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.
Are you talking the Tornadoes? If so don't they need a full on aircraft carrier to launch (assuming they can from ships, again thats why I am asking). Do you have a carrier to get them there?
No they are not equipped for carrier duty as of yet, there are plans on the drawing board though, not that it maters. There is an airforce base on the islands themselves. They could just fly there using mid air refueling and external fuel tanks. No issues really, as long as they get to the airfield before the Argentinians do. I just don't see the Argentinians being able to put up much of a fight honestly, when was the last time any of them saw any real action. The UK has experience and a much better trained and equipped military on their side. That and this time they know that Argentina may actually bite, I'm sure they never even gave serious consideration that Argentina would attack in the 80's.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/19 20:49:36
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
filbert wrote:And anyway, would a response to Argentinian invasion necessarily require air support? Was the original Falklands war fought from a position of air superiority? (genuine question - I'm not sure). Presumably the MOD have surmised that a deployed navy would be enough to combat the Argentinian air force.
IIRC and I am not the most informed on this event, but they had at least one carrier with some harriers (hey that rhymes). I know the Argentinians sank at least one ship with ship to ship missiles but that overall the British controlled the airspace.
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
filbert wrote:It doesn't matter how big or how much money the Brazilian or Argentinian governments spend on their armies - they will do the same thing that the Argies did in '82 - guns thrown down, hands in the air '¡No disparen!' (or Portuguese equivalent) as soon as the Marines or Paras crest the hill.
In the end, superior training will out.
Actual question here. Do you have any aircraft to fly cover at this point?
We have 4 typhoons on the island, which is enough to eliminate 3/4 of the Argentine airforce on their own. On top of that, all we need to do is park a pair of Type 45 destroyers off the coast, and Argentina won't even be able to launch sorties from the mainland.
And let us not forget that we could have another set of Typhoons there overnight using in flight refueling systems.
No, militarily, the islands are ours to keep. We're not going to be caught napping again on this one.
THANK YOU. thats what i was asking about.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/19 20:48:34
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:
Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
*points upwards*
We also have an aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), an amphibious assault ship of the same tonnage as our Carrier (HMS Ocean), and two amphibious landing dock ships (HMS Albion and Bulwark) capable of carrying troop regiments and helicopters. This is of course, not including our capacity to seizeand refit whatever other ships are necessary.
In short, our Navy is several times more effective at force projection than what we had before, and the Argentine forces are probably a third as good as what they had before.
Frazzled wrote:
Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
*points upwards*
We also have an aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), an amphibious assault ship of the same tonnage as our Carrier (HMS Ocean), and two amphibious landing dock ships (HMS Albion and Bulwark) capable of carrying troop regiments and helicopters. This is of course, not including our capacity to seizeand refit whatever other ships are necessary.
In short, our Navy is several times more effective at force projection than what we had before, and the Argentine forces are probably a third as good as what they had before.
excellent. Does the Illustrious use those harriers or is it capable of launching non VTOL aircraft? Do you guys still have the harriers or have they been replced at this point(I'd imagine they're pretty old now).
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I'm perfectly relaxed. However, you DO exhibit a fairly large amount of anti-British bias (not sure of the reasons why), and you DO let this seep into any discussion remotely related to my country. As a Briton, I naturally find this pretty offensive.
It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end.
I answered it!
No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
I answered that too! More specifically, the technology and overseas territories we possess mean that the UK is able to wage war pretty much anywhere in the world. Incidentally, the fact that we make those territories available to our allies is also one of the reasons that the USA has the level of force projection it has. You're welcome.
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
I can't remember what it's called, but our new class of Destroyer has one the most advanced defence systems on earth, iirc. It's able to simultaneously engage more targets than any other system, or something. Fact check, anyone? Ketara?
Albatross wrote:
- Brazil is not the global superpower you seem to think it is. Although Fox might like to peddle some ridiculous decline narrative whereby China, Brazil, India overtake a USA blighted by socialism, Brazil still occupies a somewhat precarious economic position, and millions of its people still live in quasi-medieval conditions. It's military might doesn't even come CLOSE to the UKs, and no amount of 'hurr they got more mans/money' makes that untrue. Someone mentioned that they just got their first nuclear sub. A British nuclear sub sank an Argentine warship in the original Falklands conflict. They are years behind us in terms of military tech. Brazil would be comprehensively defeated in an open conflict with the UK. That will remain the case for the forseeable future.
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, and is banking a lot on the few military units it has stationed in the Falklands already to hold off an Argentine invasion. Remember, the UK would be fighting a war in Argentina and Brazil's backyard... from across the street...
