The end to the UK's new carriers?

[The Mad Rapper]

Wrong :Thatcher did threaten to use nukes,she was threatening to use them if the french didn`t give vital info on the exocet missiles that the Argies where using,the french caved in and gave the info needed.

Thatcher Had real Balls unlike the muppets we have today

This is true accoirding to this:

It has been revealed that, during the Falklands War, Margaret Thatcher threatened a nuclear strike on Buenos Aires unless the French handed over the codes for disabling Argentina's (French-made) missiles.

Mr Mitterrand — who once described Mrs Thatcher as "the eyes of Caligula and the mouth of Marilyn Monroe" — went on: "One cannot win against the insular syndrome of an unbridled Englishwoman. Provoke a nuclear war for a few islands inhabited by three sheep as hairy as they are freezing! But it's a good job I gave way. Otherwise, I assure you, the lady's metallic finger would have hit the button."
Then again, would Britain have been able to launch a nuclear strike without US approval back then? These days, the British nuclear arsenal is operated under contract by a US defense firm, whose technicians apparently have instructions to require confirmation from the Pentagon before launching missiles. Then again, it is not entirely clear how difficult it would be for a determined Britain to get around these restrictions, or indeed that Reagan (who, famously, once went on air and announced, in jest, that the US was launching a massive nuclear strike against the "Evil Empire") would have vetoed a strike on Argentina.

http://dev.null.org/blog/tags/margaret thatcher

&

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/books.france

 

[fadetoblack]

Alex2001 you never heard about the SAS/SBS mission on main land Argentine airbase? The chopper carrying them crashed on a beach in chile. At the chile was a close partner to the Uk in that area

 

[fadetoblack]

The Navy were also carrying Nuclear Depth Charges does that mean they planned to use those too?


Er No because we knock out the only Argie sub they had and also Argie navy never left port after we sunk there battleship

 

[a1ex2001]

Alex2001 you never heard about the SAS/SBS mission on main land Argentine airbase? The chopper carrying them crashed on a beach in chile. At the chile was a close partner to the Uk in that area

What does that have to do with a Nuclear Strike? Sending in special forces to destroy an enemys airforce on the ground is hardly comparable to the use of a tactical nuclear weapon which I have already indicated was the only seriously viable nuclear option. The operation to which you refer was a failed reconasance ahead of a major special forces attack that was later cancelled as totally unworkable and likely to end in defeat.

The Navy were also carrying Nuclear Depth Charges does that mean they planned to use those too?


Er No because we knock out the only Argie sub they had and also Argie navy never left port after we sunk there battleship

You need to read some history, The German built Argentine Submarine the San Luis continued to haras the Royal Navy until the end of the war, we attempted to sink her more than 50 times without success and she twice attacked the fleet with torpedoes that luckily missed.

 

[a1ex2001]

Then again, would Britain have been able to launch a nuclear strike without US approval back then? These days, the British nuclear arsenal is operated under contract by a US defense firm, whose technicians apparently have instructions to require confirmation from the Pentagon before launching missiles. Then again, it is not entirely clear how difficult it would be for a determined Britain to get around these restrictions, or indeed that Reagan (who, famously, once went on air and announced, in jest, that the US was launching a massive nuclear strike against the "Evil Empire") would have vetoed a strike on Argentina.

Are these technicians currently at see in the Royal Navy's Trident class submarines? If not they won't be much use as if the three most senior officers onboard decide to launch the missiles they can, there is nothing physically stopping them.

 

[fadetoblack]

Er wrong we hit the only sub they had/ in the area
of my head I think the chopper was a wasp?

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Er wrong we hit the only sub they had/ in the area
of my head I think the chopper was a wasp?

No we didn't:

http://militaryhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_sea_war_in_the_falklands_

 

[a1ex2001]

Er wrong we hit the only sub they had/ in the area
of my head I think the chopper was a wasp?

No we didn't:

http://militaryhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_sea_war_in_the_falklands_

fortunately some one beat me too it, your knowledge of this subject is clearly poor all this information is freely available all over the internet I suggest you go and read up before commenting further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_San_Luis

Seems this thread has gone a bit off topic, I'm still reasonably convinced that a tory government will not pull the plug on the carriers or the nuclear deterent.

