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a sub stationed there perminantly, though. Of course we are perfectly entitled to station it there, seeing as it is our land.

Hector Timerman demanded that the British confirm the location of nuclear submarines in the region.

But UK officials said the accusations of militarisation were "absurd".

"Argentina's defence minister has heated up the rhetoric over the Falkland Islands by warning that if British armed forces land "in our territory we will defend ourselves".

Arturo Puricelli accused Britain of trying to provoke Argentina into turning a diplomatic conflict into an armed conflict.

He said that Argentina will "put up with" British armed forces in the Falklands.

"But if they reach our continental territory we will exercise our legitimate right of defence and we have the resources and the skills to do so," he warned.


This goes right back to Argentina really just trying to escalate the situation. Between accusing the UK of having a sub there (you should) and saying they will defend themselves against a UK invasion of mainland Argentina the Argies are really coming off like complete asses.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Argentina wants the Falklands>Falklands says no>UK says no>Argentina whines and wants to hold talks>Falkands ignored>UK refusing talks since there is nothing to talk about>Argentina runs to the UN with its eyes streaming and its lower lip trembling and complains about the nasty British people>UN urges talks>The Falklands continues to be ignored by Argentina and the UN, despite being the ones at the centre of the issue.

Its the UN. The biggest waste of space in the world. An institution that makes even the American government look like highly-Enlightened individuals.

I think that was probably a little un-called for.


RE: The submarine thing - We've had a permanent submarine presence there for years haven't we? That's not new.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Joey wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16993391
Argentina are saying the UK has sent a nuclear sub to the Falklands...though a nuclear strike is obviously very unlikely, these subs are capable of launching conventional weapons and are more than a match for Argentine warships.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a sub stationed there perminantly, though. Of course we are perfectly entitled to station it there, seeing as it is our land.

Hector Timerman demanded that the British confirm the location of nuclear submarines in the region.

But UK officials said the accusations of militarisation were "absurd".

"Argentina's defence minister has heated up the rhetoric over the Falkland Islands by warning that if British armed forces land "in our territory we will defend ourselves".

Arturo Puricelli accused Britain of trying to provoke Argentina into turning a diplomatic conflict into an armed conflict.

He said that Argentina will "put up with" British armed forces in the Falklands.

"But if they reach our continental territory we will exercise our legitimate right of defence and we have the resources and the skills to do so," he warned.


This goes right back to Argentina really just trying to escalate the situation. Between accusing the UK of having a sub there (you should) and saying they will defend themselves against a UK invasion of mainland Argentina the Argies are really coming off like complete asses.

Demanding that the UK reveal the location of their nuclear subs...this is very strange. And what the hell makes them think we'd launch a land invasion of Argentina? We don't have to.
Anyway with all this saber rattling I'd bet my possessions that the military has stepped up in preparations. Any surprise they thought they'd have has gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Argentina wants the Falklands>Falklands says no>UK says no>Argentina whines and wants to hold talks>Falkands ignored>UK refusing talks since there is nothing to talk about>Argentina runs to the UN with its eyes streaming and its lower lip trembling and complains about the nasty British people>UN urges talks>The Falklands continues to be ignored by Argentina and the UN, despite being the ones at the centre of the issue.

Its the UN. The biggest waste of space in the world. An institution that makes even the American government look like highly-Enlightened individuals.

I think that was probably a little un-called for.

The UN has power but is run by people we know nothing about. That in itself makes them worthy of scorn unless they are useful to us.
Kudos to the UN on Libya, though. Well, the British and French ambassadors, anyway.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Joey wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16993391
Argentina are saying the UK has sent a nuclear sub to the Falklands...though a nuclear strike is obviously very unlikely, these subs are capable of launching conventional weapons and are more than a match for Argentine warships.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a sub stationed there perminantly, though. Of course we are perfectly entitled to station it there, seeing as it is our land.

Hector Timerman demanded that the British confirm the location of nuclear submarines in the region.

But UK officials said the accusations of militarisation were "absurd".

"Argentina's defence minister has heated up the rhetoric over the Falkland Islands by warning that if British armed forces land "in our territory we will defend ourselves".

/Potentially hostile nation DEMANDS to know the location of your stealthy naval assest
/You send a polite note from the Queen with two simple words: "feth You; HRM"

The Argentinian navy isn't particularly large, and is mostly corvettes and smaller ships, with their flagship being a relatively modern frigate, and the largest things in their fleet is a pair of type 42 British made destroyers, which they have had for 30 years. Britain has 11 submarines currently in service, along with 19 frigates and destroyers. Argentina currently has 10 destroyers and frigates in active service, with a British type 42 destroyer in reserve, along with 3 submarines, 2 of them German made TR-1700's.

I believe that Prince William has been posted there, and Harry has recently got his Apache licence. The Falklands are safe once more

Joey wrote:[

Albatross wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Its the UN. The biggest waste of space in the world. An institution that makes even the American government look like highly-Enlightened individuals.

I think that was probably a little un-called for.

The UN has power but is run by people we know nothing about. That in itself makes them worthy of scorn unless they are useful to us.
Kudos to the UN on Libya, though. Well, the British and French ambassadors, anyway.

Nah, I meant the anti-Americanism. It's a needless insult to our friends.

You always that the mickey out of your mates the most.

I thought that was how the special relationship worked!