Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Why do we need carries when there is an airbase that can be reinforced significantly faster than sending the fleet 8000 miles. The airbase cannot be reinforced before it could be captured. A task force would be the only way to recapture it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 There is a plan, it just hasn't worked our very well, there are replacements for both the carrier and the fighters on order. Their development, in particular the fighters developments have been problematic and expensive and is massively delayed. The carriers were delayed so they'd come on line when the fighters arrive, if they arrive. Of course there are existing, perfectly functional fighters available on the market right now for a fraction of the cost... Why didn't we buy those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 NSA and GCHQ have very extensive intelligence sharing. As do MI6 and CIA. To be fair, given it's the only British territory that could concievably be subject to a military attack by a foreign power I'm sure even without american assistance we keep very close tabs on what the Argentinian government are discussing re the Falklands. Any hint of real intent rather than populist grandstanding and we could have the islands fully defended far quicker than they could put an invaision force together. Just like last time then... Oh, no, that's not how it happened is it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaunr68 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 the malvinas belong to argentina,just look at the geography of the islands,they are on their doorstep and we nicked them.According to international law they belong to the people of the Falklands who have the right to self determination. It is for the people actually living there to decide, geographic proximity is completely irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 The airbase cannot be reinforced before it could be captured. A task force would be the only way to recapture it. Your arguments would be sound if all we had there was 4 aircraft. The deployment of Army, Navy and RAF isn’t published for obvious reasons, and if the Argentineans have the capability to take it by force a couple of carries wouldn’t be much use. Fortunately they don’t have the capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaunr68 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Your arguments would be sound if all we had there was 4 aircraft. The deployment of Army, Navy and RAF isn’t published for obvious reasons, and if the Argentineans have the capability to take it by force a couple of carries wouldn’t be much use. Fortunately they don’t have the capability.Indeed, people tend to forget that aircraft have a much greater range now compared to 1982 when the Vulcan raids over Stanley were a major achievement considering the distances involved. Also for anyone who thinks that British capability has been seriously undermined over recent years needs to look at the potential opposition, they are still using the same old rusty junk that they had in 1982... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Air_Force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 No serious reply then. You don't want to defend your earlier comments about how war there again would never happen? That might have made more sense if you'd read before writing Here you go. Put your silly smiley away. The French aren't claiming sovereignty or stopping Spanish fishing vessels. Additionally, both Spain, France and the entire United Nations fully recognise UK sovereignty... well maybe excepting Latin loonies like Chavez and Castro. What you need to understand is that the Argentinian Government is in an almost permanent state of crisis and intermittently seeks to deflect attention from its own problems while doing a bit of populist rabble rousing. While they have democracy, the likelihood of an Argentinian military attack on or around the Falklands is zero. They do not have the capacity or the capital and know that any attempt would be over in a matter of a few hours with their air and sea forces being disabled almost instantly by the UK. The incumbent government would be strung up by their citizens... literally. All they have is a political tool that keeps politicians in domestic clover. Don't be misled. And the GR7s were so far pushed into the end of their useful lifespans that keeping that fleet running would have cost fortunes as well - they were old at best, then we flew the life out of them in Afghanistan and hardly any remaining airframes have useful fatigue life left. We had nothing to fly from the carriers so it was pointless keeping them. Yeah, funny thing about that. The US forces just bought them all, apparently it's far cheaper to upgrade them and keep them running for another 30 years than to buy new ones! No they didn't. The Americans bought GR9's and their inventory, mainly as a cheap way to acquire spares to keep their own fleet running. I don't think you realise that RAF Mount Pleasant is a fully formed military air base with a few thousand personnel. They could mount an entire war on the Argentinian mainland from there. Those four permanent typhoons can carry thirty tonnes of ordnance between them. The rest of the RAF and the Army is just a day's flying time away. In addition, the single submarine that's permanently stationed in the S Atlantic is capable of surgically removing any air strike capability before it gets off the ground. The updated Rapier units on the island would see off the single asthmatic forty year old Mirage that wheezed its way through the waves at 250kts if it somehow didn't shake itself to bits before it got there. Who needs aircraft carriers? Not us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Indeed, people tend to forget that aircraft have a much greater range now compared to 1982 when the Vulcan raids over Stanley were a major achievement considering the distances involved. Also for anyone who thinks that British capability has been seriously undermined over recent years needs to look at the potential opposition, they are still using the same old rusty junk that they had in 1982... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Air_Force And their navy is not much better. Without effective air power, they are as good as dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansheff Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 It would have been far cheaper to not send a fleet and troops out to the South Atlantic in 1982. Yes but Thatcher was losing support and knew that if she didn't send the troops in the people would see it as a sell out and maybe lose power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Your arguments would be sound if all we had there was 4 aircraft. The deployment of Army, Navy and RAF isn’t published for obvious reasons, and if the Argentineans have the capability to take it by force a couple of carries wouldn’t be much use. Fortunately they don’t have the capability. The military forces currently station in the Falklands is a matter of public record. It's not like they can sneak in more Eurofighters by train and then keep them hidden is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.