 

[fadetoblack]

Good point Argie's navy was too busy getting fat on corned beef in port to engage the UK. After the Belgrano was hit they all went back to the mainland to cower whilst watched by one of our submarines. Well, all except the Belgrano that didn't go very far at all. Only the Brit ships had the nerve to carry on fighting after taking losses. If the Argie carrier had come out to engage then things may have been different.

 

[wordy]

If the Argie carrier had come out to engage then things may have been different.

Not really there was another nuclear sub waiting for permission to fire toropedos at it when it got new of the Belgrano and rtb'd.

 

[a1ex2001]

Good point Argie's navy was too busy getting fat on corned beef in port to engage the UK. After the Belgrano was hit they all went back to the mainland to cower whilst watched by one of our submarines. Well, all except the Belgrano that didn't go very far at all. Only the Brit ships had the nerve to carry on fighting after taking losses. If the Argie carrier had come out to engage then things may have been different.

You really don't know what you talking about do you?

The Argentine carrier Veinticinco de Mayo did put to sea and but for a lack of wind would have launched an attack on the British task force which could have been pretty devestating.

After the Belgrano was sunk she rightly retreated to port a British Sub had already been tasked with finding her and would almost certainly have been allowed to sink her. She was an ex-Royal Navy second world war carrier which lacked the technology to engage the state of the art Royal Navy staying out would have been effectively sentencing most of her crew to death she had barely put to see in the years running up to the war and practically never did again. The much vaunted Belgrano that we sank was an ex-US Navy second world war cruiser again totally unsuited to engaging the Royal Navy.

The only time the Argentines did real damage in the war was when they were technologically on a par or at least close to us, hence the biggest successes were with state of the art Exocet missiles and Super Etendards, the Skyhawks did brilliantly considering the lack of modern technology but the rate at which the Royal Navy was shooting them down was unsustainable.

 

[fadetoblack]

Er no

Point 1, royal air force /royal navy only had about 20 (sea harriers / harriers) in the area argies had around 200 fighters Don't forget nobody like the harrier it cauld not do a fighter role (lol) but it did great

point 2 The A-4's normally assigned to the carrier were disembarked and operated from Argentine land bases. This came after the WHOLE of the Argentine Navy was recalled from sea after the nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror sunk the cruiser "General Belgrano." Argentina realized the grave threat British SSNs posed to its navy and did not want to risk deploying.

 

[a1ex2001]

Er no

Point 1, royal air force /royal navy only had about 20 (sea harriers / harriers) in the area argies had around 200 fighters Don't forget nobody like the harrier it cauld not do a fighter role (lol) but it did great

point 2 The A-4's normally assigned to the carrier were disembarked and operated from Argentine land bases. This came after the WHOLE of the Argentine Navy was recalled from sea after the nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror sunk the cruiser "General Belgrano." Argentina realized the grave threat British SSNs posed to its navy and did not want to risk deploying.

I don't understand your points? you need to be clear.

Point 1 nowehere did I say the Fleet Air Arm didn't do an incredible job but the Technology in our Sea Harriers was vastly superior to that in the A4's hence the incredible kill ratio achieved the bravery of the Argentine pilots who took to the air time and time again despite the odss is inspiring. The handfull of Super Etendards were much more modern and even with the tiny amount of training the pilots had recieved faired a lot better and nobody can argue the effectivness of the Exocet missile.

Point 2 yes the entire surface fleet did withdraw to port after the Belgrano was sunk as they were faced with an enemy using vastly superior technology that they couldn't counter, second world war vintage war ships against modern submarines. Had the wind been stronger on the day the Veinticinco de Mayo attempted to lauch her fighters against the Royal Navy fleet the path of the war could have been very different, but as I have said she was a relic which had hardly been to sea in years and pretty much never went to sea again.

 

[wordy]

Point 2 yes the entire surface fleet did withdraw to port after the Belgrano was sunk as they were faced with an enemy using vastly superior technology that they couldn't counter, second world war vintage war ships against modern submarines. Had the wind been stronger on the day the Veinticinco de Mayo attempted to lauch her fighters against the Royal Navy fleet the path of the war could have been very different, but as I have said she was a relic which had hardly been to sea in years and pretty much never went to sea again.

Depends on the location of the Royal Navy Task Group at the time, If it was open ocean the A4s would've blown out of the sky by the CAP & type 42's.

 

[fadetoblack]

True but the sea to air missile seawolf & sea dart radar was pants working near land??


Anyway Argie pilots were trained by the United States and Israel,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/792825/posts

 

[a1ex2001]

Depends on the location of the Royal Navy Task Group at the time, If it was open ocean the A4s would've blown out of the sky by the CAP & type 42's.

They were in the open sea on root but the threat was significant enough to be taken seriously by the Navy the fleet commander believed they posed a serious threat to the taskforce which could have resulted in an embaressing defeat. Fortunately it would only have been A4's with retard bombs as the Carrier had not been modified to carry the Etendards allthough the A4's achieved impressive results later in the war so to discount the attack completely seems a little nieve.

 

[wordy]

They were in the open sea on root but the threat was significant enough to be taken seriously by the Navy the fleet commander believed they posed a serious threat to the taskforce which could have resulted in an embaressing defeat. Fortunately it would only have been A4's with retard bombs as the Carrier had not been modified to carry the Etendards allthough the A4's achieved impressive results later in the war so to discount the attack completely seems a little nieve.

Wasn't discounting it, but I'd like to think that the Harriers on CAP and the Type 42's would've been able to do the job against A4's carrying bombs.

 

[fadetoblack]

In open water agreed but not near land as pants radar

 

[a1ex2001]

True but the sea to air missile seawolf & sea dart radar was pants working near land??


Anyway Argie pilots were trained by the United States and Israel,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/792825/posts

It wasn't the greatest which is why in shore the navy developed the technique of doubleing up a frigate and a destroyer and explains why the A4's were often able to get close enough to deliver retard bombs, doesn't change the fact the pilots were incredibly brave going up against the vastly superior Harrier armed with state of the art missiles in technologically antique A4's.

The US and the Isreal may have trained the A4 pilots but the certainly didn't train the piolts of the Dassault Super Étendard's which are a French plane, the Argentines had only recieved a handfull (5 if memory serves) and the piolots had a very limited number of simulator hours in France and a tiny number of hours of real flying time.

The technology advantage the Royal Navy posesed was one of the key factors in winning the war along with a healthy dose of luck and some good old British pluck. At least you've stoped calling the Argentine navy a bunch of cowards and accepted that they did the best with the terrible equipment they had on offer.

Wasn't discounting it, but I'd like to think that the Harriers on CAP and the Type 42's would've been able to do the job against A4's carrying bombs.

Couldn't agree more, you'd hope they did the job but if the Argentinians had sunk a few of the troop ships or some more RFA's then the face of the invasion would have been very different.

 

[fadetoblack]

No we didn't:

http://militaryhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_sea_war_in_the_falklands_

Yes we did:

ARA Santa Fe was the former US Navy Balao Class Submarine USS Catfish (SS-339)which was sold to the Argentine Navy in 1971. The Santa Fe was active in the Falklands War and had completed a resupply mission to Argetine Commandos on South Georgia when she was spotted and attacked by Royal Navy Helicopters on April 25th, 1982.

The Santa Fe was repeatedly strafed and hit with several anti-ship missiles and damaged so severely she was unable to submerge to escape her attackers. Her crew sailed the heavily damaged sub back into Grytviken harbor where they set booby traps onboard and abandoned the sinking submarine alongside the jetty at King Edward Point.

The crew were later captured by British Commandos who also took the Santa Fe as a war prize once the ship was cleared of explosives. The damage sustained by the sub proved to be too great to repair or refit, and that coupled with the subs age and led to her being towed off the King Edward Point Jetty and scuttled in shallow water. In 1985 the Santa Fe was raised from her shallow water location and towed offshore of Georgia Island where she was scuttled again in deep water.

http://wikimapia.org/8187368/ARA-Santa-Fe-S-21

www.navsource.org/archives/08/08339.htm
Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Santa_Fe_(S-21)