MrSmith Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 You seem to be confused Tony, we're talking about some tarmac, which becomes useless for launching planes once it has holes in it. It can't sink. But it can be repaired very quickly and it would take multiple holes in just the right places to prevent take off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 We have more than one ship on site and the HMS Dauntless is more than capable of taking out ships. We have helicopters that are capable of taking out ships, we can launch anti ship missiles from land. If they haven’t already taken out the run way we have aircraft that can take out ships. And do we have rules of engagement that would allow any of that to happen? Or would you actually be dealing with men on the shore, at which point all your harpoon missiles become useless? Not that you've in any way convinced me that a single anti aircraft destroyer is capable of much in the way of anti ship operation. I know, but if they did they would be shot down. Flight time to the Falklands is approximately 18 hrs, with a short stopover at Ascension Island. I would think we would start with warning shots about 100 miles away from the Falklands they will be warned and if they ignore the warning the Typhoons will fire on them. I'm not sure we have ROE that would allow that. But assuming it would, they just need to have snuck some special forces onto the island who delay the launch of the typhoons long enough to land the regulars. I'm sure we can defend the place, but I don't think it's as easy as you seem to imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 During the previous conflict A single crater was produced on the runway, rendering it impossible for the airfield to be used by fast jets.[9] Argentine ground crew repaired the runway[10] within twenty-four hours,[11] but only to a level of quality suitable for the C-130 Hercules and Aermacchi MB-339 jets.[12] Many sources claim that fake craters confounded British damage assessment,[13] however, the British were well aware that the runway remained in use by C-130 and IA 58 Pucara aircraft.[14] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 And do we have rules of engagement that would allow any of that to happen? Or would you actually be dealing with men on the shore, at which point all your harpoon missiles become useless? I don't know what the rules of engagement are but if we are dealing with men on shore, we have aircraft that they don't have and our forces are well dug in. You appear to think our troops will sit back and watch the Argentinean forces land on the beach and take a leisurely stroll up Mount Pleasant and just ask us to surrender. Not that you've in any way convinced me that a single anti aircraft destroyer is capable of much in the way of anti ship operation. I'm not convinced you are looking to be convinced you appear to just want a repetitive argument. From post 400 The anti-ship systems include a pair of quadruple RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers, a 114mm Mark 8 gun and Sea Skua missiles capable of being launched from the ship’s Lynx HMA 8 or Merlin helicopter. I'm not sure we have ROE that would allow that. But assuming it would, they just need to have snuck some special forces onto the island who delay the launch of the typhoons long enough to land the regulars. They couldn't manage that last time so what reason do you have to think they can manage it this time. I'm sure we can defend the place, but I don't think it's as easy as you seem to imagine. It will be easier to defend than take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 During the previous conflict It was a crapy little airfield to start with, nothing compared to the reinforced concrete airfield that exists now, and I’m sure our engineers are more than capable of repairing it quickly to an high standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 You've got to get near it to drop a bomb on it. The airfield 'defences' in 1982 consisted of a BN Islander and a couple of Cessnas. I've flown both, and I don't recall much in the way of armament without opening a door and hanging out with a twelve bore. The based Typhoons should be a bit more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 there are two reasons why this is happening. One, the Argentine president in up for re election and wants to appear tough in the issue and two, the US is weak and this is resulting in south American countries jostling for position and influence. One thing is sure though, this time round, if they invade Obama wont be lending us their support or help in retaking the islands. Obviously you fail to understand that Argentina is one of many neighbouring countries of the US. All of these countries must be sympathetic to Argentina I'm sure. Obama would be treading on eggs diplomatically speaking if Argentina were to attempt to invade the Falklands (which it wont). A hell of a situation for Obama though if it did happen. An ally and friend on one side and half a continent against that ally on the other side. Glad I wouldn't be in his shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 Drop, carry and place, they're not that disimilar. We had a plan to actually land a Hercules on an Argentinian airbase with SAS inside it who would then kill the pilots in their barracks and disable the planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ugo stiglitz Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I assume you would have the same attitude if a foreign power invaded the UK. Would you just roll over and let them have it? we are rolling over while foreigners invade us, all i have to do is look out the window at my sisters to realise that ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ugo stiglitz Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Do you mean you think that if another country invaded our sovereign lands, we should not defend them? our soldiers have agreed to fight for our nation and its interests overseas. defending our lands from foreign invasion is kinda number 1 in the list of things they signed up to do and any soldier you talk to would relish the chance to fulfill their duty. If 500 hundred british soldiers died protecting 2 barren windswept full of sheep islands I would say it would not be worth it. If we were attacked in a war like fashion from a foreign enemy intent on overpowering our Islands, I would expect them and myself to fight to the last man to the death. I hate em being in Afghan, I'd be quite happy for Afgans to kill each other and not our kids like they do from behind rocks via remote control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.