We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a very Happy New Year. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
Falkland Islands under threat once more - huge oil reserves in peril
Comments
-
But the General Belgrano had anti-submarine defences, just the same as our ships had anti-missile missiles. Am I wrong?
Our ships had "state of the art" anti aircraft systems that were designed to hit things flying in the air within parameters. That was their stated purpose.
The Belgrano was primarily a fairly slow battleship whose main defences were no doubt thick armour plate to deflect shells raining down it on it. A design legacy of pre second war thinking. When laid down it would no doubt have out run a diesel electric sub if it was underthreat. The anti submarine bit was probably not the its biggest asset and certainly not against torpedoes under the water line launched by a top notch HKS that could go 50% faster, under water."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Our ships had "state of the art" anti aircraft systems that were designed to hit things flying in the air within parameters. That was their stated purpose.
The Belgrano was primarily a fairly slow battleship whose main defences were no doubt thick armour plate to deflect shells raining down it on it. A design legacy of pre second war thinking. When laid down it would no doubt have out run a diesel electric sub if it was underthreat. The anti submarine bit was probably not the its biggest asset and certainly not against torpedoes under the water line launched by a top notch HKS that could go 50% faster, under water.
State of the art anti aircraft systems are of no use against missiles. You need state of the art anti missile systems which detect unfriendly missiles and destroy them. The RN ships in the Falklands with anti missile capability carried (guess what?) EXOCETS! In other words, initially an incoming Exocet was deemed friendly by the FCS until the systems could be reprogrammed. Not every Exocet scored a hit. What does that tell you? Perhaps it should tell you that of the 5 or 6 air launched missiles the Argies actually had only 2 or 3 actually hit a target. None hit what they were aimed at because they were all aimed at our aircraft carriers but struck ships in the picket which were there for exactly that purpose - to protect the carriers.
The Belgrano was sunk by three torpedoes, the design of which had not changed since WW2. A modernised WW2 ship should therefore have seen them coming and been able to stop them? Shouldn't it? Conqueror had shadowed the Belgrano for two weeks before opening fire. Staying mostly right underneath it but it had to get there and get away. Undetected!
Now tell me who was incompetent and who was modern and WHO WON THE EFFING CAMPAIGN.0 -
State of the art anti aircraft systems are of no use against missiles. You need state of the art anti missile systems which detect unfriendly missiles and destroy them. The RN ships in the Falklands with anti missile capability carried (guess what?) EXOCETS!
Sea Dart, Surface to Air and Air to Air anti Aircraft and Sea Wolf, a last line of defence, anti missile missile System. Exocet is an anti ship missile.
Coventry was in Falkland Sound supporting other ships at the landing in San Carlos, nowhere near the Carriers that were "safely" out of arms way. She was hit by bombs from a "relatively" slow aircraft. One of the reasons for the Sea Dart failing was that the radar/guidance system was confused by the land and hills surrounding the sound which the Argentines were skimming proficiently.
In other words, initially an incoming Exocet was deemed friendly by the FCS until the systems could be reprogrammed. Not every Exocet scored a hit. What does that tell you? Perhaps it should tell you that of the 5 or 6 air launched missiles the Argies actually had only 2 or 3 actually hit a target. None hit what they were aimed at because they were all aimed at our aircraft carriers but struck ships in the picket which were there for exactly that purpose - to protect the carriers.
As you say the the target for the expensive Excocets were the carriers. No doubt faced with the barrage of defensive fire being thrown at him and the lock on warnings heard, the pilot decided to make what he could of the raid, which was being flown at the limits of their effective range.
The Belgrano was sunk by three torpedoes, the design of which had not changed since WW2. A modernised WW2 ship should therefore have seen them coming and been able to stop them? Shouldn't it?
Once a torpedo is launched, at an effective distance, it would be fairly difficult for any ship to out manouvre it/them let alone a dated battle cruiser. HK submarines are designed to be near silent and operate unheard and "unseen" due to hull design and construction. I doubt whether HKS recognition training was high on the training spec for the Argentine navy at the time.
Conqueror had shadowed the Belgrano for two weeks before opening fire. Staying mostly right underneath it but it had to get there and get away. Undetected!
I read previously that Conqueror only held Belgrano for a couple of days and acted pretty quickly. Wiki states this also. I know the pub I was in the night the news broke and the effect it had. It was no doubt a turning point
Now tell me who was incompetent and who was modern and WHO WON THE EFFING CAMPAIGN.
I never said our trained forces personnel were incompetent. They did a fantastic job in some dreadful conditions.
The point being made was they we had lots of state of the art equipment which often didn't come up to expectations. There is absolutely no reason to expect current equipment to live up to the design even where that has been correctly specified and procured. Those Islands are still vulnerable. Somali pirates and Caribbean drug barons run rings round the authorities don't forget.
Defence and war are incredibly expensive both financially and in the unnecessary loss of life. If real oil isn't found I doubt it is price we can continue to pay in the long term.
We should never have had to win the campaign in the first place."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I never said our trained forces personnel were incompetent. They did a fantastic job in some dreadful conditions.
The point being made was they we had lots of state of the art equipment which often didn't come up to expectations. There is absolutely no reason to expect current equipment to live up to the design even where that has been correctly specified and procured. Those Islands are still vulnerable. Somali pirates and Caribbean drug barons run rings round the authorities don't forget.
Defence and war are incredibly expensive both financially and in the unnecessary loss of life. If real oil isn't found I doubt it is price we can continue to pay in the long term.
We should never have had to win the campaign in the first place.
Look you're making a bit of a mistake debating this with me. I know too much - simple as that. Your suggestion that much of the state of the art equipment didn't work is just wrong. Nothing was withdrawn from service as a result of failures in the campaign. Enhancements happened yes but the missile systems you are railing against all stayed in service. There is every reason to expect current equipment to do as it says on the tin. Unlike 1982 when our only other committments were IS we have plenty of hands on small wars experience at the moment with the equipment which will be used.
You're a naysayer though who will never concede a point. I don't care which pubs you were in and hearing news at that time because I was on Salisbury Plain with my unit using some of the equipment you say didn't work and preparing to be shipped out.
The future of the islands sovereignty will not be decided by oil. when will you get that through your head? There was no oil in 1982 or any expectaion of it but we still defended our people and we'll continue to do so until the threat goes away - oil or no oil. Argentina's claim is wrong, simple as that. And please don't crow to me about the loss of service lives. We knew what we were doing when we signed up. We don't need a crowd of sychophantic civvies telling us what the risks were and are.0 -
Your suggestion that much of the state of the art equipment didn't work is just wrong. Nothing was withdrawn from service as a result of failures in the campaign. Enhancements happened yes but the missile systems you are railing against all stayed in service.
Because we can't afford to replace them is probably closer to the mark and the global threat/requirement is considered small.
You're a naysayer though who will never concede a point. I don't care which pubs you were in and hearing news at that time because I was on Salisbury Plain. I didn't realise Naval Warfare was practiced on Salisbury Plain I stand corrected.
The future of the islands sovereignty will not be decided by oil. when will you get that through your head? There was no oil in 1982 or any expectaion of it but we still defended our people and we'll continue to do so until the threat goes away - oil or no oil. Argentina's claim is wrong, simple as that.
Time will tell."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
As I said: you are a naysayer. You obviously think your pub knowledge is far superior to that of someone who was on the ground at the time.0
-
As I said: you are a naysayer. You obviously think your pub knowledge is far superior to that of someone who was on the ground at the time.
My knowledge isn't gleaned from the pub it is from extensive reading of recent military conflicts. It is observation of reports and writings of people involved in many conflicts from Commanders, Officers and troops on the ground through to Politicians and historians.
I have a number of friends who have served in the forces one of which was garrisoned on the Falklands after the conflict.
Don't dispute that your hands on knowledge and experience "on the ground" surpasses mine that wasn't really the point raised by the OP.
Perhaps being divorced from it gives a different perspective."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Look you're making a bit of a mistake debating this with me. I know too much
You don't know what the Royal Navy flagship is though, do you?
Just in case you need to see what the Royal Navy (who have the definitive and last say on the matter) says, again.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Assault-Ships/HMS-bulwark
"HMS Bulwark is the Flagship of the Royal Navy and the nation."
Are you going to argue with the Royal Navy themselves, have they got it wrong. Do you know the difference between the Royal Navy flagship and a ship that has a flag officer onboard/commanding and is temporarily called a flagship but is not the flagship of the Royal Navy, which is a title given to the ship with the most prestige.
Bulwark only has it because we've canned Ark royal and we don't have the replacement.
"HMS Ark Royal is a decommissioned light aircraft carrier and former flagship of the Royal Navy."
"After Ark Royal's decommissioning HMS Albion replaced her as the Royal Navy flagship." and then consequently HMS Bulwark replaced Albion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(R07)0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »My knowledge isn't gleaned from the pub it is from extensive reading of recent military conflicts. It is observation of reports and writings of people involved in many conflicts from Commanders, Officers and troops on the ground through to Politicians and historians.
I have a number of friends who have served in the forces one of which was garrisoned on the Falklands after the conflict.
Don't dispute that your hands on knowledge and experience "on the ground" surpasses mine that wasn't really the point raised by the OP.
Perhaps being divorced from it gives a different perspective.
Ok, let's start from scratch again.
You say that the equipment didn't work. I say it did. The world and his brother knows that Exocet defeated the picket. Why did it defeat the picket in your opinion?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.8K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 260K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards