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

GlynD

wotsthat wrote: »

Depends what you eat.

Argentinian beef is probably finding it's way into a meat pie near you. The British meat you buy is likely to have been fed on Argentinian soya to a greater or lesser extent.

I don't disagree; all I'm saying is that I PERSONALLY do not buy Argentinian produce.

GlynD

wymondham wrote: »

If I heard rightly we have a nuclear sub that is continuosuly down there and could take out any threats long enough for reinforcements to arrive... it's all a lot different to the 80's ....

See post #9

GlynD

Anyway this is all just burble from people who don't really know what they're talking about and it has been discussed so many times on this forum. The upshot of it is: Cameron will not be the one who decided on what action we took against the Argies. The Joint Chiefs of Staff at JHQ decide what we are capable of. They tell Cameron and he tells us.

My personal view is that the Argies don't stand a chance. The UK is seriously equipped for Expeditionary Force Warfare - that is its role in NATO and the role that the Joint Chiefs saw 20 years ago as the model when they were laying out the plans for the future of our armed forces. Current CoS would say the same things. Let Argentina attack. They may get a couple of weeks to consolidate as before but, if they are not repulsed on the initial landings, they will be beaten in combat as they were before. Their soldiers and equipment are no match for ours.

discoass

wymondham wrote: »

If I heard rightly we have a nuclear sub that is continuosuly down there and could take out any threats long enough for reinforcements to arrive... it's all a lot different to the 80's ....

That and a military camp down there

atush

I don't eat meat pies, the only argentine produce I like is wine. but given my favs are no longer stocked at my local Tesco I am willing to boycott Argentina lol.

Will that mean no Tango on the Strictly Christmas special?????

Road_Hog

GlynD wrote: »

you can't say which ship the navy commander will fly his flag from. Ocean is an "amphibious assault ship". She was designed to replace Albion & Bulwark and is the largest ship in the navy.

You can, the flag ship is usually the most advanced or most prestige ship of the fleet.

HMS Ocean was not designed to replace Albion & Bulwark. Ocean was commissioned in 1998 (launched in 1995).

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Assault-Ships/HMS-Ocean

Albion was not launched until 2001 and Bulwark was also launched in 2001 and commissioned in 2005. I don't know where you get the idea that a ship commissioned 7 years prior to another ship can be designed to replace it.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Assault-Ships/HMS-albion

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Assault-Ships/HMS-bulwark

BTW, if you read the first sentence of the Royal Navy link for the Bulwark, you will see that it reads, "HMS Bulwark is the Flagship of the Royal Navy and the nation."

PS It looks like a cross Channel ferry with space for a couple (that's what it can take, two) of helicopters aft. It's a glorified troop carrier, nothing more.

Personally I'd prefer a type 45 destroyer.

Road_Hog

GlynD wrote: »

Anyway this is all just burble from people who don't really know what they're talking about

Yes, see my previous post.

GDB2222

GlynD wrote: »

Plus we are still the world's premier nation for amphibious landings. Hence HMS Ocean.

As can be verified by this impressive link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/1385288/Marines-storm-ashore-in-the-wrong-country.html

DirtyDick

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If Argentina wants to wring considerable concessions out of the UK they couldn't pick a better time.

• They now have a regional consensus, which includes the United States.
  
• We have one aircraft carrier which is broken 70% of the time, can only go at about 5 knots when it isnt, and has to be borrowed off the French.
  
• There are no more jump jets.
  
• As long as Obama is US president there will be no logistical assistance from the US in defending the Falklands.

I imagine there will be a lot of behind the scenes scrabbling from Cameron to offer them concessions.

Sure, the RN would have a tougher time than it would've done 8-10 years ago, maybe only 5 years ago, but have you looked at the Argentinian fleet and air force? So would they.

Provided there is no overnight invasion that seized Mount Pleasant (very unlikely, especially given UK garrison there, which includes fighter aircraft and usually a warship), reinforcements of men, material and fighter aircraft can be flown in via Ascension (jointly US-UK run airfield there) within days. Add a nuclear submarine or two, or the strong likelihood one is there, then it's okay.

Pete111

It always cracks me up when the papers start banging on about us not having the capability to 'retake' the islands al la 1982

The simple fact (as others more knowlegable than I have pointed out) that this time around the argentinian invasion fleet wouldn't get within 50 miles. The typhoons would decimate their 'air force' in about a minute and a half and it would take a single nuclear HK sub to sort out their invasion fleet. Perhaps a few freezing and bedraggled survivors might cling to some wreckage long enough to wash up alive on the shoreline but I don't think that counts as an bona fide invasion really...

If they did by some miracle land a few bods intact then the hundreds of highly trained Royal marines in well equipped defensive positions would cut them into little bitty pieces.

Still, makes for good sabre rattling eh?