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?
Brazil will not declare war on the United Kingdom. Never in a million years. For that to happen they would have to be willing to destroy all the progress they have made in recent years, all the economic improvement, all the international goodwill and respectability, everything. Argentina doesn't have the credibility that Brazil does, so they don't care.
Doubt it. The UK didnt strike Argentina the first time, the UK isnt going to strike at Argentina or Brazil this time.
- The force projection that the UK is capable of is second only to the USA's, so you're talking out of your arse there. Not that I'm surprised about that. We also have the second largest blue-water navy in NATO and one of the largest and most capable air forces, with technological capabilities that, again, are only surpassed by the US - and that is only in certain cases.
Check your facts mate. The force projection that the UK WAS capable of is second only to the USA's. You've gone and got rid of your only two jet carriers (and youre losing your third potential jet carrier at least 5 years before you will have a replacement) as well as all the fixed-wing aircraft that you could have possibly flown from them (the USMC thanks you for the new Harriers btw), you have a shrinking surface fleet, a shrinking subsurface fleet, and a dead duck naval aviation arm. The RAF is still very capable, but its getting smaller and smaller, and it doesn't have the capability to ferry large numbers of planes to the Falklands and back. If you lose the base there, you will have absolutely no top cover from fast movers, only helicopters, and if you're counting on helicopters to take on jet fighters, you're in for a rough night.The second largest blue-water Navy in NATO is also still small by comparison to several other nations Navy's (China and Russia).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/19 21:03:01
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
And anyway, would a response to Argentinian invasion necessarily require air support? Was the original Falklands war fought from a position of air superiority? (genuine question - I'm not sure). Presumably the MOD have surmised that a deployed navy would be enough to combat the Argentinian air force.
Air superiority is a key factor in almost any modern conflict. In the original Falkland War the British lost some of their naval assets to Exocet missiles fired from Argentinian Mirages. Without proper air support the Argentinians could have just sunk the British. Once UK's air power took superiority the war was pretty much over. So yes air support was quite important.
This time things would be a little different as technology has changed. With modern navy it would be possible to temporarliy halt Argentinian air projection until the RAF showed up.
The only real issue is if Argentina is able to get those airbases first it is pretty much game over. The RAF would not really be able to effectively project air-power there without those bases and the current Navy's air assets are not up to the task. So if I was the UK I would start moving my navy and air-force now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/19 21:09:50
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
*points upwards*
We also have an aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), an amphibious assault ship of the same tonnage as our Carrier (HMS Ocean), and two amphibious landing dock ships (HMS Albion and Bulwark) capable of carrying troop regiments and helicopters. This is of course, not including our capacity to seizeand refit whatever other ships are necessary.
In short, our Navy is several times more effective at force projection than what we had before, and the Argentine forces are probably a third as good as what they had before.
excellent. Does the Illustrious use those harriers or is it capable of launching non VTOL aircraft? Do you guys still have the harriers or have they been replced at this point(I'd imagine they're pretty old now).
Alas, the Harrier has been retired for some time now. And currently the Illustrious is modified for helicopter carrying, and the fighters aren't STOVL capable.
However, we have the advantages of in flight refueling, and a local air base this time around. A ground assault would need to put the runway out of commission within 24 hours in order to ensure the RAF could not operate air superiority (incredibly unlikely), and that would simply reduce them to air parity to mild inferiority when the fleet arrived to reclaim the islands (as they would have still lost most of their aircraft against Typhoons, and destroyer capability would render them ineffective at attacking the fleet).
I wasn't aware that your right to your own country depended upon your population figure. One usually presumes it is conferred primarily by the fact that you live there. As to being non-aboriginal, well, there was nobody on those islands 'originally'. One could claim that 180 years on, they are now the original populace.
Technically the Falklands, as I understand it, weren't even really part of the UK until 1983, merely an area claimed, and its population basically second class citizens. In any case, 'your right to your own country' does depend on your population figure when you're using self-determination as an argument (otherwise, you know, you don't have a population to claim self determination in the first place...), and not the fact that its "your land" (which I've yet to hear the British government actually claim, most likely because of the complicated history of the islands and the fact that the British have about as much right to claim it as a sovereign territory as the Spanish do, read up on the history of how these 'claims' were made and you'll see why, apparently a plaque affirming territorial sovereignty is all you need...). If your right to your own country isn't based off of population, then we should probably give the Polish corridor and East Prussia back to the Germans. After all, the right to your own country isn't based on who is living there, so we can ignore all the Poles and Russians that have been sitting on the land since the German population was expelled after World War 2, and it was German land well before it was any of theirs. The fact is that Poland and Russia have no claim on East Prussia and the Polish Corridor, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.
