Falkland Islands under threat once more - huge oil reserves in peril

GlynD

brit1234 wrote: »

Yes you are right that any ship can be a flagship even a mine layer. Its just Albion, Bulwark and Ocean have purposely designed for command and control in large missions unlike the other ships.

Road_Hog wrote: »

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)

Nice try at twisting my words. For confirmation of what I said see post 45 which is reproduced above just for your benefit. The flagship of a particular unit is the ship the admiral chooses to fly his flag from.

GlynD

Andy_L wrote: »

Yes, the Belgrano had no anti-submarine capability except, arguably, its armour and a helicopter

I see you're going for the Wikipedia version. So it didn't have any form of sonar you're saying? And its helicopter wasn't for anti-submarine defence?

I can't see how armour can be arguable either. Armour is armour. Nothing arguable about that. You're obviously not a navy man though or you would have spotted the obvious.

suisidevw

FWIW, I'm not a military expert but my family are the owners of a Falkland Island and after spending a while out there this year, and noticing the military presence (circa 2k, comparable to the inhabitants I believe), 'we' are in no danger of the Argies taking it over anytime soon! They took it in 82 because there were about 50 army personnel on Stanley, not exactly tough to do!

GlynD

suisidevw wrote: »

FWIW, I'm not a military expert but my family are the owners of a Falkland Island and after spending a while out there this year, and noticing the military presence (circa 2k, comparable to the inhabitants I believe), 'we' are in no danger of the Argies taking it over anytime soon! They took it in 82 because there were about 50 army personnel on Stanley, not exactly tough to do!

It wasn't the walkover they thought it would be in 1982 either. The 40 marines there fought like tigers.

suisidevw

Yes, I believe that. Were you on the ground GlynD?

GlynD

suisidevw wrote: »

Yes, I believe that. Were you on the ground GlynD?

No Susi. I was on standby for it but my unit was heavy tanks and we weren't called into play, much to our disappointment.

Andy_L

GlynD wrote: »

I see you're going for the Wikipedia version. So it didn't have any form of sonar you're saying? And its helicopter wasn't for anti-submarine defence?

I can't see how armour can be arguable either. Armour is armour. Nothing arguable about that. You're obviously not a navy man though or you would have spotted the obvious.

Belgrano did not have any sonar,

Its helicopter was not an ASW helicopter, its ASW capability would have been visual search - marginal use against a snorkaling diesal-electic sub. Useless against a nuclear sub with depth to operate in.

its armour is arguable as a protection against submarines (not against other threats such as gunfire - the threat it was designed to protect against)- Demonstrated by its inability to protect against a WW2 vintage topredo hit.

GlynD

Andy_L wrote: »

Belgrano did not have any sonar,

Its helicopter was not an ASW helicopter, its ASW capability would have been visual search - marginal use against a snorkaling diesal-electic sub. Useless against a nuclear sub with depth to operate in.

its armour is arguable as a protection against submarines (not against other threats such as gunfire - the threat it was designed to protect against)- Demonstrated by its inability to protect against a WW2 vintage topredo hit.

Here you go again. "It had no anti submarine capability" - "It's helicopter wasn't an ASW helicopter".

Can you show me where you are getting this information from please?

Andy_L

GlynD wrote: »

Here you go again. "It had no anti submarine capability" - "It's helicopter wasn't an ASW helicopter".

Can you show me where you are getting this information from please?

No, because you can't prove a negative, all sources simply fail to mention it has a sonar.
Its down to you to provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim that it had a sonar (and thats one cabable of detecting submarines - not just a depth finder to stop it running aground) or that its embarked helicopters wern't just the utility helicopters that all sources say but instead ASW versions

GlynD

Andy_L wrote: »

No, because you can't prove a negative, all sources simply fail to mention it has a sonar.
Its down to you to provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim that it had a sonar (and thats one cabable of detecting submarines - not just a depth finder to stop it running aground) or that its embarked helicopters wern't just the utility helicopters that all sources say but instead ASW versions

Oh I see. So you just sit there and spout whatever nonsense you want and it's up to me to prove you wrong?

Yeah, right! :rotfl:

Welcome to my ignore list.