RAF scrambled to intercept Russian bombers.

Interesting fact - during the Falklands war, a number of Royal Navy ships were secretly carrying nuclear weapons, including nuclear bombs, nuclear depth charges etc.

The reason was that the ships were kept prepared for NATO actions against Russia, and the RN decided it would take too long to offload their nuclear weapons, so they sailed to the Falklands carrying nuclear weapons. This was one of the most closely guarded secrets during the conflict because the MoD were worried about the Argentines trying to capture our nuclear weapons if any of those ships were sunk.

At the time, the deployed RN ships carried 75% of the RN nuclear depth charged to the Falklands!

The decision was taken that once the ships were there, they would offload the weapons to HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible as they carried hardened weapons holds. THis means that 75% Britain's surface fleet nuclear weapons ended up being carried on 2 ships!

Military planners in London were extremely secretive of this fact in case the USSR found this out.

Wow dint know this :eek: The Falklands were a very good victory to us after all the USA said we could not retake the Falkland’s, well we showed the world we still have a very good Navy and could fight and retake an island that was ours thousands of miles from the UK, and the RN were crippled weren’t they massively underfunded during the years before the war?
 
Wow dint know this :eek: The Falklands were a very good victory to us after all the USA said we could not retake the Falkland’s, well we showed the world we still have a very good Navy and could fight and retake an island that was ours thousands of miles from the UK, and the RN were crippled weren’t they massively underfunded during the years before the war?

Yes. If it wasn't for the Falklands war, the new carriers weregoing to be sold off!

To be honest, we need a new Falklands type conflict (direct attack on British interests), for the bean counters to realise that the same thing needs to happen again!
 
Remember the UK has the 2nd largest defence spending in the world, and is widely regarded as having the 2nd most potent military in the world.

Yes Russia are improving, but do not over estimate them. Most of their equipment is unusable, NATO, especially the USA has had to give Russia BILLIONS during the 90s to keep their nukes in a safe state, their personnel are generally unwilling to fight due to lack of wages, their current weaponry is in a VERY poor state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007_top_10_countries_by_military_expenditure_MER.svg

You know aside from the nuclear part, I'm sure some American politicians said the same thing about the Vietnamese.
 
TyphoonL2108_468x348.jpg

Come on, don't tell me you look at that and don't lol.

It's almost as bad as that incident with the Iranian dingies taking on an American warship
 
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_02/TyphoonL2108_468x348.jpg[/IM G]
Come on, don't tell me you look at that and don't lol.

It's almost as bad as that incident with the Iranian dingies taking on an American warship[/QUOTE]

What's so bad about it? It's just a little bit slower than a B52 but has twice the range.

Do we even have a large strategic bomber any more?
 
What's so bad about it? It's just a little bit slower than a B52 but has twice the range.

Do we even have a large strategic bomber any more?

Do we even need a large strategic bomber any more?

It's just pathetic to look at, it shouldn't be allowed in anyones air space as it's been hit with a ugly stick more times that Jade Goody
 
I think the falklands was a mess, we were lucky imo

Although a great victory, if all of the missiles that hit our ships had actually exploded, we wouldnt have taken it back. very lucky indeed.
 
I think the falklands was a mess, we were lucky imo

Although a great victory, if all of the missiles that hit our ships had actually exploded, we wouldnt have taken it back. very lucky indeed.

If the dirty French wouldn't have sold them the missiles or the aircraft they where fired from we wouldn't even have had to worry at all.
 
If the dirty French wouldn't have sold them the missiles or the aircraft they where fired from we wouldn't even have had to worry at all.
We actually owe a bit to the French.

I think the falklands was a mess, we were lucky imo
Not a mess at all, the odds were stacked against us and it was a logistic nightmare. Regardless, the effort by all the soldiers and sailors is orders of magnitude above what most other militaries could muster. You try yomping 60+miles carrying 80+ pounds.
 
We actually owe a bit to the French.


Not a mess at all, the odds were stacked against us and it was a logistic nightmare. Regardless, the effort by all the soldiers and sailors is orders of magnitude above what most other militaries could muster. You try yomping 60+miles carrying 80+ pounds.

Yep we did incredibly well so far away from home, the effort was huge and it paid off, there is an awesome series on YouTube about the Falklands war and how it was won, defiantly worth a watch, about 1hr long though :D

 
Do we even need a large strategic bomber any more?

We did in the Falklands, if it happens again we either can't do it or will have to beg to borrow some thing from the Americans.

It's just pathetic to look at, it shouldn't be allowed in anyones air space as it's been hit with a ugly stick more times that Jade Goody

Frankly i wouldn't judge military vehicles on their design aesthetics, after all it's still an incredible effective bomber.
 
We did in the Falklands, if it happens again we either can't do it or will have to beg to borrow some thing from the Americans.



Frankly i wouldn't judge military vehicles on their design aesthetics, after all it's still an incredible effective bomber.


That’s all well and good 20+ years ago, bit in today’s age we don’t have use for this type of aircraft.
 
How so? The Americans seem to find theirs pretty useful.

That’s America though? They like to have everything. Our people high up seem to deem we don’t have use for these types of Aircraft, if it was a case we needed them simply we would have some type in service would we not?
 
That’s America though? They like to have everything. Our people high up seem to deem we don’t have use for these types of Aircraft, if it was a case we needed them simply we would have some type in service would we not?

I agree they are a "nice to have" rather than critical like multirole fighter / bombers. To be honest, the UK is right on the money building aircraft carriers and F35's for them. Best defense is a mobile threat, again back to the Falklands proved the use of aircraft cariers too.
 
That’s America though? They like to have everything. Our people high up seem to deem we don’t have use for these types of Aircraft,

Well no America needs them because it's not allowed to own ground based cruise missiles, same for the Russians. I don't know if we can. But america has used them quite extensively recently, which has meant they don;t need to put thier troops in as much danger.


if it was a case we needed them simply we would have some type in service would we not?

Like we needed better armoured Jeep like vehicles about 5 years ago and only recently bought some from the Aussies?
 
IIRC our last long range bomber was the Vulcan.

I beleive we simly don't currently have a use for such aircraft. With long range ship launched missiles such as the Tomahawk cruise missiles etc. We don't really have a use for a heavy bomber.

Also air launched long range ground attack missiles - ALARM, Brimstone, Storm Shadow.

Of course we have the Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR7 and GR9s for the moment for normal ground attack aircraft. Then of course there is the Typhoon of which some will be ground attack aircraft.
 
Back
Top Bottom