And using your own arguments against you, that would be like me settling on one of the dozens of tiny unpopulated rocks called islands in northern scotland, etc. and claiming it as a United States territory. Nobody was on the island originally, one could claim that two weeks on, I am now the original populace and therefore have the right to self-determination.
You need to look up international law of the sea and the case of Rockall. It is an interesting illustration of the issues.
Alby - the system on ships is called Goal Keeper. It's designed to shoot down ship to ship or air to ship missiles, hence why air superiority is not a massive deal when it comes to the Falklands.
The advantage that Argentina had with Exocet has long passed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/19 21:06:18
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, and is banking a lot on the few military units it has stationed in the Falklands already to hold off an Argentine invasion. Remember, the UK would be fighting a war in Argentina and Brazil's backyard... from across the street...
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.
Frazzled wrote:
Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
*points upwards*
We also have an aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), an amphibious assault ship of the same tonnage as our Carrier (HMS Ocean), and two amphibious landing dock ships (HMS Albion and Bulwark) capable of carrying troop regiments and helicopters. This is of course, not including our capacity to seizeand refit whatever other ships are necessary.
In short, our Navy is several times more effective at force projection than what we had before, and the Argentine forces are probably a third as good as what they had before.
excellent. Does the Illustrious use those harriers or is it capable of launching non VTOL aircraft? Do you guys still have the harriers or have they been repalced at this point(I'd imagine they're pretty old now).
In 2010 Cameron's government put the Harriers in storage, and the US Navy (Marines) is in negotiations to buy them. They remain in storage...active storage, they just need pilots. They are actually fairly new airframes, they are in fact Harrier II's of various build groups. Lusty can still launch and land Harriers, and they can launch and land vertically off Ocean but sustained operations would damage Ocean's flight deck and they cannot carry full combat loads. In Libya Apaches were operated off Ocean, that's also a feasible option. If the Falklands shock the government and MoD enough Ark Royal is 5 years out of a total refit and the newest of the Invincible class, she could be reactivated in short order assuming money and men were available. The truth is if they started today the Brits could have 2 carriers and embarked air wing in 1 year or less.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Frazzled wrote:
Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
*points upwards*
We also have an aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), an amphibious assault ship of the same tonnage as our Carrier (HMS Ocean), and two amphibious landing dock ships (HMS Albion and Bulwark) capable of carrying troop regiments and helicopters. This is of course, not including our capacity to seizeand refit whatever other ships are necessary.
In short, our Navy is several times more effective at force projection than what we had before, and the Argentine forces are probably a third as good as what they had before.
excellent. Does the Illustrious use those harriers or is it capable of launching non VTOL aircraft? Do you guys still have the harriers or have they been repalced at this point(I'd imagine they're pretty old now).
In 2010 Cameron's government put the Harriers in storage, and the US Navy (Marines) is in negotiations to buy them. They remain in storage...active storage, they just need pilots. They are actually fairly new airframes, they are in fact Harrier II's of various build groups. Lusty can still launch and land Harriers, and they can launch and land vertically off Ocean but sustained operations would damage Ocean's flight deck and they cannot carry full combat loads. In Libya Apaches were operated off Ocean, that's also a feasible option. If the Falklands shock the government and MoD enough Ark Royal is 5 years out of a total refit and the newest of the Invincible class, she could be reactivated in short order assuming money and men were available. The truth is if they started today the Brits could have 2 carriers and embarked air wing in 1 year or less.
Interesting and something I did not know. Thanks Auston.
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
I can't remember what it's called, but our new class of Destroyer has one the most advanced defence systems on earth, iirc. It's able to simultaneously engage more targets than any other system, or something. Fact check, anyone? Ketara?
Sounds like an Aegis system. There you go.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
I can't remember what it's called, but our new class of Destroyer has one the most advanced defence systems on earth, iirc. It's able to simultaneously engage more targets than any other system, or something. Fact check, anyone? Ketara?
Sounds like an Aegis system. There you go.
Goal Keeper
filbert wrote:Alby - the system on ships is called Goal Keeper. It's designed to shoot down ship to ship or air to ship missiles, hence why air superiority is not a massive deal when it comes to the Falklands.
The advantage that Argentina had with Exocet has long passed.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
I can't remember what it's called, but our new class of Destroyer has one the most advanced defence systems on earth, iirc. It's able to simultaneously engage more targets than any other system, or something. Fact check, anyone? Ketara?
Sounds like an Aegis system. There you go.
The Type 45 operates Sea Viper, which is capable of launching something along the lines of 50 missiles a minute.
Are you talking the Tornadoes? If so don't they need a full on aircraft carrier to launch (assuming they can from ships, again thats why I am asking). Do you have a carrier to get them there?
No they are not equipped for carrier duty as of yet, there are plans on the drawing board though, not that it maters. There is an airforce base on the islands themselves. They could just fly there using mid air refueling and external fuel tanks. No issues really, as long as they get to the airfield before the Argentinians do. I just don't see the Argentinians being able to put up much of a fight honestly, when was the last time any of them saw any real action. The UK has experience and a much better trained and equipped military on their side. That and this time they know that Argentina may actually bite, I'm sure they never even gave serious consideration that Argentina would attack in the 80's.
I figured as much...
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze "You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry.
filbert wrote:Alby - the system on ships is called Goal Keeper. It's designed to shoot down ship to ship or air to ship missiles, hence why air superiority is not a massive deal when it comes to the Falklands.
The advantage that Argentina had with Exocet has long passed.
Ok, if you have several of those then you have a reasonable deterrant. Coolio.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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,
Eh? Britain won the war VERY comfortably! Our military slaughtered the Argentinian conscripts, frankly, and as you say, we were in their backyard.
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?
My point is that, in some cases, they are decades behind us in terms of military technology.
Brazil will not declare war on the United Kingdom. Never in a million years. For that to happen they would have to be willing to destroy all the progress they have made in recent years, all the economic improvement, all the international goodwill and respectability, everything. Argentina doesn't have the credibility that Brazil does, so they don't care.
Doubt it. The UK didnt strike Argentina the first time, the UK isnt going to strike at Argentina or Brazil this time.
I'm not sure I follow you....
Check your facts mate. The force projection that the UK WAS capable of is second only to the USA's. You've gone and got rid of your only two jet carriers (and youre losing your third potential jet carrier at least 5 years before you will have a replacement) as well as all the fixed-wing aircraft that you could have possibly flown from them (the USMC thanks you for the new Harriers btw), you have a shrinking surface fleet, a shrinking subsurface fleet, and a dead duck naval aviation arm. The RAF is still very capable, but its getting smaller and smaller, and it doesn't have the capability to ferry large numbers of planes to the Falklands and back. If you lose the base there, you will have absolutely no top cover from fast movers, only helicopters, and if you're counting on helicopters to take on jet fighters, you're in for a rough night.The second largest blue-water Navy in NATO is also still small by comparison to several other nations Navy's (China and Russia).
I think you're placing too much emphasis on numbers. At the end of the day, we are currently operating a peace-time military capability, and it is more than capable of matching most other countries as is. On a war footing, it would be a completely different story.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/19 21:28:16
By the way the Argentinian air force is apparently still flying basically the same planes they were in the 80's. Their main force is a collection of different versions of Mirage, pretty old even in the 80's. Any modern anti air is going to eat them for breakfast. I think the small squadron of Ero fighters at Stanley air base should be able to smack them down no problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/19 21:25:50
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Wishing I was back at the South Atlantic, closer to ice than the sun
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
I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!
Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
I have to say that it would be interesting to see if anything came from this. From what I understand Argentina talk about the UK "taking" the Falklands in the same way that Republicans talk about "damn commies" and medicare... or "un-Americans" and gun control
I also want to see a surface to air booze powered Matty
I can just imagine him headbutting through the floor of an Argentine plane with a manic grin and biting the pilots ankle
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/19 21:24:51
The Type 45 operates Sea Viper, which is capable of launching something along the lines of 50 missiles a minute.
Holy crap! The Brits have Veritechs!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The Type 45 operates Sea Viper, which is capable of launching something along the lines of 50 missiles a minute.
Holy crap! The Brits have Veritechs!
This is a very realistic representation of our current Navy...
Fear us world... fear us...
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze "You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry.
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
I can't remember what it's called, but our new class of Destroyer has one the most advanced defence systems on earth, iirc. It's able to simultaneously engage more targets than any other system, or something. Fact check, anyone? Ketara?
Sounds like an Aegis system. There you go.
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:
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:
Agreed that is rather cool looking.
This is a very realistic representation of our current Navy...
Fear us world... fear us...
You think thats scary, get a load of our newest naval vessel. Scary!!! Plus its fully amphibious.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/19 21:32:48
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
" -KingCracker
