Argentina imposes shipping rules to the falklands.

Captain Planet said:
The sheer amount of guff in this thread, lol
The number of spotty faced, BO ridden, pubescent, CoD loving neds who spout so much utter crap, lol.
YOU people, lol.

JUST LOL

Thank you for the amusement. That is all.
Click to expand...

smug.gif
 
Captain Planet said:
The sheer amount of guff in this thread, lol
The number of spotty faced, BO ridden, pubescent, CoD loving neds who spout so much utter crap, lol.
YOU people, lol.

JUST LOL

Thank you for the amusement. That is all.
Click to expand...

Are you going to share some more educated opinion or perhaps point out why they are wrong, or are you just as bad? Infact worse, at least they offered an opinion..
 
[TW]Fox;16006944 said:
Are you going to share some more educated opinion or perhaps point out why they are wrong, or are you just as bad? Infact worse, at least they offered an opinion..
Click to expand...

No oh great one. Why would I want to add a more educated opinion to a thread where it would hold no value?
 
Amp34 said:
I agree entirely, someone mentione earlier about buying American ships instead of the type 45's, good idea, lets buy some 20 year old ships from them and then have to modify them massively. Or we could od it properly and build our own. it's just a shame there were supposed to be 12 and now there are going to be 6 (possibly 4 last time I heard). With regard to the Astute, at the moment the government is planning to build the same number of subs as they are replacing, hopefully they won't be cut...
Click to expand...

Or we could buy brand new plans for flight IIA Arleigh Burke class ships, like several other countries have done, we could even build them on the clyde to keep people happy. They'd be, by most approximations, at least as good as the type 45s, would cost no more (and probably much less based on what, for example, the ones Korea, Spain and Norway built cost).

They'd be better suited to modern multi-role warfare (type 45s are air defence ships, with no current capability to launch cruise missiles or even anti ship missiles) and there would be actually be air defence missiles to arm them with today (unlike the type 45s whose Aster missiles are still in early testing). They'd even be capable of basic area ballistic missile defence.

But the prospect of cheaper, more flexible ships was sacrificed on the grounds of maintaining the ability to design such things in this country (arguably a fallacy given the number of european partners it'll depend on).

Same story with the carriers only worse, we could conceivable have bought a pair of Nimitz class ships for not much more than what two we're building will likely end up costing. That we decided not to isn't too much of a scandal but then failing to equip them with catapults and depending on the hugely expensive and unproven vertical take off variant of the F35 (and a rubbish airborne radar solution) when we could have bought off the shelf and more capable planes is.

If we're going to maintain a navy then we should at least equip it with the equipment which gives us the best capability at the best price, in pure terms of military capability and money we aren't getting value for money.
 
Captain Planet said:
No oh great one. Why would I want to add a more educated opinion to a thread where it would hold no value?
Click to expand...

Because people expressing genuine opinion, no matter how wrong, are always more welcome in a thread than people who are just being plain insulting?

If they are wrong, educate them.
 
bigredshark said:
Or we could buy brand new plans for flight IIA Arleigh Burke class ships, like several other countries have done, we could even build them on the clyde to keep people happy. They'd be, by most approximations, at least as good as the type 45s, would cost no more (and probably much less based on what, for example, the ones Korea, Spain and Norway built cost).

They'd be better suited to modern multi-role warfare (type 45s are air defence ships, with no current capability to launch cruise missiles or even anti ship missiles) and there would be actually be air defence missiles to arm them with today (unlike the type 45s whose Aster missiles are still in early testing). They'd even be capable of basic area ballistic missile defence.

But the prospect of cheaper, more flexible ships was sacrificed on the grounds of maintaining the ability to design such things in this country (arguably a fallacy given the number of european partners it'll depend on).

Same story with the carriers only worse, we could conceivable have bought a pair of Nimitz class ships for not much more than what two we're building will likely end up costing. That we decided not to isn't too much of a scandal but then failing to equip them with catapults and depending on the hugely expensive and unproven vertical take off variant of the F35 (and a rubbish airborne radar solution) when we could have bought off the shelf and more capable planes is.

If we're going to maintain a navy then we should at least equip it with the equipment which gives us the best capability at the best price, in pure terms of military capability and money we aren't getting value for money.
Click to expand...

Its all good just buying ships etc off America but what do we do if we was ever to fall out of terms in the future. And we haven't built any modern ships for years/decades. We need to be self reliant even if it does cost more.
 
Last edited:
trent said:
Its all good just buying ships etc off America etc but what do we do if we was ever to fall out of terms in the future. And we haven't built any modern ships for years/decades. We need to be self reliant even if it does cost more.
Click to expand...
Indeed - if anything the recent problems with the F35 procurement* should highlight why we should always have in house solutions.

*wiki: "The lack of U.S. commitment to grant access to the technology that would allow the UK to maintain and upgrade its F-35s without US involvement."
 
I'm reading a great book at the moment about the Vulcan's role in the conflict, Vulcan 607. At a time where the Vulcan was being retired, it was suddenly the most practical bomber in service that could reach the Falklands with the minimum amount of air to air refueling. Many of the Vulcans needed to have air to air refueling parts repaired, or fitted. This led to some of the parts being sourced from Vulcans in Museums and on the scrap pile. Their is something very British about the way in which the operation was knocked together quickly and cheaply. Anyway the book is a great read for anyone interested in such things.
 
spp said:
I'm reading a great book at the moment about the Vulcan's role in the conflict, Vulcan 607. At a time where the Vulcan was being retired, it was suddenly the most practical bomber in service that could reach the Falklands with the minimum amount of air to air refueling. Many of the Vulcans needed to have air to air refueling parts repaired, or fitted. This led to some of the parts being sourced from Vulcans in Museums and on the scrap pile. Their is something very British about the way in which the operation was knocked together quickly and cheaply. Anyway the book is a great read for anyone interested in such things.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's a great read, as as we've said above really highlighted the British spirit.

