The end to the UK's new carriers?

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.

Also we had dipped into Nato stock sidewinder ;)
 
fadetoblack said:
Yes we did:

-snip-
Click to expand...

He wasn't disagreeing with the fact we sunk one ancient submarine, he was disagreeing with your statement that we sunk the only Argentine sub in the area which is clearly not true as proven by the link he privided and my other follow up post.
 
fadetoblack said:
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.

Also we had dipped into Nato stock sidewinder ;)
Click to expand...

Your point being? I just said we used the superior technology which we did even if some of it was 'borrowed' from places it shouldn't have been hell if you want to be picky the US government supplied all the fuel which enabled the Vulcans to make the round trip without the approval of congress. Have you decided to just quote random Falklands facts everytime one of your arguments get shot down?
 
calm down tiger :0

mate ,
I have only ever giving YOU FACTS! ;)
in the ground war a lot of the equipment on both sides was the same. I.e
SLR , but the argies did have some better kit then us starting from the boots upwards? But yes the British Army was better trained.
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
hell if you want to be picky the US government supplied all the fuel which enabled the Vulcans to make the round trip without the approval of congress.
Click to expand...

We also used American stinger missiles

The Stinger's combat debut occurred on 21 May 1982, during the Falklands War fought between Britain and Argentina. Soldiers of the British Special Air Service had been clandestinely equipped with six missiles, although they had received very little instruction in their use. The sole SAS trooper who had received training on the system, and was due to train other troops, was killed in a helicopter crash on 19 May.[2] The very first Stinger fired in military operations shot down an Argentine Pucará ground attack aircraft
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinger_missile
 
fadetoblack said:
calm down tiger :0

mate ,
I have only ever giving YOU FACTS! ;)
in the ground war a lot of the equipment on both sides was the same. I.e
SLR , but the argies did have some better kit then us starting from the boots upwards? But yes the British Army was better trained.
Click to expand...

That's wrong. The Argentinian Army was equipped with the Belgian FN FAL, a fully automatic 7.62mm assault rifle. The British Army was equipped with the semi-automatic L1A1 SLR.

Same round, different rate of fire.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_rifles#L1A1_SLR
 
Last edited:
sorry mate your wrong

it’s the same basic rifle just the British version was a self loading rifle
Argie version fully automatic. Both 7.62mm assault rifle

The United Kingdom developed its own variant of the FAL in conjunction with a committee also representing Australia and Canada as the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle (SLR) after rejection of the Enfield EM2. and ultimately included many minor changes, considered improvements by the UK.


Its was not in till The SA80 came into service the British army had a true semi automatic / full automatic Rifle

I have fired both SLR and SA80 (A1,) as I did 9 year in the 1st Royal Tank Reg so maybe I may be right this time ;)
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I must point out that while it was the Belgrano that gets the headlines IIRC it was flagship of a three vessel battlegroup, its escorting destroyers alone could have caused serious damage had they got in range of the carriers.

The odds were certainly against this happening but it was by no means impossible, especially if the carrier group was under air attack at the same time. Had this happened, and it came to light that a chance to sink her was passed on, you can imagine that apart from the thousands of deaths combined with total defeat in the war it would at the very least have brought down the government and probably have had other implications on a global geopolitical scale
 
fadetoblack said:
sorry mate your wrong

it’s the same basic rifle just the British version was a self loading rifle
Argie version fully automatic. Both 7.62mm assault rifle

The United Kingdom developed its own variant of the FAL in conjunction with a committee also representing Australia and Canada as the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle (SLR) after rejection of the Enfield EM2. and ultimately included many minor changes, considered improvements by the UK.


Its was not in till The SA80 came into service the British army had a true semi automatic / full automatic Rifle

I have fired both SLR and SA80 (A1,) as I did 9 year in the 1st Royal Tank Reg so maybe I may be right this time ;)
Click to expand...

I am not wrong at all. Read the links and my post. I read both of my links before I posted them, I'm not stupid.

If one is semi and the other fully automatic they aren't the same are they? Were they even made in the same factory/country? You said they were the same and they aren't. Am I being pedantic over rates of fire? Perhaps.

I served 14 years in the Royal Military Police, joined as a jelly tot (JLR RAC) - know Bovington well ;)

No idea why you brought the SA80 into it, it wasn't in service until 1990.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
I am not wrong at all. Read the links and my post. I read both of my links before I posted them, I'm not stupid.

If one is semi and the other fully automatic they aren't the same are they? Were they even made in the same factory? You said they were the same and they aren't. Am I being pedantic over rates of fire? Perhaps.

No idea why you brought the SA80 into it, it wasn't in service until 1990.
Click to expand...

its the same basic design SLR was technically a 'battle rifle' of G3 and M14 ilk,

I believe the main changes were simply to bring the weapon in line with British Manufacturing standards as opposed to continental - Imperial as opposed to Metric measurements, for example. Otherwise, pretty similar.

Oh, and the whole single shot thing, but nothing a cunningly placed matchstick couldn't solve...



p.s the Sa80 design dates back to the 40s ;0
 
Last edited:
In the 70/80's Britain made a big decision not to purchase the 'teen series' fighter jets coming from America (F-14, F-15 F-16, F/A-18). It would have effectively bankrupted our European aerospace industry & ended any real competition for 'western' fighter jet contracts. As per other comments, if we cancel these super carriers (which we wont, instead delay them 2/3 years) it will send companies like BAE to the US in a big way.

If we cancel contacts we slow technological innovation & revenues for UK/Europe.

Just delay the contract if need be but dont cancel it, not for 1 billion.

The power projection of having two super carriers, several type 45 escort ships, F-35 by 2018 would be truly awsome. We then need to stop joining these silly Iraq wars & stop our military budgets from getting out of control. We need to top acting like 'super Britain' who sticks its beak in every foreign affair.

I dont deny in 1997 all these things sounded great (we had 10 years of economic growth) but when 9/11 hit the fan (Afgan), then Iraq (pushed our military spending to virtual bankruptcy) then credit crunch i admit times are tough.


The simple truth is UK has massive debt it needs to deal with. Build the military might now, bring the troops home & reduce our interest in foreign affairs for the next decade....use the money to pay off debt.

Politicians are not the problem, we are. If Gordon or any future PM tries to suggest anything like the above we all go nuts and political suicide hits home.

For too long now this country has been using 'the credit card' (UK gov & public) to purchase these toys.....something has to give and decision time is apon us. Having a seat with the 'big boys' is expensive...can we afford it?
 
Last edited:
Stolly said:
I must point out that while it was the Belgrano that gets the headlines IIRC it was flagship of a three vessel battlegroup, its escorting destroyers alone could have caused serious damage had they got in range of the carriers.

The odds were certainly against this happening but it was by no means impossible, especially if the carrier group was under air attack at the same time. Had this happened, and it came to light that a chance to sink her was passed on, you can imagine that apart from the thousands of deaths combined with total defeat in the war it would at the very least have brought down the government and probably have had other implications on a global geopolitical scale
Click to expand...

It's escorting destoryers were both ex US Navy second world war destroyers which were again hoplessly outclassed by the vessels the Royal Navy had deployed. The design and main armement of these vessels was seriously outdated one was retired within a year of the conflict ending and the other only served for another 5. While obviously they did pose a threat I think it is very easy to exagerate it, the only serious weapons the Argentine navy posessed were aircraft which the weather stopped them launching and there German built submarine that fortunately had terrible torpedo troubles. The Belgrano was sunk to prove a point and send a message both of which it did. It proved to the Argentine Navy that we could destroy there ships with relative ease and sent a message to the Argentine Government and armed forces that we were fully prepared to take all necessary action.

fadetoblack said:
calm down tiger :0

mate ,
I have only ever giving YOU FACTS! ;)
in the ground war a lot of the equipment on both sides was the same. I.e
SLR , but the argies did have some better kit then us starting from the boots upwards? But yes the British Army was better trained.
Click to expand...

You haven't just stated facts you have got plenty of them wrong and also offered some very silly opinions. Yet again you've switched subject and gone from us using some NATO stock air-to-air missiles to the quality of the Argentinians boots for no apparent reason, for once I agree though the major difference in the ground war was the training and professionalism of the British Army.
 
Last edited:
B/s some of your facts are not really facts are they??;)
the Argie navy cauld out gun us if they botherd to come out to play!
What I may be wrong again ? I had Better ask you you seem to think that you ran the show :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom