Argentina imposes shipping rules to the falklands.

I don't think that there is any serious risk that they are going to attack. For very simple reasons. They lost last time and it hurt their pride bad. They would not want that again.

Out of all the reasons not to attack, this is a very silly on which I doubt they care about. You're thinking about it from a very British mentality. They Argentinians still believe they have a right to the Falklands and so would be happy to get them back again despite the past.
 
I don't think that there is any serious risk that they are going to attack. For very simple reasons. They lost last time and it hurt their pride bad. They would not want that again. We now appear to have far more to protect this time. We have vastly superior technology too. They can have 2 million soldiers but you have to get them to the area for those numbers to count. A couple of modern destroyers would shoot the AAF out of the sky like a clay pigeon shoot and the Typhoons wouldn't have to even warm up their engines. Said destroyers could quite easily take apart any naval forces. In fact it would most likely end up in such a slaughter it would be not too far away from Highway 80 in Kuwait.

History tells us that the aeroplane and submarine are greater than the ship, I think you over estimate the abilities of air defence weapons as we did prior to the last war.
 
If they're winning the match and they invade, it would be the quickest nuclear attack in history :p:D

We should level Buenos Aires anyway. The invaded once, are still claiming the Falklands are theirs, trying to blockade our water and kicked us out of the WC god knows how many times.

Hand of God? How about a Hand of Nuclear Annihilation
 
It's fairly quite obvious that what will happen is, they invade the Falklands forcing us to pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan. We'd send literally every single infantry onto the island - it'd be a tight squeeze. Then we would nuke every single Argentine on the planet, doesn't matter where they are.

I know this, because I live next door to Bob Ainsworth's janitor.
 
It's fairly quite obvious that what will happen is, they invade the Falklands forcing us to pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan. We'd send literally every single infantry onto the island - it'd be a tight squeeze. Then we would nuke every single Argentine on the planet, doesn't matter where they are.

I know this, because I live next door to Bob Ainsworth's janitor.

This made me laugh!!!
 
If Brown says this while slamming a big red button, I say we make him king!

brownbomb.jpg


?
 
Out of all the reasons not to attack, this is a very silly on which I doubt they care about. You're thinking about it from a very British mentality. They Argentinians still believe they have a right to the Falklands and so would be happy to get them back again despite the past.

Strange how my friends in Argentina see it very differently. So I am not judging it from a British mentality at all. They believe that they own sovereignty but they are also ashamed at what happened before. Their perspective is that nationally they have been wronged but it is far worse to then have what you perceive as a valid right taken away.
 
History tells us that the aeroplane and submarine are greater than the ship, I think you over estimate the abilities of air defence weapons as we did prior to the last war.

No history does not tell us this at all. History tells us that the best weapon often wins but not always. It quite clearly does not explain what that weapon is. History teaches that successful weapons are often made redundant by the fact that people aim to specifically combat their strengths. Also look up on air defence weapons in the last conflicts as we did not really have anything that would have been termed effective.

And if you are the the expert then can please explain how the AAF is going to get past a ship with an AEGIS like capability. If you are able to do that then for god sake don't tell them because I guess they have tried to figure that out for years :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
...explain how the AAF is going to get past a ship with an AEGIS like capability. If you are able to do that then for god sake don't tell them because I guess they have tried to figure that out for years :rolleyes:

Mind if I question which kind of ship you're referring to in our arsenal?
 
No history does not tell us this at all. History tells us that the best weapon often wins but not always.

I don't think weaponry is the key, it's your command and intelligence that is the key in modern warfare, it's ok having the biggest gun but if you don't know how to use it properly then your a tad screwed.

This has been shown many times in history, Vietnam and WW1 are two main examples.
 
Last edited:
They have actually encountered problems while testing the Type 45's principal weapons system, the Sea Viper SAM system. So as it stands, all Daring could bring to the fight is a 114mm gun, a few 30mm cannons and a deck "fitted for, but not with" Phalanx Block 1B Close In Weapons System.

The Type 45's do however bring a massively sophisticated Phased array radar system in the form of SAMPSON which would be handy for detecting sea-skimming threats such as anti-ship missiles and aircraft, then passing that info via datalinks to other ships such as the Type 23's to engage with their Sea Wolfs, or the remaining Type 42's with their Sea Darts, which incidentally, are the only missile system to have successfully engaged a cruise missile in an actual war setting.

Edit: Blast! Beaten like a ginger step-child!
 
Last edited:
I don't think weaponry is the key, it's your command and intelligence that is the key in modern warfare, it's ok having the biggest gun but if you don't know how to use it properly then your a tad screwed.