Not that the raids were particularly successful, or sensible.... :(
 
trent said:
Its all good just buying ships etc off America but what do we do if we was ever to fall out of terms in the future. And we haven't built any modern ships for years/decades. We need to be self reliant even if it does cost more.
Click to expand...

We don't really have that capability right now, our Tridents are part of the US strategic pool in all but name, when they need to be serviced we take them to kings bay (minus warheads) and swap them for a fresh set. Tomahawk is a fairly essential capability if we did need to fight a war these days and I suspect it's much the same. As are the Harpoon anti ship missiles carried by submarines and surface vessels...the list goes on.

I don't disagree in principle but it's got to the point where it's a pretence we have the ability. The weapons are mostly American so buying the ships too would have little real effect, even if we could build our own ships we'd need to develop weapons to arm them with. I disagree on the practical reality, building our own self sufficient kit would be nice but with our defence budget it's a choice between enough home grown kit to protect ourselves in home waters or enough foreign kit to project power far enough to protect places like the falklands. We can't have both, wanting it to be so doesn't change that.
 
bigredshark said:
I disagree on the practical reality, building our own self sufficient kit would be nice but with our defence budget it's a choice between enough home grown kit to protect ourselves in home waters or enough foreign kit to project power far enough to protect places like the falklands. We can't have both, wanting it to be so doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
We can have both - they just need more funding and better planning (to avoid overshoots in budget and time). Remember the cost of UK things is still less than US things, for the most part (carriers, submarines off hand). And plus the US aren't exactly transparent - and who knows, we could be at war with them tomorrow.
 
meghatronic said:
As our ally, due to the "special relationship" and as we're NATO members.

Don't mention Article 5 (geographic restrictions) - that covers "the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Not military and civilian assistance. However this might cover it officially:


Either way, the late Secretary of State Haig (and others in the administration) agreed with me - to not help would undermine NATO and not look favorable to the Soviets.
Click to expand...

Yep and thats why you are wrong. The obligation covers armed force, in the northern hemisphere. They were not obligated to help is in any way whatsoever.

Being an ally and NATO member has nothing to do with it. There are at least two occasions of the top of my head where a NATO member was attacked and other NATO members, allies and with close relationships not only did nothing to help but actually obstructed the armed response and on one occasion actively assisted the non NATO party All of this went on, didn't have any impact upon NATO membership or any long term impact on the relationships between the various countries.
 
meghatronic said:
We can have both - they just need more funding and better planning (to avoid overshoots in budget and time). Remember the cost of UK things is still less than US things, for the most part (carriers, submarines off hand). And plus the US aren't exactly transparent - and who knows, we could be at war with them tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Then I'm afraid we disagree, I don't think we can, in the current economic climate, afford it and even if we could I suspect that given the choice the navy would rather 11 American ships rather than 10 British ones (assuming the same capabilities).

And that we could be at war with the US tomorrow isn't really a decent reason against buying stuff from them - whether they can impede our ability to fight or not they'd still walk over us before lunch through sheer strength of numbers .

The few current and former navy officers I know quietly admit we'd be better in their estimation buying our ships off the shelf from the Americans rather than designing from scratch despite a few flaws in the American designs.

We'll just have to disagree on cost though, personally in the modern world if we can spend 20% less on defence through buying foreign kit and put that money into education then it's no contest in my opinion.
 
bigredshark said:
Then I'm afraid we disagree, I don't think we can, in the current economic climate, afford it and even if we could I suspect that given the choice the navy would rather 11 American ships rather than 10 British ones (assuming the same capabilities).
We'll just have to disagree on cost though, personally in the modern world if we can spend 20% less on defence through buying foreign kit and put that money into education then it's no contest in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I disagree, and currently so does the MoD and government. I think it is sensible personally. Also, let's not forget that the military budget is, for instance, dwarfed by the benefits budget (£164.7bn to £40bn), and don't forget the bank bailouts (£850bn-£1.5tn), and the cost of things (e.g. Carrier £2bn).

EDIT - Also, I missed this. The British ones are usually cheaper, and arguably better (not currently with Type 45 failure :D).

E.g.
Attacks subs: Astute vs. Virginia - £1bil vs £2bil
Carriers: QE vs Gerald R. Ford - £2bil vs £6bil
Destroyers: Type 45 vs Arleigh Burke - £1bil vs £1.3bil.

NB. The US prices (est. in £ at today's exchange rate) are not 'for sale rates', they're the internal US cost. All prices exclude R&D costs.

Stolly said:
Thats overstating the case by biblical proportions. What are we going to be at war with them over ? Not enough American actors in Harry Potter ?
Click to expand...
Of course it is overstating, but it should be a variable. Maybe?

Stolly said:
Yep and thats why you are wrong. The obligation covers armed force, in the northern hemisphere. They were not obligated to help is in any way whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Well shared resources is a NATO plus (otherwise it defeats the point), and anyway, my original point of ally and 'special relationship' applies. Maybe you're right and I used the wrong word saying "obligated" - but to not help does undermine an alliance and working together. Anyhow, I wasn't boo-hooing the US's help, I was just saying it wasn't pivotal, or as much as I would've expected. Again, I'm not alone and the UK Parliament and members of the US Administration agreed with me.

---

Why DO people put down their own country so much? :confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom