Another war in the Falklands?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another war in the Falklands?
Still stuck in the training system and it's airpower presentation time! Our topic is whether or not the UK still has the capability to recapture the Falklands in the result of another sneaky Argie invasion! Thought I'd try and cut some corners by trawling for any info, views, opinions or websites on here. Any help would be gratefully accepted.
Yes there will be another war in the Falklands because Dubya will eventually get round to Argentina on his list of 'Countries to attack to make me look good' and of course Tony the **** will offer our services because it makes him look good too.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: the zone
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today, the UK would beat Argentina Hands Down.
If you are a winging crab then you will probably consider otherwise, but
---------------------------------------------------1981--Now
Tomahawk cruise Missile Submarines-------0-----Lots
Airborne Early Warning Helicoters-----------0-----Lots
Apache Longbow Helicopters-----------------0-----Lots
Frigates/Destroyers equiped with-----------0-----Lots
Goalkeeper/Phalanx/Vertical Launch Seawolf
Beyond Visual Range Fighters (SHAR FA2) 0------Lots
Harrier GR7---------------------------------------0------Lots
Aircraft Carriers----------------------------------2------4
Not much light blue there, stick a tomahawk in your precious 'air power' lecture and see how they like it.
Situation will be different once the SHAR goes in 2004, my guess is Tony Bliar is planing a re-election falklands war for that year.
Have Fun
If you are a winging crab then you will probably consider otherwise, but
---------------------------------------------------1981--Now
Tomahawk cruise Missile Submarines-------0-----Lots
Airborne Early Warning Helicoters-----------0-----Lots
Apache Longbow Helicopters-----------------0-----Lots
Frigates/Destroyers equiped with-----------0-----Lots
Goalkeeper/Phalanx/Vertical Launch Seawolf
Beyond Visual Range Fighters (SHAR FA2) 0------Lots
Harrier GR7---------------------------------------0------Lots
Aircraft Carriers----------------------------------2------4
Not much light blue there, stick a tomahawk in your precious 'air power' lecture and see how they like it.
Situation will be different once the SHAR goes in 2004, my guess is Tony Bliar is planing a re-election falklands war for that year.
Have Fun
Last edited by Colonel W E Kurtz; 23rd Sep 2002 at 17:32.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
winging crab
what do you mean by winging crab? do you mean whinging crab? by crab do you mean the royal air force that unlike the royal navy and most of the army wasnt on leave at the time of the falklands invasion!! yes we could beat the argies if they decided to invade again, and just like last time we would have to use merchant ships and use the american base on ascension island. and yet again we would be subjected to a navy lead pr campaign that denigrates the raf contribution.
Thats the same crabs that went on a SILLY mission or two with the Vulcan bomber only to miss the Runway!!!(1 Bomb from I stick of 20 I believe, actually hit!!)
All that training and air miles for naff all!! How we laughed.. the far reaching airforce in action...or should I say lack of....
Never mind, they'll have an equally defunct aircraft by the next FI campaign... TypHOON!!! 232 of them to defend the skies from the argies.. over kill or what?
Typhoon is another Cold war relic just as the Vulcan was.. lets spend the money where its needed such as the Navy and Army and some decent AT aircraft!!!!
Raucous responses glady accepted....(he he)
All that training and air miles for naff all!! How we laughed.. the far reaching airforce in action...or should I say lack of....
Never mind, they'll have an equally defunct aircraft by the next FI campaign... TypHOON!!! 232 of them to defend the skies from the argies.. over kill or what?
Typhoon is another Cold war relic just as the Vulcan was.. lets spend the money where its needed such as the Navy and Army and some decent AT aircraft!!!!
Raucous responses glady accepted....(he he)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: An airfield by the sea
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope Grimweasel is deliberately appearing ignorant for the purpose of provoking a reply - if he is then it has worked! If he isn't then I would be happy to set him straight on the effect of the 'Black Buck' mission he is so damning about. Sure, only minor damage was done to the runway at Stanley, but it showed the Argies that we had the capability to mount heavy bombing missions over the enormous distances involved. The *real* result of the mission was that a portion of the Argie fighters were relocated from southern Argentina to the north, to protect their mainland against another Vulcan excursion (Buenos Aires!?). This meant that air superiority over the Falklands was achieved more quickly, and with fewer naval losses, than if the Vulcans had stayed at home. So there!
