RAF scrambled to intercept Russian bombers.

Fair enough, I'm not too sure where I heard it myself :p

Ah, found it, Wikipedia :p So probably not the best source.

Allegations of nuclear deployment
It has been reported that two years after the war, Labour MPs demanded an inquiry[134] into reports that a Resolution class submarine armed with the Polaris SLBMs had deployed to Ascension Island during the operation, ostensibly to prepare for a nuclear strike. The Ministry of Defence is reported to have denied the allegations, and Freedman's Official History does the same.[135]

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/21/145709.shtml
 
Anyone who thinks we (UK) could defend ourselves against Russia are simply deluded. Sure we are have a very large fighting force for the size of our country but come on, put things into perspective. Our forces, as well trained as they are would be no match for the might of Russia. Look back to the Gulf and now Afganistan. Our troops are still ill equipped (my brother had to beg some US marine for desert gear in the Gulf - that disgusted me tbh). Nuclear deterrents are our only salvation.

If Argentina invaded the Falklands again, there is no way we could possibly mount the force we had last time. In the last Falklands war we got VERY lucky, let's make no bones about it. IF it happened again I very much doubt it would have the same outcome. Were it not for the French agreeing not to sell to the Argentinians (instead selling there excocets to the UK at an inflated price and under considerable pressure) it would have been game over for the task force.

However, BOT, the Russians testing out our response times are nothing new, it's been going on for decades.

It'd never be a case of Russia Vs the UK, it'd be a case of NATO vs Russia and in that case Russia would get a spanking. Just the EU alone could probably spank Russia! And yes of course there are problems with our armed forces but Russia has had decades of under funding!
 
Fair enough, I'm not too sure where I heard it myself :p

Ah, found it, Wikipedia :p So probably not the best source.



http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/21/145709.shtml

awesome quote :p

'Mitterrand then complained to Magoudi: "To provoke a nuclear war for small islands inhabited by three sheep who are as hairy as they are frozen! Fortunately I yielded. Otherwise, I assure you, the metallic index finger of the lady would press the button.”'
 
Anyone who thinks we (UK) could defend ourselves against Russia are simply deluded. Sure we are have a very large fighting force for the size of our country but come on, put things into perspective. Our forces, as well trained as they are would be no match for the might of Russia. Look back to the Gulf and now Afganistan. Our troops are still ill equipped (my brother had to beg some US marine for desert gear in the Gulf - that disgusted me tbh). Nuclear deterrents are our only salvation.

If Argentina invaded the Falklands again, there is no way we could possibly mount the force we had last time. In the last Falklands war we got VERY lucky, let's make no bones about it. IF it happened again I very much doubt it would have the same outcome. Were it not for the French agreeing not to sell to the Argentinians (instead selling there excocets to the UK at an inflated price and under considerable pressure) it would have been game over for the task force.

However, BOT, the Russians testing out our response times are nothing new, it's been going on for decades.

WHilst you are correct that the RN was a far larger Navy in 1982, the current ships are SO much better.

The 1980s Royal Navy was essentially a fully anti submarine warfare navy. It's primary task was to track and destroy submarines. THere was pretty much no anti aircraft defences on the RN ships.

However, today's navy, increasingly so with the Type 45s coming along, is an anti aircraft navy.

They carry an array of some of the world's best anti aircraft weaponry. It would be extremely difficult for an Argentine aircraft to get anywhere near a Type 45, let alone fire at it, let alone then missile hit the ship!
 
It'd never be a case of Russia Vs the UK, it'd be a case of NATO vs Russia and in that case Russia would get a spanking. Just the EU alone could probably spank Russia! And yes of course there are problems with our armed forces but Russia has had decades of under funding!

...and if NATO got together vs Russia don't you think China would get invloved? No one would get 'spanked' - most however would get obliterated.
 
...and if NATO got together vs Russia don't you think China would get invloved? No one would get 'spanked' - most however would get obliterated.