This has been shown many times in history, Vietnam and WW1 are two main examples.

This is nothing modern and in my mind classes as what I would loosely put in the idea of having the best weapon. Your best weapon does not have to be equipment it could be the sheer dynamism of your leadership e.g Mountbatten in the Far East campaigns, your climate and weather (eg Russian defence vs Germany in 1942-43 and against Napolean), a more relevant doctrine (e.g. German mobility focus vs static Allied defences in 1940) or just a plain better weapon (eg T-34 in WW2).
 
We may have air superiority for a day after which I strongly suspect we would be out of missiles at which point the argentine navy and airforce have free range to bring in the troops. The only hope would be that we already had an attack sub stationed in the area to discourage them but this is often not the case as we only have a limited fleet.

The war itself would take on a very different complexion as once they had taken the island they would have access to a decent run way that is long enough to operate there jets giving them imediate air superiority over the islands and we no longer have the long range bombing capability to destroy it so again we would be relying on an attack sub with cruise missiles.

The major challenge we would face would be re-taking the island, last time we pinched a significant number of merchant ships to transport our troops and supplies, we could only do this as they operated under UK flags. The UK merchant fleet is now tiny and comendering any ship flying under the flag of a different nation is deemed piracy.

We also only have two active carriers one of wich is in refit the other is in the gulf, the delay in getting a task force together and ready for sea would be huge alowing the argentines to massively reinforce the islands.

The only way we could dislodge them should they wish to take the islands would be with even more US help than last time.

Did anyone watch the documentary on the bombing of their airstrip? The lengths that the UK went to to fly a bomber there to drop a massive bomb on Argentina? It really was incredibly to watch!
Just looking up there:
It took 11 Victor Tankers to refuel the Vulcan we sent. Not only that, but they had to refuel the refuellers (although it doesnt mention that anywhere!) and I believe the Vulcan never made it home!


If you read the book about the Vulcans attacking the runway you would know that after all the logistics only one bomb actually hit the target (they actually sent two but the primary one ran into problems and had o run back). After that the Vulcan made it's way home again (after rendezvousing with another tanker and an MR2 (?) (radar plane)). The Airforce did this about half a dozen more times during the war and i'm pretty sure none of them ended in Rio.:)

Anyway fater all that effort there was very little damage, today all we would need to do is station an attack sub off the islands and launch about a dozen cruise missiles, pretty much wiping out any chance of using the runway (i'm sure the runway wasn't actually damaged enough to stop planes flying in and out last time).


Nukeing a major nation over some tiny islands is not going to happen the world community would be appaled and the repercussions for the UK massive. I do however believe that we would sit a couple of attack subs off the coast and hurl crusie missiles at strategic targets within Argentina in an effort to persuade them to 'Get off our Land' which we were not prepared to do last time using long range bombers.

That we would probably do as well if we couldn't take the islands without too many casualties.

As for US involvement, they didn't help us manpowerwise but they "lent" us the runway on Ascension island (it is actually leased to them from us) and parked tankers full of aviation fuel off it that we could take as much as we wanted from.

They also gave the special forces (in a SF to SF deal, although apparently it was authorised from the highest power...) stingers (we were the first shoot down a plane in real combat with one), GPS devices and sat communication devices, which apparently got the backs up of the navy as they had to use a very over saturated system whereas the SAS could have real time comms with their base back home.


As for today, they are not going to do anything, if they did our men and planes on the island would give them a massive bloody nose (and lets face it that is really all they are there for) before surrendering, like last time. We'd then try and commendeer as many ships as possible to get more troops down there, which could be a bit of a mission now... The Argentines were a bit unlucky last time, 1 they thought we weren't really bothered about the islands (we withdrew our icebreaker and sole naval ship) so invaded thinking we would just capitulate, they know not this time and 2 they hit us at just the right time, just in time for us to de mothball a load of our navy, a few months later and we may not have had the navy to do what we did.

As for Oil, hopefully they will be finding even more, I want to get down there and dig it out. :p
 
Well HMS Daring would be the one that immediately comes to mind.

A single ship that isn't even fully active yet? Even if it and it's some of it's future sister ships were it would be used in it's primary role which is to protect the carrier group as the loss of our carrier would cripple our operations.

The type 45 is also not proven and it's weapon systems are brand new so there is no way of telling how good and reliable they will be in battlefield conditions.

You've also overlooked the fact that by the time a type 45 was on station the Argentinians would already be in posession of the islands. The standing Naval force is an unarmed survey vessel and a minimally armed costal patrol vessel not two state of the art destroyers
 
Back
Top Bottom