|
|
Tim W |
Monday, February 20, 2012
Rule Britannica
9 comments:
-
Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...
-
If the Argentinians invaded the Falklands today, the Brits couldn't do a damn thing about it.
-
2/20/12, 1:01 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
"If the Argentinians invaded the Falklands today, the Brits couldn't do a damn thing about it."
Use bing and look up Trafalgar class nuclear submarine, and then read up on the General Belgrano you burk!
Sincerely, Armageddon Rex
still bitter and clingin' to my guns! -
2/20/12, 1:24 PM
-
Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...
-
Rex:
I know all about the Belgrano. The subs couldn't stop the invasion and resupply by air. The British Navy had a hell of the time with the Argentine air force (which in reality was very good). The Falklands were being re-supplied by air right up until the surrender of the Argentine ground forces.
The last war was a very 'near thing' for the UK. If the Argies had waited till later (the Royal Navy was getting ready to mothball a number of ships), or fixed the triggering issues with their bombs*, the UK would have lost the Falklands.
*The Argie pilots did low bomb runs which defeated the surface to air missiles used by the Brits. The bombs didn't have enough time to arm properly dropped from such a low height. The UK didn't lose more ships only because the bombs didn't explode. -
2/20/12, 2:52 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I've always enjoyed joke names for British Navy ships. My favorites are The Petulant, The Precocious and the Fastidious.
GrinfilledCelt -
2/20/12, 6:05 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
“The Falklands were being re-supplied by air right up until the surrender of the Argentine ground forces.”
This is true.
It’s also true that the supplies were inadequate for any kind of sustained conflict. If the ground fighting had lasted much longer the Argentine army would have been throwing rocks… It’s been proved throughout history, that it is impossible to hold a small island or group of islands for any length of time unless you control the sea lanes around the island adequately to resupply by sea. World War II in the Pacific is the preeminent example.
With their nuclear attack submarine force and ability to replenish at sea the Royal Navy can blockade the Falklands for a year or more. In addition, the submarines are now equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles capable of precision land attack. All the S.A.S. and S.B.S. need do is land a few teams that can observe and report coordinates via SATCOM, and any RADAR set larger than a MANPAD will be toast! The same can be said for runways and P.O.L. storage, etc. The Royal Navy can then resupply their special forces by submarine, indefinitely.
In addition, the Royal Air Force now has several squadrons of Typhoon fighter aircraft. They will easily outmatch any airplane in the Argentine inventory. I believe they rotate a flight or half squadron through the Falklands several times a year. They also rotate them through the Ascension Islands, another U.K. possession left over from colonial days. The U.K. now has VC-10 aerial refueling aircraft capable of supporting sustained Typhoon operations out of Ascension for several months if necessary. This will enable daily R.A.F. precision strikes against any Argentine forces in the Falklands or vicinity. It is highly doubtful the Argentines would, even if they could, strike the joint RAF/NATO airbase, with some U.S. personnel on the ground, in the Ascensions.
http://www.aviationnews.eu/2009/10/16/typhoons-on-first-operational-deployment-to-falklands/
At the time of the last Falkland war the Argentine Air Force was able to field Phantoms and A-4 Skyhawks, either were far superior fighter aircraft to the Harriers that were the only fighter aircraft available to U.K. forces in the Falklands at that time. In short, if it comes to open warfare, it will be a very different air war this time around.
The last time the U.K. pulled their punches. This time, if they want to leave a lasting impression in order to prevent a third takeover attempt they can mine all the major harbors in Argentina via submarine and attack command and control hundreds of mile inland using Tomahawks. So far as I know, the Argentines have zero ability to perform military strikes anywhere in the U.K. proper.
Hugs ‘n’ kisses!
Armageddon Rex
Still bitter and clingin’ to my guns! -
2/20/12, 6:09 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Rex, it sounds like you read too many Clancy novels. A-4 superior to the AV-8B? It wasn't then, and it isn't now.
Casca -
2/20/12, 6:42 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Casca:
The Brits had Sea Harriers circa 1981-2, not AV-8s.
The Sea Harriers didn't even have Air to Air Radar!
They were designed for ground attack and were later fitted with IR guided Air to Air missiles to provide rudimentary fighter capabilities. One of the wonders of the first Falkland war was that the RAF achieved any air to air kills at all!
Armageddon Rex
Still bitter and clingin' to my guns! -
2/20/12, 7:36 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Oops! I was wrong...
The Sea Harrier did have air to air RADAR. It was not slaved to the weapon control system in the first version of the Sea Harrier that was in use during the Falklands war. That's why they used sidewinder IR guided AAMs instead of RADAR guided. It's still a wonder they were able to bring down any of the Mirage / Daggers at all, and a feather in the cap of the British aviators.
I apologize. To many different aircraft types over to many years...
Armageddon Rex
Still bitter & clingin' to my guns! -
2/20/12, 7:52 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Like I said, you miss the forest for the trees. The A-4 was also a ground attack aircraft, and not as flexible as any Harrier variant.
Casca -
2/21/12, 7:54 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)