Alright then - a quick flash. I don't claim to know anything of army or naval doctrine, so I wouldn't rush headlong into criticisms of past battles I know nothing about. Our surface-bound colleagues would be well advised to show similar restraint unless they have something valuable to contribute!
Also, why are many pongos so jealous of the spending on Typhoon? It seems to be fashionable to repeat parrot-fashion cries of "cold war relic" every time it comes up. I think I speak for most of the RAF when I say that none of us begrudge the other services getting new kit - we all have our parts to play (apart from nukes, which major service assets have been unused in the last five years??). One team and all that...
Flash over.
Alright then - a quick flash. I don't claim to know anything of army or naval doctrine, so I wouldn't rush headlong into criticisms of past battles I know nothing about. Our surface-bound colleagues would be well advised to show similar restraint unless they have something valuable to contribute!
Also, why are many pongos so jealous of the spending on Typhoon? It seems to be fashionable to repeat parrot-fashion cries of "cold war relic" every time it comes up. I think I speak for most of the RAF when I say that none of us begrudge the other services getting new kit - we all have our parts to play (apart from nukes, which major service assets have been unused in the last five years??). One team and all that...
Flash over.
Actually Grimweasel if you had an ounce of intelligence you'd realise that the Vulcan trip was merely a warning to the Argies that their precious homeland was within range of our strategic bombing force. The attack on the airfield had to be made from high level at night and as the clockwork bombing computer was designed to deliver a single nuke within 50 yds or so of it's target I think it did admirably well to stradle the runway with a stick of unguided bombs.
Oh I see 'nearly there' beat me to it by a minute!
Oh I see 'nearly there' beat me to it by a minute!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pantsville
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blah, blah, blah...."we're better than you are"....."our kit's better than yours"........"my whilly's bigger than yours".... same old arguements! Fact is fewer people, less equipt (overall) and far lower morale. My answer to the origional question....not convinced.
Firstly what assumptions have ben made regarding other UK commitments during your future Malvinas campaign? For if everyone is away doing whatever Toady wants us to do to help him lick Dubya's ar$e, protect his diamonds from thieving rebels, stop squabbling Balkan peasants fighting eachother over uninhabitable mountains covered in goat cr@p, etc, etc, there won't be many people left to protect the Islas Malvinas.
The Vulcan raids proved that there was still a need for long range bombers, the SHARs and Harriers proved the need for credible naval air power. Learning from that, we now have NO long range bombers, FEWER real aircraft carriers - and the SHARs under threat.......RIIIIIIIIIGHT!!
Good luck against all those elephants......
The Vulcan raids proved that there was still a need for long range bombers, the SHARs and Harriers proved the need for credible naval air power. Learning from that, we now have NO long range bombers, FEWER real aircraft carriers - and the SHARs under threat.......RIIIIIIIIIGHT!!
Good luck against all those elephants......
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Where they send me
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agh the navy.......
Lets redefine some points, The navy and airpower since they are soon to become an all GR7 force
RAF Airfield Navy Carrier
MOB= Main Operating Base. (will become) Mobile Operating Base
FOB= Forward Operating Base.----" "--- Floating Operating Base
So then when do they get renamedRAF Illustrious , Ark Royal etc
Lets redefine some points, The navy and airpower since they are soon to become an all GR7 force
RAF Airfield Navy Carrier
MOB= Main Operating Base. (will become) Mobile Operating Base
FOB= Forward Operating Base.----" "--- Floating Operating Base
So then when do they get renamedRAF Illustrious , Ark Royal etc
1. As there is now (unlike 1982) a garrison and a serious airfield on the Falks, isn't the first question whether or not the invaders can be headed off by reinforcement of the islands? When do you assume London finds out about the plot?
2. Given that the ******s land one dark'n'stormy without any warning, it becomes a question of recapturing the islands. At the moment, I'd say we are better able to do it than in 1982 (as long as the navy does not have to go to Iraq at the same time). Reasons - many more ships have Sea Wolf, CIWS, more FA2s are available and they are considerably more formidable than the FRS1s used in 1982; if any RAF Harriers were to be embarked for attack, they would be GR7s or 9s; Sea King AEWs now exist; given no other amphibious ops running, an LPH (Ocean) will be available in addition to the LPDs (and could be used to launch RAF Harriers instead of filling up the CVSs). Tomahawk-equipped submarines would be available should they be needed (for example as a threat to the mainland). Generally, more support helicopters could be sent.
3. But without the SHARs....the whole thing falls into the "capability gap"! After/If the new carriers and F-35s come into service, it would become possibile (and easier) again.
2. Given that the ******s land one dark'n'stormy without any warning, it becomes a question of recapturing the islands. At the moment, I'd say we are better able to do it than in 1982 (as long as the navy does not have to go to Iraq at the same time). Reasons - many more ships have Sea Wolf, CIWS, more FA2s are available and they are considerably more formidable than the FRS1s used in 1982; if any RAF Harriers were to be embarked for attack, they would be GR7s or 9s; Sea King AEWs now exist; given no other amphibious ops running, an LPH (Ocean) will be available in addition to the LPDs (and could be used to launch RAF Harriers instead of filling up the CVSs). Tomahawk-equipped submarines would be available should they be needed (for example as a threat to the mainland). Generally, more support helicopters could be sent.
3. But without the SHARs....the whole thing falls into the "capability gap"! After/If the new carriers and F-35s come into service, it would become possibile (and easier) again.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any discussion of this scenario that omits the fact that we now have a strategic airfield on the Flaklands, with fighters, strike & recce aircraft either immediately available or on short call, is silly. If our intelligence cannot give us sufficient warning to reinforce the islands, we might as well pack up. The mind boggles at the intelligence failure involved in a no-warning landing "one dark and stormy night". The Foreign Secretary's head rolled last time. Next time it must be the PM's plus Chairman of JIC, S of S and probably CDS!
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three points -
any plan that didn't involve disabling the runway and thus the air cover [using covert insertion] is probably doomed so let's assume it. They are never going to succeed if they go faffing about Sth.G again and even HMG isn't going to be *that* asleep twice... surely?
second - what's the opposition going to be like. Have they seriously re-equipped since 82 with longer endurance fighters and anti-surface than Etendards and Skyhawks?
third - would President Tone have the bottle to tell one of the attack sub commanders to sink what needs sinking, or smack an Argentine airfield or three with Tomahawk?
any plan that didn't involve disabling the runway and thus the air cover [using covert insertion] is probably doomed so let's assume it. They are never going to succeed if they go faffing about Sth.G again and even HMG isn't going to be *that* asleep twice... surely?
second - what's the opposition going to be like. Have they seriously re-equipped since 82 with longer endurance fighters and anti-surface than Etendards and Skyhawks?
third - would President Tone have the bottle to tell one of the attack sub commanders to sink what needs sinking, or smack an Argentine airfield or three with Tomahawk?
I see.... point taken about the re-allocation of fighters to the north of Corned Beef country.... the Vulcan would have been blown out of the sky surely? They must have known it was a bluff as we had no credable way of defending those fighters over the South Atlantic between the FI and Ascension Is. That would have required the allocation of one of the A/C carriers further North thus denting our own cover over the Falklands?
Then they could have attacked us at will with only a few SHARs in situ?
I still say it was a pointless mission and anyone that has read Sharky Ward's book on the air war will know that he too concurs!
What I was trying to point out was that for the cost of two or three Typhoons, the services could be equipped with a rifle that they could trust. This is very important to the 'grunt' on the ground as Im sure your Typhoon is to you fighter chaps!
Force Purple and all that, not slagging anyone off, just raising a few points..
After all this is a forum and not a self appreciation discussion!
Then they could have attacked us at will with only a few SHARs in situ?
I still say it was a pointless mission and anyone that has read Sharky Ward's book on the air war will know that he too concurs!
What I was trying to point out was that for the cost of two or three Typhoons, the services could be equipped with a rifle that they could trust. This is very important to the 'grunt' on the ground as Im sure your Typhoon is to you fighter chaps!
Force Purple and all that, not slagging anyone off, just raising a few points..
After all this is a forum and not a self appreciation discussion!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grim
Yes, unfortunately I have read his book. Instead of what could have been a fascinating and awe-inspiring insight into the air war, he spends most of his time slagging off the Royal Air Force, any SHAR Sqn on which he wasn't serving, most of the Royal Navy(unless they were involved with his sqn), and more slagging off of the RAF.
Personally, I think such small minded inter-service petty rivalry should be between the children that frequent these threads, and somebody with his service record would be above it....but as these forums show, there really are a lot these bickering tw@ts around.
By the way I think RAF aircrew should challenge AAC and ther FAA mates to a big pagger after school....!
anyone that has read Sharky Ward's book on the air war will know that he too concurs!
Personally, I think such small minded inter-service petty rivalry should be between the children that frequent these threads, and somebody with his service record would be above it....but as these forums show, there really are a lot these bickering tw@ts around.
By the way I think RAF aircrew should challenge AAC and ther FAA mates to a big pagger after school....!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I can return to the original subject, just for a minute
The argies would find it much harder to attack the Falklands as sucessfully as they did before due to the following:
1. We now have a reasonable level of defence capability, namely three AD radars with an integrated C2 system, rapier sites around the airfield, resident infatry batallion, large quantities of military hardware & ammo in storage, a small det of F3s and a Falklands guardship, usually a Type 42 with a reasonable air defence capability if I remember corrrectly. The only really serious capability gaps as I see them are in naval anti-surface warfare and limited air defence capability (the F3s) against a massed air attack.
2. Notwithstanding the above, the argies are hardly in a position to attack the FIs again, as their military equipment has not really improved much since 1982 and their economy has gone down the plughole big style. I don't think they could afford to attack, economically or politically. The people at home in Argentina just would not support it.
3. If the Argies did manage to defeat the defences in place at MPA they would still have to maintain air superiority, which would not be easy from mainland Argentina. We have a better amphibious and Naval capability than in 1982 and, provided we secured the airfield and the airspace around it, we could fly in reinforcements very quickly, thanks to our nice new shiny C17s and our old but still useful Tristars and VC10s.
4. The RN learnt a lot of lessons from the Falklands war and the fleet is significantly better protected against air attack now than it was then. If you can maintain local air superiority around your fleet and amphibious operations then things are easier!
So, on balance, we would probably win, just like last time. Not that there is much likelihood of there being a next time anyway.
Hope this helps!
The argies would find it much harder to attack the Falklands as sucessfully as they did before due to the following:
1. We now have a reasonable level of defence capability, namely three AD radars with an integrated C2 system, rapier sites around the airfield, resident infatry batallion, large quantities of military hardware & ammo in storage, a small det of F3s and a Falklands guardship, usually a Type 42 with a reasonable air defence capability if I remember corrrectly. The only really serious capability gaps as I see them are in naval anti-surface warfare and limited air defence capability (the F3s) against a massed air attack.
2. Notwithstanding the above, the argies are hardly in a position to attack the FIs again, as their military equipment has not really improved much since 1982 and their economy has gone down the plughole big style. I don't think they could afford to attack, economically or politically. The people at home in Argentina just would not support it.
3. If the Argies did manage to defeat the defences in place at MPA they would still have to maintain air superiority, which would not be easy from mainland Argentina. We have a better amphibious and Naval capability than in 1982 and, provided we secured the airfield and the airspace around it, we could fly in reinforcements very quickly, thanks to our nice new shiny C17s and our old but still useful Tristars and VC10s.
4. The RN learnt a lot of lessons from the Falklands war and the fleet is significantly better protected against air attack now than it was then. If you can maintain local air superiority around your fleet and amphibious operations then things are easier!
So, on balance, we would probably win, just like last time. Not that there is much likelihood of there being a next time anyway.
Hope this helps!
A couple of weaponeering technical points, mostly aimed at grimweasel.
1 Look in the books and see how many 1000 pounders it takes to cancel a runway.
2 Talk to a grown up and find out about stick length, release interval and H2S cep from release height. Then run the facts through a suitable computer, try wep if it still exists. The answer comes out as one hit, given a following wind etc.
3 Don't take it personally, you're obviously a child prodigy.
nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.
1 Look in the books and see how many 1000 pounders it takes to cancel a runway.
2 Talk to a grown up and find out about stick length, release interval and H2S cep from release height. Then run the facts through a suitable computer, try wep if it still exists. The answer comes out as one hit, given a following wind etc.
3 Don't take it personally, you're obviously a child prodigy.
nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.