Don't forget all the allies Russians have been making lately with the likes of Venezuela and selling some of those AA weapons to Iran. I'm not calling them any sort of super power or want to take anything away from our armed forces but people are just plain silly to think that all of Russian equipment is outdated and sitting in some sheds and that we can just spank them at our free will.
 
How on earth did Argentina come into this thread :confused:

looks at Overclocker :P It was his interesting bit of info about UK ships carrying nuclear weapons (depth charges) on board as they didn't have time to re-fit etc.

EDIT: Hats off to whoever thought of making a nuclear depth charge tbh :P If you really just HAVE to kill that sub! lol
 
i was going to say that, most of you think russia isnt as strong as it once was, i reckon they are much stronger than you think or letting on.

Sleeping giant comes to mind. However it's not Russia with their thousands of nukes that scare me - if it happens we won't know much about it. It's the lunatic who managed to buy cold war scientists and the materials to make the so called 'dirty bombs' that can;t be accounted for.
 
Russian forces:

They have approx 50 nuclear powered subs, of which only 20 are operational. (THIS FIGURE IS PROBABLY MUCH LOWER). 10 are nuclear armed, and 10 are conventional (again, figures are probably much lower).

More up to date figures show that Russian was only maintaining 2, yes TWO, nuclear missile submarines at a time, a figure cut in half when the Kursk sank.

Sailors are a mixture of conscripts and volunteers.

They have 1 aircraft carrier, which has only gona back to sea after being laid up for over 10 years.

four MiG-31 pilots at Yelizovo in the Far East went on hunger strike in 1996 to demand back pay which was several months overdue, and the problem was only resolved by diverting unit monies intended for other tasks.[4] As a result of the cutbacks, infrastructure became degraded as well, and in 1998, 40% of military airfields needed repair. The situation only began to improve after Putin took power and military budgets were greatly increased.

Russian air force: Mainly built up of SU-27s and Mig-29s, both of which are 70s aircraft and both of which are severely affected by crashes, problems and lack of parts etc.

Only 12 SU-35 Air superiority fighters were built due to budget problems. Only 5 are in active service.
 
looks at Overclocker :P It was his interesting bit of info about UK ships carrying nuclear weapons (depth charges) on board as they didn't have time to re-fit etc.

EDIT: Hats off to whoever thought of making a nuclear depth charge tbh :P If you really just HAVE to kill that sub! lol

:D :D

I can't be accused of a thread hijack though, as I started the thread! :D
 
Just look at the Russian Air Forces performance during the August conflict with Georgia, which according to experts at the likes of Air International, was entirely unimpressive. Here's some of the main points they brought up.

1.) Despite lacking any fighter aircraft whatsoever, the Georgians were able to establish a compact, effective air defence network over South Ossetia, which hindered Russian air operations considerably for a few days, whilst succeeding in bringing down several aircraft, including a much vaunted TU-22M3R reconnaissance aircraft (based on the supersonic TU-22M3 Blinder strategic bomber), and depriving Russian ground forces in contact around Tskinvahli with Gerogian forces of much needed air support.

2.) Russian air forces were also entirely unable to operate at night, both in ground attack and air-to-air roles, whilst the Georgians, utilising US and Israeli supplied night vision goggles, were able to conduct air attacks under the cover of darkness without loss, or challenge from Russian fighters.

3.) The Russians lacked precision guided munitions, and relied mainly upon unguided weapons, such as cluster bombs, free fall HE/fragmentation bombs and rockets, which were naturally inaccurate and resulted in considerable collateral damage, missed targets and danger to friendly forces alike.

4.) Command and control, and co-ordination between separate Russian services was poor, resulting in one incidient where a Russian soldier managed to shoot down a friendly Russian Air Force SU-25 Frogfoot with a shoulder launched surface to air missile. There was also one documented incident of Russian aircraft attacking a BBC camera crew caught on film, and further incidences of friendly fire.

There's more info here, which surprisingly, is quite scathing of Russia's military for a Russian source. I wonder if the article earned author a severe case of lead poisoning or a Polonium sandwich for not towing the party line....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom