I'm off to Afghanistan in March got my letter a week ago before I posted this, have been out 5 years now. If I've been called up my trade is in servere s**t. Forget grunts I fix things that can protect or do servere damage. Fitness wise I can pass a CFT etc and no I haven't voluntereed so theres your eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr manpower!!!!!! There's 5 other people I know who left the same time as me are going.
Best of luck son. I wonder if my cousin (ex-Signals) will be called up, though hes been out for over 10 years now.
Sure take a vote, you can vote for:
TDHM- Despite the fact the Armed Forces are overstretched, in the midst of a manpower shortage, with exhausted troops, limited resources, and being required to cut costs everywhere.
And? I think you missed something out there... but anyway. Lets actually look at my arguement. My argument being, with redpolyment of troops to reflect that the UK is a risk of being attacked, the Falklands can be reinforced easily. If the Falklands should fall, yet you still haven't given a method how, the UK Armed Forces are vastly mroe capable than they were in 1982, yet the threat they faced in 1982 has in fact dimished... Of course it would require a redeployment of assets, nobody has suggested otherwise, but in war, that happens... case in point 1982 itself.
Or my arguement, we are seriously undermanned, with seriously decreased power projection, and need a massive injection of cash, men and equipment to ensure our long-term security.
Seriously undermanned. The fact you keep saying it, doesn't make it true. Yes the Armed Forces are understaffed by and large, but that is want the Regular and Voluntary reserve is for. And you've still, after posts of asking failed to present a single manpower shortage would prevent a taskforce being sent to the Falklands.
You talk about seriously decreased power projection, but as always you never back this up. And one wonders what you're smoking. The fact of the matter that the UK's power projection has never been so good. With advanced strike aircraft, TLAMs, PGMs, SSNs, and with Amphibous Lift that only has one entity better than it (the USN), One really does wonder, what the in gods name are you bleating on about?
You have a choice, prepare for the unthinkable now, or risk more lives, and a longer more embarrassing campaign, and risk all of our other overseas possessions, and our independance from America.
Whatever... As I said the falklands isn't a problem. Its meeting our Peacetime deployments that are, in which manpower shortages, equipment shortages would all be governing factors.
I am well aware of the British Forces can do attitude, I would be surprised if you have more current experience with the UK Military than I do, but look realistically, we are in more and larger operations than the MoD estimates for the size of our forces, and to add further to that, which could happen, is possible.
Belat, bleat, bleat. You were talking about Argentina declaring war on Britian and Britian maintaining its peacetime commitments instead of reacting to the new threat and reallocating its resources, which is a strawman arguement.
I do not answer some of your posts because I have already answered them, yet you continue to go down the same line that the UK has enough Power Projection, and insist rediculous statements such as the MoD having ordered the new Aircraft Carriers, which hasn't happened.
Listen... actually Spell ridiculous properly. Just because construction hasn't been approved yet (we're not even out of January of yet, so ther ehas been no major program slippage, but all design has been selected, the contractors selected, the ship yards tasked, and they are all waiting for the word go. The lynchpin of the SDR was CVF. There has never been any indication of it being cancelled, and it won't. The Carriers of course have been ordered, even if they are not on the slipway at the moment.
And no, you haven't answered ANY questions I've asked you. I will, in a later post illustrate this. answering requires proving a point. You just type an unsupported statement with no basis in fact. I've asked you time, and time again to justify your positions and still you don't. So which Country has enough power projection?
Don't risk a horrible fate through complacency.
Yawn. Yet again You're arguing the right argument, using the wrong examples...
Forgive me for being contentious but what's so important about the Falklands? Buy the residents a ticket to Blighty and give the Argies what they want. Are a bunch of rocks on the other side of the world and our stupid pride really worth billions of pounds?
Why? Because its a valuable strategic point, with untapped reserves of oil and diamonds.
The Argentine economy is on the climb again, expect more of the same when it comes to growth in their forces.
Why? Because you said so? Even 'if' they buy more ships, it still doesn't take anyway from the fact that the vast majority of them are out of date and obselecent.
Perhaps in your next post, you could inform me in what areas our capabilities are lacking exactly.
So one really does wonder, if the British Armed forces are short of Helicopters, who isn't?
However don't you think the plan would change after the Falklands Islands was invaded? Hell they even looked at recommissoning Bulwark in 1982, a ship in a much worse status.
And whilst you criticise me for "Still maintaining" you are doing the exact same thing maintaining that we could reinforce the islands very quickly, I simply do not believe that it could be done by air, to the levels needed,
? What are the levels needed? In your opinion? Justify this. Are you of the opinion that there isn't a single infantry battalion earmarked for support o the Falkland Islands?
How, exactly would the Argentines manged to land that amount of men without the British Noticing? Indeed how would the Argentines land enough men to take or neutralise Mount Pleasant without prior warning?
No but please tell me how you envisage the The Argentines could even land a thousand men and support them and in what ships they would do this?
QUESTION.
GIVEN THAT THE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WHICH YOU ASCRIBE TO THE FALKLANDS TODAY, AFFLICTED THE FALKLANDS TO GREATER EXTENT IN 1982,
HOW WERE THEY RETAKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?
You have singularly failed to demonstrate how the Argentineans would gain air Superiorty over the Islands, given that they can only deploy a fraction of its air force (1982 era still flying to this day) over the Islands at any one time.
You failed to demonstrate how the Argentines could land enough men to over power a 1500 man garrison.
You have failed to demonstrate how 3 Commando Brigade (deploy to afgahnistan to let 16 Air Asslt rotate home) lacks Mobility or 16th Air Assault Brigade (who currently aren't deployed), or that the RN is hamstrung by mysterious manpower shortages which yet you can't name.
Again, one really wonders what you're smoking. The fact of the matter is, given that the Argentines have exactly the same aircraft (albeit in a smaller number due to the losses inflicted in 1982), and they could only mass at most 6-8 aircraft over the falklands (not several squadrons, as most of them dont have the range in lo-lo-lo flight plans (ANOTHER difference to the Falklands where at least they could fly Hi-lo-Hi), how if what you say is possibly true, did the British manage to win in 1982 in the first place?
To answer your question, how the Argies could take Mount Pleasant before Typhoons, and a Light Role Infantry Battalion could get there, well first of all we would have to Utilise Civilian Air Fleets, to ship a Battalion and its equipment to the Falklands, the only method is by Ship to be honest.
Really? What's the heaviest bit of equipment does a light role infantry battilion have on its ORBAT? A Civilian airfleets wouln't even need to be used, the troops would simply be on the next VC-10 flight down to the Islands. Or the 4 C-17's, or the few dozen Hercules. 5 Flights of a Hercules to the Falklands. Its a light role infantry battalion. Hell thats worse case. If we look at today, you simply deploy elements of 16 air assault, most notable one of the PARA bat's (which I'm sure I don't need to tell you is designed to be air-dropped). So one wonders again, why a light role Battalion needs a 'ship' to deploy. it has no Heavy equipment so you're justification is?
Typhoons also have a limited range, even by refueling mid-flight, there would not be enough range.
You really are short on thinking... in 1982, a number of Harriers were flown from Britian, to the Task force around the Falkland Islands. And thats with less tankerage and shorter range aircraft than is the discussed case. One really does wonder how the F.3s currently based at the Falklands get down there... They are flown! That is what Mount Pleasant is designed for and meant for... Our tankerage capacity is much greater than it was in 1982 and we still managed the Black buck raids then and the reinforcement of the harriers even then... So if we can't do it now, how the hell did we do it then?
Without a major ability of Force Projection,
So TLAM and JFH, all which didn't exist in 1982, is not major power projection (vastly better than the Argentines over the Islands), Nor the vastly increased Amphib lift is not a major ability, I will ask you who DOES have force projection?
Basically the whole country needs to kick this scoundral and his pals (basically New Labour, or any sort of Labour) out of Governance, they only ever mess things up..
are the tories not guilty too?
"John Nott, the Secretary of State for Defence, had included the ship in a package of swingeing defence cuts which included the sale of the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible.
Oh and can anyone tell me, if under the Tories, the Officer's of the forces publicly complained about the government to the same level that the current lot are? We have had former Generals, former Admirals (curiously no Royal Air Force officers....) and current Officers complaining about size, manpower, equipment and facilities.
with this..
"John Nott, the Secretary of State for Defence,.... He was deaf, not only to the advice of the First Sea Lord, Sir Henry Leach, but also to Lord Shackleton, perhaps the most acknowledged expert on the South Atlantic. More surprisingly, perhaps, he had refused to heed the warning delivered by a group of more than 300 peers and MPs (led by Lords Shackleton, Buxton, Callaghan and Hill-Norton) who believed that the withdrawal of HMS Endurance would precipitate military action by Argentina."
No its from a part of the Evening Standard, similar link from the Daily Mail, either way the source and quotes are direct from government records.
Or will you not believe it unless it is from the Guardian?
To the latter post, I am not arguing that the Tories made cuts to the Royal Navy, I'm from Chatham, which has suffered since the close of the Dockyard, so I am aware of their cuts. However unlike Labour supporters, I live in the present, it is future cuts under this Labour Government that I am worried about, furthermore, the Navy was in a reasonable size before 1997, it has got to what I would describe as an unviable size now, under Labour.
I thought the majority of it went UNDER the sea (Ch.Tnl) and the rest in foreign vessels?
No, just because they are foreign owned vessels, does not mean that doesn't count, 90% of all trade in and out, enters or leaves at a sea port, in any Nation's vessel. We need to keep the seas open to ensure that our trade can still get in.
(Underlining my orginal words, italics THDM's reply.)
The Argentine economy is on the climb again, expect more of the same when it comes to growth in their forces.
Why? Because you said so? Even 'if' they buy more ships, it still doesn't take anyway from the fact that the vast majority of them are out of date and obselecent.
Why because America is investing in Argentina, because their GDP is on the rise and because they have been able to restructure their World Bank debts.
So one really does wonder, if the British Armed forces are short of Helicopters, who isn't?
However don't you think the plan would change after the Falklands Islands was invaded? Hell they even looked at recommissoning Bulwark in 1982, a ship in a much worse status.
So you agree then we are short of helicopters? You cannot have good force projection without a large and more importantly AVAILABLE heavy lift helicopter fleet.
And whilst you criticise me for "Still maintaining" you are doing the exact same thing maintaining that we could reinforce the islands very quickly, I simply do not believe that it could be done by air, to the levels needed,
? What are the levels needed? In your opinion? Justify this. Are you of the opinion that there isn't a single infantry battalion earmarked for support o the Falkland Islands?
The point is it is near impossible to send a battalion by aircraft, I am saying you need to send them by Sea, the point you ignore every single post.
How, exactly would the Argentines manged to land that amount of men without the British Noticing? Indeed how would the Argentines land enough men to take or neutralise Mount Pleasant without prior warning?
No but please tell me how you envisage the The Argentines could even land a thousand men and support them and in what ships they would do this?
Of course we would notice, I am saying that four aircraft (and how many of those are either in the air or available at a moments notice) is not enough to stop the invasion force.
QUESTION.
GIVEN THAT THE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WHICH YOU ASCRIBE TO THE FALKLANDS TODAY, AFFLICTED THE FALKLANDS TO GREATER EXTENT IN 1982,
HOW WERE THEY RETAKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?
We had a larger Naval force, we were able to project a large force down there, we were not involved massively in two other Nations at the same time. And to a certain extent, thanks to the fact that Argentina were not a capable enemy, on the other hand they have had 25 years to rethink tactics, and that their stratergy revolves around a Falklands War Two.
You have singularly failed to demonstrate how the Argentineans would gain air Superiorty over the Islands, given that they can only deploy a fraction of its air force (1982 era still flying to this day) over the Islands at any one time.
We have four aircraft down there, not exactly a huge fight now is it?
You failed to demonstrate how the Argentines could land enough men to over power a 1500 man garrison.
An infantry company + men with arms is not a 1500 man garrison, however simply by the fact that I believe Air Superiorty would not be difficult to achieve, that would allow them to land 1500 men.
You have failed to demonstrate how 3 Commando Brigade (deploy to afgahnistan to let 16 Air Asslt rotate home) lacks Mobility or 16th Air Assault Brigade (who currently aren't deployed), or that the RN is hamstrung by mysterious manpower shortages which yet you can't name.
That is part of the problem, we have these "ferries" to ship people off the coast of somewhere, but defending them, is part of the problem, HMS Ocean, HMS Albion and Bulwark, but they are fairly useless beyond taking someone from point A to B. The other point is that only one of the aforementioned Brigades is available, whilst the other is out in Afghan, plus you are not allowing for R and R between exceptionally stressful tours.
Again, one really wonders what you're smoking. The fact of the matter is, given that the Argentines have exactly the same aircraft (albeit in a smaller number due to the losses inflicted in 1982), and they could only mass at most 6-8 aircraft over the falklands (not several squadrons, as most of them dont have the range in lo-lo-lo flight plans (ANOTHER difference to the Falklands where at least they could fly Hi-lo-Hi), how if what you say is possibly true, did the British manage to win in 1982 in the first place?
Lessons learnt on the Argentine side, and despite ignoring my statements of their purchase of aircraft from the US, and potential more purchases from the Argentines, and the willingness of several nations to sell them to Argentina.
I will answer the rest in due time, unfortunatly I have other things to do other than answer repetitive questions on a matter that I think in principle we all agree on: The Royal Navy and other arms are getting too small to easily win a campaign of terriotorial regain.
To the latter post, I am not arguing that the Tories made cuts to the Royal Navy, I'm from Chatham, which has suffered since the close of the Dockyard, so I am aware of their cuts. However unlike Labour supporters, I live in the present, it is future cuts under this Labour Government that I am worried about, furthermore, the Navy was in a reasonable size before 1997, it has got to what I would describe as an unviable size now, under Labour.
No, you live in the past, we no longer have an empire so there is no need to have a huge navy to protect (send gunships..lol) as most commonwealth countries have their own navies now, and with vessels better armed and having long range missiles, plus membership of nato, the size is not so important today.
No, just because they are foreign owned vessels, does not mean that doesn't count, 90% of all trade in and out, enters or leaves at a sea port, in any Nation's vessel. We need to keep the seas open to ensure that our trade can still get in.
No, we trade mostly with europe now and what little trade of ours that goes by sea is trans-shipped from the uk via rotterdam (a safe route), from there on it is difficult to protect and too costly, I do agree though that we should HELP, as we do, and along with other european navies, to keep sea lanes safe from piracy etc but it is not a naval priority any more.
I thought the majority of it went UNDER the sea (Ch.Tnl) and the rest in foreign vessels?
No. The vast majority of Britian Trade comes via Port, even from the continent, both by wieght and volume. The Chunnel is a single Double track train line nothing more.
As for the rest in foreign vessels, vessels might be forgien flagged but your point is?
No. The vast majority of Britian Trade comes via Port, even from the continent, both by wieght and volume. The Chunnel is a single Double track train line nothing more.
As for the rest in foreign vessels, vessels might be forgien flagged but your point is?
so its just a line, nothing more? for your information it is not exclusive to the eurostar and day trips, vast amounts of freight carrying trucks and container trucks use the tunnel trains 24/7 plus there is a huge freight marshalling area in cheriton for the seperate goods trains that also use the line, as for my point?, I didn't say foreign flagged and also see post 89.
No, we trade mostly with europe now and what little trade of ours that goes by sea is trans-shipped from the uk via rotterdam (a safe route), from there on it is difficult to protect and too costly, I do agree though that we should HELP, as we do, and along with other european navies, to keep sea lanes safe from piracy etc but it is not a naval priority any more.
What utter utter rubbish, piracy has gone up as our Navy gets smaller, its an undeniable fact, espiecially so with our loss of presence in Hong Kong.
Not a Naval Priority? Keeping Britain's economy secure? Well please do tell me what these priorities are, with economic security comes political security and personal security. Your plan instead is for us to rely on other European Navies to do defend your intrests? And why the hell should they do that? I can't see the only other Naval Country, France, sticking their neck out for you or me, and nor do I want them to.
So you have changed your mind from most trade coming in under the Chunnel to now purely all from Rotterdam? Make your mind up pal. What little of our trade? You mean 90% that will have entered or left these lands on a ship?
And to the other point: Re: Callaghan's signing away of the Falklands plan, you just gave me another source, which says exactly the same thing more or less, in a slightly less (admittedly) pedantic way. The key point is still that Callaghan would have made a treaty rather than fight for the Falklands, and leased them out, signing away the rights of the People of the Falklands to self-determination. And what example would that set to Spain for Gibraltar, another location where the locals wish to remain British, do they not deserve Self-Determination as well? Or are people's rights to expensive to protect?
Why because America is investing in Argentina, because their GDP is on the rise and because they have been able to restructure their World Bank debts.
And that means the Argentines will embark on a massive updating of their Armed Services? Why? What threats do the Argentines actually face? lets look at this objectively. Argentina, a democratic country, because its managed to restructure their debts will invade a dependancy of a foreign power, which just happens to be the major ally of Argentinas prinicipal investor? Right... ok.
Lack of joined up thinking there. A recovering country does not make a beligerant country, intent of recovering a few islands many miles off its coasts to which it has a dubious claim to.
So one really does wonder, if the British Armed forces are short of Helicopters, who isn't?
So you agree then we are short of helicopters?
Errrm, no. Hence the word if. It's called a hyopthecical question, based on your assertion that the UK Armed Forces lack helicopters to take back the Falklands. And I'VE ASKED YOU A QUESTION WHICH YET AGAIN YOU HAVE FAILED TO ANSWER.
SO ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION
"If the British Armed forces are short of Helicopters, who isn't?"
You cannot have good force projection without a large and more importantly AVAILABLE heavy lift helicopter fleet.
So you don't think that the largest fleet of chinooks outside the US (all zero-houred since 1993) is a large and Available heavy lift Heli-Fleet? You dont think the Four squadrons of the Commando Helicopter Force soley for the use of 3 Commando brigade is enough? Or the 22 Merlins?
So somehow, even though we have more helicopters and Heavy Lift Helicopters per man than any other country other than the US, we have a 'shortage'.
AGAIN ANOTHER QUESTION YOU HAVE FAILED TO ANSWER.
Given that in 1982, there was only 1 Chinook for the entire conflict, HOW did the British Armed Forces succeed?
The point is it is near impossible to send a battalion by aircraft, I am saying you need to send them by Sea, the point you ignore every single post.
NO IT ISN'T!
From a quote that I had
"Really? What's the heaviest bit of equipment does a light role infantry battilion have on its ORBAT? A Civilian airfleets wouln't even need to be used, the troops would simply be on the next VC-10 flight down to the Islands. Or the 4 C-17's, or the few dozen Hercules. 5 Flights of a Hercules to the Falklands. Its a light role infantry battalion. Hell thats worse case. If we look at today, you simply deploy elements of 16 air assault, most notable one of the PARA bat's (which I'm sure I don't need to tell you is designed to be air-dropped). So one wonders again, why a light role Battalion needs a 'ship' to deploy. it has no Heavy equipment so you're justification is?"
There are Air-portable units on the British Army ORBAT, for the very nature of threats like these. They are called Light Role units. In the 1970's there were entire Brigades. Today the entire 16th Air Assault brigade is Air portable, asides from those which are air dropable.
Of course we would notice, I am saying that four aircraft (and how many of those are either in the air or available at a moments notice) is not enough to stop the invasion force.
You really are quite ignorant aren't you? I've asked you a question and again you failed to answer the question. Argentina can't land enough men. That's a fact. They don't have the Amphibous lift. They can't land enough men to overcome the Garrison.
But This is assuming that Argentina could keep its invasions plans completely secret until the first thing that is known about the invasion plans are when bullets fly at Mount Pleasant. In short you are talking about complete Strategic Surprise, which has never, in the history of armed Conflict, ever occurred.
But WHAT exactly with this Invasion force be composed of? The Single Type 42 Fast troopship? The Argentinean Navy DOESN'T even have a ship capable of beaching.
SO HOW WOULD THE ARGENTINES LAND ENOUGH FORCES ON THE FALKLANDS TO INVADE?
What can the Argentines actually land?
We had a larger Naval force,
Hmmm. Yes we had more surface escorts then. Lets overlook the fact that they were by and large incapable, poorly armed, poorly designed, out of place in the South Atlantic. Today we have larger, more capable, better armed surface combatants...
However we have more decks than in 1982, from Illustrious, Ark Royal and HMS Ocean (opposed to JUST Hermes and Invincible in 1982) and with Invincible at 9 months readiness. We have two much larger and capable LPDs than in 1982 with Albion and Bulwark being much better to defend themselves, offering more Amphibous lift and Helo spaces, along with much better C&C than in 1982.
And so on...
to The Bay Class ALSL, which are much more capable than the LSL currently in service. The RFA is much better able to support the fleet in far flung locales than in 1982.
So larger? In some respects, the capability is so much more greater.
we were able to project a large force down there,
Actually no we weren't. In 1982, we had to cobble together units to send in a taskforce. Unlike the expeditionary minded force focus which we have now.
THE SIMPLE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT WE HAVE MUCH GREATER SEA LIFT AND AIRLIFT THAN IN 1982.
we were not involved massively in two other Nations at the same time.
Really? We were heavily involved in Northern Ireland and in Germany and elsewhere. But this is the thing which you can not get in to your skull. We are not at war anymore. We are contributing troops to UN sanctioned missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and these missions will take secondary importance to the fact that a country will have commitmented an attack of aggression against our soveriegnty. What will happen, as in 1982, is that our allies in NATO and other contributing nations to the UN, will take more responsibility in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We are more invovled in Northern Ireland to this day than we are in Iraq.
And to a certain extent, thanks to the fact that Argentina were not a capable enemy, on the other hand they have had 25 years to rethink tactics, and that their stratergy revolves around a Falklands War Two.
So Argentina isn't a capable enemy then? Whats the problem then? Thier 'strategy' does not revolve arounf Falklands War two, I've never heard so much tosh in all my life.
If that is the case, then the Argentinean Armed forces would have invested heavily in its Navy and air forces, with particular references to its logistical and amphibous capabilities. They haven't. They only have a Type 42 and a general cargo ship that forms their apmhibous lift...
You have singularly failed to demonstrate how the Argentineans would gain air Superiorty over the Islands, given that they can only deploy a fraction of its air force (1982 era still flying to this day) over the Islands at any one time.
We have four aircraft down there, not exactly a huge fight now is it?
No? So what aircraft have the range to attack Mount Pleasant in a Lo-Lo-Lo profile? A Tornando or Typhoon can carry 4 AMRAAMS and 4 ASRAAMs, with the benefit of Ground control and JTIDS. The Argentinean Airforce, would be flying blind, into a AD network, where as the RAF would be able to detect any flight coming in at 200-400 miles away.
What was the largest number of aircraft did the Argentines manage to assemble over the taskforce? In 1982, another point which you have failed to acknowledge, there was only 2 aircraft in the air at any one time, with a grand total of 4 AIM-9L in the air...
You failed to demonstrate how the Argentines could land enough men to over power a 1500 man garrison.
An infantry company + men with arms is not a 1500 man garrison, however simply by the fact that I believe Air Superiorty would not be difficult to achieve, that would allow them to land 1500 men.
WITH WHAT? WITH WHAT? WHERE? The Argentines don't have the ability to gain air superiporty over the islands and they don't have the ability to land even 250 men...
You have failed to demonstrate how 3 Commando Brigade (deploy to afgahnistan to let 16 Air Asslt rotate home) lacks Mobility or 16th Air Assault Brigade (who currently aren't deployed), or that the RN is hamstrung by mysterious manpower shortages which yet you can't name.
That is part of the problem, we have these "ferries" to ship people off the coast of somewhere, but defending them, is part of the problem, HMS Ocean, HMS Albion and Bulwark, but they are fairly useless beyond taking someone from point A to B.
Ferries? If the Ability to put over 1500 men on any beach or place beyond the beach, ready to immediately enter combat, with the ability to land Tanks, launch Attack Helicopters for support, land artillery from both sea and air, strikes you as a ferry... you must be completely crazy.
Then on top of that you have the ALSLs and LSLs.
These allow opposed landings, support of troops and more importantly Command and control, when you don't have a port to land the 6 Ro-Ro's which form part of the RNs expeditionary capability.
So if those are just 'ferries', what, exactly is ARA Hercules and ARA Bahia San Blas?
The other point is that only one of the aforementioned Brigades is available, whilst the other is out in Afghan, plus you are not allowing for R and R between exceptionally stressful tours.
When you join the armed forces, you join the armed forces. You work and fight when told. And that was an example of just one of the expeditionary forces, which are kept free at any one time.
Again, one really wonders what you're smoking. The fact of the matter is, given that the Argentines have exactly the same aircraft (albeit in a smaller number due to the losses inflicted in 1982), and they could only mass at most 6-8 aircraft over the falklands (not several squadrons, as most of them dont have the range in lo-lo-lo flight plans (ANOTHER difference to the Falklands where at least they could fly Hi-lo-Hi), how if what you say is possibly true, did the British manage to win in 1982 in the first place?
Lessons learnt on the Argentine side, and despite ignoring my statements of their purchase of aircraft from the US, and potential more purchases from the Argentines, and the willingness of several nations to sell them to Argentina.
Lessons learnt on the Argentinean side can magically increase the payload and range of their 1970's vintage 2nd hand aircraft? Which Aircraft have the Argentines purchased from the US? refurbished skyhawks? So 1960's aircraft updated...
So as it stands, the Argentines are flying the same planes as in 1982 (just fewer), still face the same problems (lack of range and radar coverage over the islands. I see a real problem...
I will answer the rest in due time, unfortunatly I have other things to do other than answer repetitive questions on a matter that I think in principle we all agree on: The Royal Navy and other arms are getting too small to easily win a campaign of terriotorial regain.
Yawn.
Repetitive questions?
Answer them correctly first time. Actually answering questions involve more than a sentence to answer. All your points have been disproved time, and time again.
so its just a line, nothing more? for your information it is not exclusive to the eurostar and day trips, vast amounts of freight carrying trucks and container trucks use the tunnel trains 24/7 plus there is a huge freight marshalling area in cheriton for the seperate goods trains that also use the line, as for my point?, I didn't say foreign flagged and also see post 89.
Yes, its just a single double track railway, and as such is wieght and more importantly volume limited. Over 90% of british imports and exports transit by sea.
What utter utter rubbish, piracy has gone up as our Navy gets smaller, its an undeniable fact, espiecially so with our loss of presence in Hong Kong.
Not a Naval Priority? Keeping Britain's economy secure? Well please do tell me what these priorities are, with economic security comes political security and personal security. Your plan instead is for us to rely on other European Navies to do defend your intrests? And why the hell should they do that? I can't see the only other Naval Country, France, sticking their neck out for you or me, and nor do I want them to.
So you have changed your mind from most trade coming in under the Chunnel to now purely all from Rotterdam? Make your mind up pal. What little of our trade? You mean 90% that will have entered or left these lands on a ship?
And to the other point: Re: Callaghan's signing away of the Falklands plan, you just gave me another source, which says exactly the same thing more or less, in a slightly less (admittedly) pedantic way. The key point is still that Callaghan would have made a treaty rather than fight for the Falklands, and leased them out, signing away the rights of the People of the Falklands to self-determination. And what example would that set to Spain for Gibraltar, another location where the locals wish to remain British, do they not deserve Self-Determination as well? Or are people's rights to expensive to protect?
I suggest you read what I said again, only properly this time, 'pal' :rolleyes:
Answer them correctly first time. Actually answering questions involve more than a sentence to answer. All your points have been disproved time, and time again.
Of which I then disagree with, for you then to repeat yourself with bold screams. Really this is turning into a slagging match rather than a debate. Some of your statements are rediculous, "If you join the Armed Forces...." yes we expect them to fight, but men who have just returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq are physically and emotionally drained, and in no fit state to fight, whilst the enemy would have been training and preparing, whilst having a morale boost.
You say we had troops in Germany and Northern Ireland at the time, so that counters out the Iraq and Afghanistan arguement. NI aside, Germany was and is a barracks for the troops, and training areas, apart from the location, it is very little to being in Barracks in the UK, as it was not a mission of any kind. Furthermore we could move them in and out of Germany as we wanted. Furthermore you have not taken into account the fact that the British Army is much smaller today than it was 25 years ago, and so we had more troops availible.
And ask any Serviceman returning from Iraq or Afghanistan, (which I have) and they say it is a warzone. So stop calling it a peace keeping mission. We cannot leave there, because no-one will pick up the slack.
Of which I then disagree with, for you then to repeat yourself with bold screams. Really this is turning into a slagging match rather than a debate.
You have been fortunate to have the occassional emphasis added with capital letters. This has never been a debate, because debate actually requires a dialogue of well reasoned, constructive arguments. Something you have not demonstrated. The vast majority of your arguments are paper thin, with little or no reasoning behind them and don't stand up to cross examination. And then there is the blanket statements such as the Amphibous capability of the Argentine Navy being able to land 1500 men, yet at the same time dispraging the RN ability which is second only to the RN. One would think that you would learn to prove your points or at the very least answer questions properly. So Yawn indeed.
Some of your statements are rediculous, "If you join the Armed Forces...." yes we expect them to fight, but men who have just returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq are physically and emotionally drained, and in no fit state to fight, whilst the enemy would have been training and preparing, whilst having a morale boost.
Why would the troops who have 'just' be off a tour of duty be sent straight to the falkland Islands? Strawman argument.
Again you have yet to prove that the Argentines could even take Mount Pleasant. Again, as it stands One expeditionary formation is always on standby and ready for deployment.
You say we had troops in Germany and Northern Ireland at the time, so that counters out the Iraq and Afghanistan arguement. NI aside, Germany was and is a barracks for the troops, and training areas, apart from the location, it is very little to being in Barracks in the UK, as it was not a mission of any kind.
:rolleyes: What was the BAOR for? Thats right... should the Red Horde of the USSR decide to roll through the Fulda gap or the Northern Plains of Germany. No mission as such?
Why do you think the British Armed Forces had over half its combat formations in Germany?
Furthermore we could move them in and out of Germany as we wanted. Furthermore you have not taken into account the fact that the British Army is much smaller today than it was 25 years ago, and so we had more troops availible.
Yes we had much more troops. All of which were stuck in Germany or else where. Today army is much more deployable.
And ask any Serviceman returning from Iraq or Afghanistan, (which I have) and they say it is a warzone. So stop calling it a peace keeping mission. We cannot leave there, because no-one will pick up the slack.
Good for you. I bet they love you.
Unfortunately Iraq and Afghanistan is exactly that a UN Sanctioned mission. The US would pick up the slack. We could pull troops out of NI, Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan. It might not fit into your world view, but we are not at war Anymore. Who exactly is the enemy the British Army is engaging?
And if for some reason the Falklands fell, then we would be AT WAR with Argentina. All commitment would be secondary. Argentina's Navy sunk. Any Argentina flagged ship at risk. Troops pull back from commitments and readied, a taskforce assembled and the falklands taken back.
With ease.
It was a close run thing in 1982. We've learnt our lessons and adapted our forces for it.
(Bold THDM, Italics Ondigi quote, Underlined Italics Ondigi new) And that means the Argentines will embark on a massive updating of their Armed Services? Why? What threats do the Argentines actually face? lets look at this objectively. Argentina, a democratic country, because its managed to restructure their debts will invade a dependancy of a foreign power, which just happens to be the major ally of Argentinas prinicipal investor? Right... ok.
Lack of joined up thinking there. A recovering country does not make a beligerant country, intent of recovering a few islands many miles off its coasts to which it has a dubious claim to.
Really? How do you know the exact methods of thinking of the Argentine Ministries? How do you know that in the event of a bit of unpopular timing within Argentina, the Government there won’t do what Governments have done since the dawn of Government- when the people at home are unhappy give them a war to think about instead. They do not see it as a dubious claim, and neither does the rest of South America. Are you really that Naive to think that America would really stand up for us? America looks out for one nation, America.
Errrm, no. Hence the word if. It's called a hyopthecical question, based on your assertion that the UK Armed Forces lack helicopters to take back the Falklands. And I'VE ASKED YOU A QUESTION WHICH YET AGAIN YOU HAVE FAILED TO ANSWER.
SO ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION
"If the British Armed forces are short of Helicopters, who isn't?"
You cannot have good force projection without a large and more importantly AVAILABLE heavy lift helicopter fleet.
So you don't think that the largest fleet of chinooks outside the US (all zero-houred since 1993) is a large and Available heavy lift Heli-Fleet? You dont think the Four squadrons of the Commando Helicopter Force soley for the use of 3 Commando brigade is enough? Or the 22 Merlins?
So somehow, even though we have more helicopters and Heavy Lift Helicopters per man than any other country other than the US, we have a 'shortage'.
AGAIN ANOTHER QUESTION YOU HAVE FAILED TO ANSWER.
Given that in 1982, there was only 1 Chinook for the entire conflict, HOW did the British Armed Forces succeed?
Re: Helicopters in General, these Helicopters are in use, AGAIN you cannot take out our responsibilities in Iraq or Afghanistan, which you do time and time again, and whilst we may have the second largest fleet of Chinooks, do not think that means we have an (as I said before) AVAILABLE heavy lift capacity. And to answer the 1982 question with one Chinook, quite simply we struggled without the heavy lift capacity, although fortunately the men at the time did an amazing job, having not just come out of a Warzone, they were able to get those extra reserves they had not used up in say some far away country like Iraq or Afghanistan. The Military commanders of the 1982 conflict strongly believed then that with the loss of those Chinooks the campaign might have turned against us. I do not know why they succeeded then, and I doubt you can put you finger exactly on it, but this time around fighting against a better trained enemy, rather than conscripts, the fighting would be harder.
The point is it is near impossible to send a battalion by aircraft, I am saying you need to send them by Sea, the point you ignore every single post.
NO IT ISN'T!
From a quote that I had
"Really? What's the heaviest bit of equipment does a light role infantry battilion have on its ORBAT? A Civilian airfleets wouln't even need to be used, the troops would simply be on the next VC-10 flight down to the Islands. Or the 4 C-17's, or the few dozen Hercules. 5 Flights of a Hercules to the Falklands. Its a light role infantry battalion. Hell thats worse case. If we look at today, you simply deploy elements of 16 air assault, most notable one of the PARA bat's (which I'm sure I don't need to tell you is designed to be air-dropped). So one wonders again, why a light role Battalion needs a 'ship' to deploy. it has no Heavy equipment so you're justification is?"
There are Air-portable units on the British Army ORBAT, for the very nature of threats like these. They are called Light Role units. In the 1970's there were entire Brigades. Today the entire 16th Air Assault brigade is Air portable, asides from those which are air dropable. To the other side of the world? The VC10 may have enough range to get to the Falklands but most of our aircraft needed multiple refuels beyond Ascension Island, even our refuel aircraft needed refueling. Unfortunately you have also raised another point about current military capabilities, the Paras are loosing jump training for the foreseeable future, so how can they be air dropped, now I was under the allusion that Parachuting was a skill, how can they do that if they cannot train for it? Furthermore 16 Air Assault Brigade and 3 Cdo Brigade are taking it in turns to go to Afghanistan, how can we use them if they aren’t here?
__________________________________________ Of course we would notice, I am saying that four aircraft (and how many of those are either in the air or available at a moments notice) is not enough to stop the invasion force.
You really are quite ignorant aren't you? I've asked you a question and again you failed to answer the question. Argentina can't land enough men. That's a fact. They don't have the Amphibous lift. They can't land enough men to overcome the Garrison.
But This is assuming that Argentina could keep its invasions plans completely secret until the first thing that is known about the invasion plans are when bullets fly at Mount Pleasant. In short you are talking about complete Strategic Surprise, which has never, in the history of armed Conflict, ever occurred.
But WHAT exactly with this Invasion force be composed of? The Single Type 42 Fast troopship? The Argentinean Navy DOESN'T even have a ship capable of beaching.
SO HOW WOULD THE ARGENTINES LAND ENOUGH FORCES ON THE FALKLANDS TO INVADE?
What can the Argentines actually land?
Yet again you argue against the ability of Argentina, but for the ability of the UK. And yet the point I originally made was that if the Argies retook the Falklands we would have trouble getting them back, I never said they could easily take them, more we would have trouble getting them back.
We had a larger Naval force,
Hmmm. Yes we had more surface escorts then. Lets overlook the fact that they were by and large incapable, poorly armed, poorly designed, out of place in the South Atlantic. Today we have larger, more capable, better armed surface combatants...
However we have more decks than in 1982, from Illustrious, Ark Royal and HMS Ocean (opposed to JUST Hermes and Invincible in 1982) and with Invincible at 9 months readiness. We have two much larger and capable LPDs than in 1982 with Albion and Bulwark being much better to defend themselves, offering more Amphibous lift and Helo spaces, along with much better C&C than in 1982.
And so on...
to The Bay Class ALSL, which are much more capable than the LSL currently in service. The RFA is much better able to support the fleet in far flung locales than in 1982.
So larger? In some respects, the capability is so much more greater.
Actually no we weren't. In 1982, we had to cobble together units to send in a taskforce. Unlike the expeditionary minded force focus which we have now.
THE SIMPLE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT WE HAVE MUCH GREATER SEA LIFT AND AIRLIFT THAN IN 1982.
Greater Sea-lift capabilities? Two Old aircraft carriers, (through-deck cruisers to be more accurate, and a limited number of RAF Harriers to go with it, No more Sea Harriers they are gone without replacement!) and there is a real possibility that only one of those Through-Deck cruisers would be available for any task-force. As well as HMS Ocean, which can take helicopters, and troops. We can get them there, but after that, are any of our ships much use? Very few have the ability (beyond the Mod 1 4.5inch gun) to project any force to the ground. Leading to the Submarines alone having Tomahawks.
A taskforce is what we would have to send now, every campaign sends mixes of what they can not always what they want to send.
we were not involved massively in two other Nations at the same time.
Really? We were heavily involved in Northern Ireland and in Germany and elsewhere. But this is the thing which you can not get in to your skull. We are not at war anymore. We are contributing troops to UN sanctioned missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and these missions will take secondary importance to the fact that a country will have commitmented an attack of aggression against our soveriegnty. What will happen, as in 1982, is that our allies in NATO and other contributing nations to the UN, will take more responsibility in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We are more invovled in Northern Ireland to this day than we are in Iraq.
I have already countered this, we were not fighting in Germany and at the time and a much larger Army. The other argument I made was who will honestly pick up our share of troubles in Iraq or Afghanistan? We got ourselves into the mess we need to get ourselves out, and if we do not have enough forces left over, then we should not be getting involved in the first place.
And to a certain extent, thanks to the fact that Argentina were not a capable enemy, on the other hand they have had 25 years to rethink tactics, and that their stratergy revolves around a Falklands War Two.
So Argentina isn't a capable enemy then? Whats the problem then? Thier 'strategy' does not revolve arounf Falklands War two, I've never heard so much tosh in all my life.
If that is the case, then the Argentinean Armed forces would have invested heavily in its Navy and air forces, with particular references to its logistical and amphibous capabilities. They haven't. They only have a Type 42 and a general cargo ship that forms their apmhibous lift...
You miss my point yet again, I originally only claimed that if Argentina retook the Falklands it would be difficult for us to retake them, not that it would be easy for Argentina to take them in the first place. Although I do not believe it is impossible for them to retake the Falklands.
You have singularly failed to demonstrate how the Argentineans would gain air Superiorty over the Islands, given that they can only deploy a fraction of its air force (1982 era still flying to this day) over the Islands at any one time.
We have four aircraft down there, not exactly a huge fight now is it?
No? So what aircraft have the range to attack Mount Pleasant in a Lo-Lo-Lo profile? A Tornando or Typhoon can carry 4 AMRAAMS and 4 ASRAAMs, with the benefit of Ground control and JTIDS. The Argentinean Airforce, would be flying blind, into a AD network, where as the RAF would be able to detect any flight coming in at 200-400 miles away.
What was the largest number of aircraft did the Argentines manage to assemble over the taskforce? In 1982, another point which you have failed to acknowledge, there was only 2 aircraft in the air at any one time, with a grand total of 4 AIM-9L in the air...
8 Missiles x Max Four Tornados (4 Amraams and Asraams) cannot take out the Argentine airforce.
You failed to demonstrate how the Argentines could land enough men to over power a 1500 man garrison.
An infantry company + men with arms is not a 1500 man garrison, however simply by the fact that I believe Air Superiorty would not be difficult to achieve, that would allow them to land 1500 men.
WITH WHAT? WITH WHAT? WHERE? The Argentines don't have the ability to gain air superiporty over the islands and they don't have the ability to land even 250 men...
You have failed to demonstrate how 3 Commando Brigade (deploy to afgahnistan to let 16 Air Asslt rotate home) lacks Mobility or 16th Air Assault Brigade (who currently aren't deployed), or that the RN is hamstrung by mysterious manpower shortages which yet you can't name.
We used both the Parachute Rgt. and the Royal Marines + More to regain the Falklands last time, and it would take at least those two elite Corps of the Armed Forces to retake them again, rather than just some weekend warriors. Furthermore it is well known the RN is suffering manpower problems, as would be quite apparent from efforts seen in the Navy News.
That is part of the problem, we have these "ferries" to ship people off the coast of somewhere, but defending them, is part of the problem, HMS Ocean, HMS Albion and Bulwark, but they are fairly useless beyond taking someone from point A to B.
Ferries? If the Ability to put over 1500 men on any beach or place beyond the beach, ready to immediately enter combat, with the ability to land Tanks, launch Attack Helicopters for support, land artillery from both sea and air, strikes you as a ferry... you must be completely crazy.
Then on top of that you have the ALSLs and LSLs.
These allow opposed landings, support of troops and more importantly Command and control, when you don't have a port to land the 6 Ro-Ro's which form part of the RNs expeditionary capability.
So if those are just 'ferries', what, exactly is ARA Hercules and ARA Bahia San Blas?
Call them what you like they are ferries, glorified ferries. Opposed landings? They have no personal armaments beyond a GPMG and a CIWS, what use do they have in opposed landings?
The other point is that only one of the aforementioned Brigades is available, whilst the other is out in Afghan, plus you are not allowing for R and R between exceptionally stressful tours.
When you join the armed forces, you join the armed forces. You work and fight when told. And that was an example of just one of the expeditionary forces, which are kept free at any one time. No soldiers cannot just replace their duracells and keep on going, I take it you have never served in the Military, let alone seen battle, because coming back from a Warzone, is not an easy time.
Again, one really wonders what you're smoking. The fact of the matter is, given that the Argentines have exactly the same aircraft (albeit in a smaller number due to the losses inflicted in 1982), and they could only mass at most 6-8 aircraft over the falklands (not several squadrons, as most of them dont have the range in lo-lo-lo flight plans (ANOTHER difference to the Falklands where at least they could fly Hi-lo-Hi), how if what you say is possibly true, did the British manage to win in 1982 in the first place?
Lessons learnt on the Argentine side, and despite ignoring my statements of their purchase of aircraft from the US, and potential more purchases from the Argentines, and the willingness of several nations to sell them to Argentina.
Lessons learnt on the Argentinean side can magically increase the payload and range of their 1970's vintage 2nd hand aircraft? Which Aircraft have the Argentines purchased from the US? refurbished skyhawks? So 1960's aircraft updated...
So as it stands, the Argentines are flying the same planes as in 1982 (just fewer), still face the same problems (lack of range and radar coverage over the islands. I see a real problem...
No lessons learned mean that they won’t make the same mistakes, something which is part of warfare, making fewer mistakes than your enemy wins you wars. The same planes, we are flying similar planes down there, as I said the Tornado is not a young aircraft, and there are only FOUR of them in total, thats not even taking into account if one is being repaired. Yet again, you fail to take note of key points, why did we win in 1982, perhaps the lack of the Argentines to have a local air base to launch ops from? I doubt they will make that mistake again, the fact they made many tactically poor decisions, for instance, playing their aircraft carrier, splitting their Naval Force in two.
For the love of god, now please leave it be that we agree to disagree!
Really? How do you know the exact methods of thinking of the Argentine Ministries? How do you know that in the event of a bit of unpopular timing within Argentina, the Government there won’t do what Governments have done since the dawn of Government- when the people at home are unhappy give them a war to think about instead. They do not see it as a dubious claim, and neither does the rest of South America. Are you really that Naive to think that America would really stand up for us? America looks out for one nation, America.
Well they've been through the roller quite a bit, and have yet To invade the falklands... Being a deomcracy, they have to be re-elected. The Junta had to stop themselves from being overthrown. Diffence.
You cannot have good force projection without a large and more importantly AVAILABLE heavy lift helicopter fleet.
And We have a large and availible heavy lift fleet... Who has a larger one?
Re: Helicopters in General, these Helicopters are in use, AGAIN you cannot take out our responsibilities in Iraq or Afghanistan,
Why? because you said so? It's a strawman arguement which has no basis in reality. The Argentines are not going to invade the Falklands, they can't do it for the for the forseeable future. Our responsibilties iN Iraq and Afghanistan are less important than the Falklands.
which you do time and time again, and whilst we may have the second largest fleet of Chinooks, do not think that means we have an (as I said before) AVAILABLE heavy lift capacity.
Again, 6 Chinooks out of the fleet of exisiting helos can be operated off Ocean... Again, the HMG is not going to maintain peacetime commitments in a time of war.
And to answer the 1982 question with one Chinook, quite simply we struggled without the heavy lift capacity, although fortunately the men at the time did an amazing job, having not just come out of a Warzone, they were able to get those extra reserves they had not used up in say some far away country like Iraq or Afghanistan. The Military commanders of the 1982 conflict strongly believed then that with the loss of those Chinooks the campaign might have turned against us. I do not know why they succeeded then, and I doubt you can put you finger exactly on it, but this time around fighting against a better trained enemy, rather than conscripts, the fighting would be harder.
Why has the Argentine Forces suddenly become better trained? The fact is the British Armed forces has more helicopters availible to it than it did in 1982...
The point is it is near impossible to send a battalion by aircraft, I am saying you need to send them by Sea, the point you ignore every single post.
Because it has no basis in reality. I've asked you why it is impossible to send a Light role infantry battalion, by its very nature, air transportable, by plane. We're not talking about a Mechanised or Armoured Formation here, But a formation whose heaviest pieces of equipment is its 81mm Mortars and 50. Cal HMGs. Thats the reason why your point is being ignored, because its not true...
So WHY can't a light role Battalion be transported by Plane? Why have Light role battalion suddenly become non air transportable?
To the other side of the world? The VC10 may have enough range to get to the Falklands but most of our aircraft needed multiple refuels beyond Ascension Island, even our refuel aircraft needed refueling.
Now you are confusing one way trips with round trips by medium range bombers or short range harriers. with refueling from Acension... lack of joined up thinking. A C-17 has a ferry range of 8100 km unrefuled. The Falkland Islands are 3300 miles from Acension. hercules can be IFR IIRC as well.
Unfortunately you have also raised another point about current military capabilities, the Paras are loosing jump training for the foreseeable future, so how can they be air dropped, now I was under the allusion that Parachuting was a skill, how can they do that if they cannot train for it?
You must have the lowest comprehension of anyone I know. The Point was... that if an light role infantry battalion couldn't be transported by plane, then what of the PARA bats, which are all meant to be Air dropped...
As for air dropping, you could not air drop on the falklands, for the main reason that there is no suitable LZ. So as it stands both PARA and Light Role Battalions can be moved by air, and easily.
Furthermore 16 Air Assault Brigade and 3 Cdo Brigade are taking it in turns to go to Afghanistan, how can we use them if they aren’t here?
Of they are 'here', just that if you were to still maintain the presence in Afgahnistan, you would have to send ANOTHER, DIFFERENT unit to rotate in an out.
Yet again you argue against the ability of Argentina, but for the ability of the UK. And yet the point I originally made was that if the Argies retook the Falklands we would have trouble getting them back, I never said they could easily take them, more we would have trouble getting them back.
Really? everything you've typed has indicated that If the argentines wanted to retake the falklands, they could, and there would be nothing we could do.
They can't and there is.
Greater Sea-lift capabilities? Two Old aircraft carriers, (through-deck cruisers to be more accurate, and a limited number of RAF Harriers to go with it,
Yes... As in the previous post, where as in 1982, they had 1 very old Commadno carrier and one Helicopter cruiser, with a limited number of limited capability harriers, we have 2 Aircraft carriers, a Helicopter assault ship with Vince at 9 months Readiness...
So any objective way you look at it, yes...
No more Sea Harriers they are gone without replacement!)
Actually they're in reserve, moth balled.
and there is a real possibility that only one of those Through-Deck cruisers would be available for any task-force.
Why, whats will Ark Royal be doing? Neither Aircraft Carrier will be in reserve or refit for the rest of their service lives. So the actual carriers available to the RN hasn't changed.
As well as HMS Ocean, which can take helicopters, and troops. We can get them there, but after that, are any of our ships much use? Very few have the ability (beyond the Mod 1 4.5inch gun) to project any force to the ground. Leading to the Submarines alone having Tomahawks.
The Ships will be there to protect the pphibs and the harriers which will be provide ground strike, with alot more effectiveness than their GR3 cousins in 1982. (forgot about those limited harriers did we?)
A taskforce is what we would have to send now, every campaign sends mixes of what they can not always what they want to send.
Why send now? The Falklands aren't going anywhere.
I have already countered this, we were not fighting in Germany and at the time and a much larger Army. The other argument I made was who will honestly pick up our share of troubles in Iraq or Afghanistan? We got ourselves into the mess we need to get ourselves out, and if we do not have enough forces left over, then we should not be getting involved in the first place.
No we weren't fighting in Germany at the time. But we still had to keep the vast majority of our Comabt forces iN Germany regardless... And who will pick up our share? America for one.
You miss my point yet again, I originally only claimed that if Argentina retook the Falklands it would be difficult for us to retake them, not that it would be easy for Argentina to take them in the first place. Although I do not believe it is impossible for them to retake the Falklands.
'I only Claimed'. Yawn... You're whole points have been its ridculously easy for the argentines to take the falklands, and theres nothing we can do about unless we beef up the RN... And again, when asked how the Argentines would land men, you clam up...
'I believe...'
8 Missiles x Max Four Tornados (4 Amraams and Asraams) cannot take out the Argentine airforce.
AMRAAM, and ASRAAM. They're acronyms... 8 Missiles x 4 = 32 Missiles. How many Argentine Aircraft can hit the Falklands in a lo-lo-lo mission profile? How many can fly to the Falklands? Indeed how many can even fly? How many can be mustered over the falklands at any one time?
We used both the Parachute Rgt. and the Royal Marines + More to regain the Falklands last time, and it would take at least those two elite Corps of the Armed Forces to retake them again, rather than just some weekend warriors. Furthermore it is well known the RN is suffering manpower problems, as would be quite apparent from efforts seen in the Navy News.
And? we used 5 Infantry brigade and 3 Commando Brigade. 2 brigades worth of troops (at the time the parachute Regiment came under 3 Commando Brigade). But you're looking over the simply fact of the matter that teh Argentines couldn't land on the Islands in the first place. Who says we even need to Invade? block and starve the Islands out...
AND YET AGAIN, WHEN CALLED TO HIGHLIGHT A 'CRIPPLING' SHORTAGE you fail to do so. Words fail me. These Shortages are shortages indeed, but they impinge on peacetime deployments, not war footings. You have still failed to highlight any area which would prevent a taskforce from sailing.
Call them what you like they are ferries, glorified ferries. Opposed landings? They have no personal armaments beyond a GPMG and a CIWS, what use do they have in opposed landings?
Demonstrated a complete lack of understanding. I didn't credit you with being that ignorant. opposed Landings. Landings in the face of Enemy action. They enable an Amphibous force to land a point of their chosing, without using a port. They allow actually allow troops to hit the beach fighting.
Without these Glorified ferries as you put it, no country could land any troops on foreign soil. And is the main reason why the Argentines can not take the falklands, because they would literally have to sail into Port Stanley, before they could even begin fighting...
With an LPD and LPH, you can land troops at any beach, or any point within helicopter range, which stretches enenmy troops to cover all possible landing sports, making them weaker, or force them to concede a landing.
No soldiers cannot just replace their duracells and keep on going, I take it you have never served in the Military, let alone seen battle, because coming back from a Warzone, is not an easy time.
You've never served in the Military, because as anybody tells you, that when somebody declares one on the country who pledged an oath to serve and defend with your life, you don't simply go home to recharge your duracells. So should the need arrise and troops coming back from depolyment or just redployed, they will do it.
No lessons learned mean that they won’t make the same mistakes, something which is part of warfare, making fewer mistakes than your enemy wins you wars. The same planes, we are flying similar planes down there, as I said the Tornado is not a young aircraft, and there are only FOUR of them in total, thats not even taking into account if one is being repaired. Yet again, you fail to take note of key points, why did we win in 1982, perhaps the lack of the Argentines to have a local air base to launch ops from? I doubt they will make that mistake again, the fact they made many tactically poor decisions, for instance, playing their aircraft carrier, splitting their Naval Force in two.
Yes you keep saying the Torando isn't a young aircraft. ovrlooking the fact that its a good 15 years younger at the very least than the youngest Argentinean aircraft.
You yet to MAKE a key point. The argentines did have local airbases for one in 1982. Pebble Island for one. But Should Mount Pleasant fall what do you think one of the first thing the Garrison would do? wreck the Runway and all heavy equipment. And then what do you think would be the first target for TLAM's? Mount Pleasant...
As for trying to attempt a Pincer moverment with 25 de Mayo and Belgrano, first time I've heard it called a tactically poor decison. had the wind been better, the Taskforce probably would have been crippled.
For the love of god, now please leave it be that we agree to disagree!
How about just going away? I'm not going to agree to disagree. You're wrong, end of story. and I will keep disproving every assertion until you away?
Indeed if the wind had been better or 25th of May had better engines and able to go fast enough to launch it's aircraft then it could have been very hairy for the task force.
Comments
with hindsight the last paragraph in the last link, seems a classic sting
Best of luck son. I wonder if my cousin (ex-Signals) will be called up, though hes been out for over 10 years now.
Yawn. Yet again You're arguing the right argument, using the wrong examples...
Why? Because its a valuable strategic point, with untapped reserves of oil and diamonds.
So yes. It is worth Billions of pounds.
I thought the majority of it went UNDER the sea (Ch.Tnl) and the rest in foreign vessels?
So one really does wonder, if the British Armed forces are short of Helicopters, who isn't?
However don't you think the plan would change after the Falklands Islands was invaded? Hell they even looked at recommissoning Bulwark in 1982, a ship in a much worse status.
All these questions, and not one answer.
ha yes, the thread title "The Once Proud Royal Navy, slashed by Labour" .
are the tories not guilty too?
"John Nott, the Secretary of State for Defence, had included the ship in a package of swingeing defence cuts which included the sale of the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible.
and answers this question..
with this..
"John Nott, the Secretary of State for Defence,.... He was deaf, not only to the advice of the First Sea Lord, Sir Henry Leach, but also to Lord Shackleton, perhaps the most acknowledged expert on the South Atlantic. More surprisingly, perhaps, he had refused to heed the warning delivered by a group of more than 300 peers and MPs (led by Lords Shackleton, Buxton, Callaghan and Hill-Norton) who believed that the withdrawal of HMS Endurance would precipitate military action by Argentina."
No its from a part of the Evening Standard, similar link from the Daily Mail, either way the source and quotes are direct from government records.
Or will you not believe it unless it is from the Guardian?
To the latter post, I am not arguing that the Tories made cuts to the Royal Navy, I'm from Chatham, which has suffered since the close of the Dockyard, so I am aware of their cuts. However unlike Labour supporters, I live in the present, it is future cuts under this Labour Government that I am worried about, furthermore, the Navy was in a reasonable size before 1997, it has got to what I would describe as an unviable size now, under Labour.
No, just because they are foreign owned vessels, does not mean that doesn't count, 90% of all trade in and out, enters or leaves at a sea port, in any Nation's vessel. We need to keep the seas open to ensure that our trade can still get in.
The Argentine economy is on the climb again, expect more of the same when it comes to growth in their forces.
Why? Because you said so? Even 'if' they buy more ships, it still doesn't take anyway from the fact that the vast majority of them are out of date and obselecent.
Why because America is investing in Argentina, because their GDP is on the rise and because they have been able to restructure their World Bank debts.
So one really does wonder, if the British Armed forces are short of Helicopters, who isn't?
However don't you think the plan would change after the Falklands Islands was invaded? Hell they even looked at recommissoning Bulwark in 1982, a ship in a much worse status.
So you agree then we are short of helicopters? You cannot have good force projection without a large and more importantly AVAILABLE heavy lift helicopter fleet.
And whilst you criticise me for "Still maintaining" you are doing the exact same thing maintaining that we could reinforce the islands very quickly, I simply do not believe that it could be done by air, to the levels needed,
? What are the levels needed? In your opinion? Justify this. Are you of the opinion that there isn't a single infantry battalion earmarked for support o the Falkland Islands?
The point is it is near impossible to send a battalion by aircraft, I am saying you need to send them by Sea, the point you ignore every single post.
How, exactly would the Argentines manged to land that amount of men without the British Noticing? Indeed how would the Argentines land enough men to take or neutralise Mount Pleasant without prior warning?
No but please tell me how you envisage the The Argentines could even land a thousand men and support them and in what ships they would do this?
Of course we would notice, I am saying that four aircraft (and how many of those are either in the air or available at a moments notice) is not enough to stop the invasion force.
QUESTION.
GIVEN THAT THE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WHICH YOU ASCRIBE TO THE FALKLANDS TODAY, AFFLICTED THE FALKLANDS TO GREATER EXTENT IN 1982,
HOW WERE THEY RETAKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?
We had a larger Naval force, we were able to project a large force down there, we were not involved massively in two other Nations at the same time. And to a certain extent, thanks to the fact that Argentina were not a capable enemy, on the other hand they have had 25 years to rethink tactics, and that their stratergy revolves around a Falklands War Two.
You have singularly failed to demonstrate how the Argentineans would gain air Superiorty over the Islands, given that they can only deploy a fraction of its air force (1982 era still flying to this day) over the Islands at any one time.
We have four aircraft down there, not exactly a huge fight now is it?
You failed to demonstrate how the Argentines could land enough men to over power a 1500 man garrison.
An infantry company + men with arms is not a 1500 man garrison, however simply by the fact that I believe Air Superiorty would not be difficult to achieve, that would allow them to land 1500 men.
You have failed to demonstrate how 3 Commando Brigade (deploy to afgahnistan to let 16 Air Asslt rotate home) lacks Mobility or 16th Air Assault Brigade (who currently aren't deployed), or that the RN is hamstrung by mysterious manpower shortages which yet you can't name.
That is part of the problem, we have these "ferries" to ship people off the coast of somewhere, but defending them, is part of the problem, HMS Ocean, HMS Albion and Bulwark, but they are fairly useless beyond taking someone from point A to B. The other point is that only one of the aforementioned Brigades is available, whilst the other is out in Afghan, plus you are not allowing for R and R between exceptionally stressful tours.
Again, one really wonders what you're smoking. The fact of the matter is, given that the Argentines have exactly the same aircraft (albeit in a smaller number due to the losses inflicted in 1982), and they could only mass at most 6-8 aircraft over the falklands (not several squadrons, as most of them dont have the range in lo-lo-lo flight plans (ANOTHER difference to the Falklands where at least they could fly Hi-lo-Hi), how if what you say is possibly true, did the British manage to win in 1982 in the first place?
Lessons learnt on the Argentine side, and despite ignoring my statements of their purchase of aircraft from the US, and potential more purchases from the Argentines, and the willingness of several nations to sell them to Argentina.
I will answer the rest in due time, unfortunatly I have other things to do other than answer repetitive questions on a matter that I think in principle we all agree on: The Royal Navy and other arms are getting too small to easily win a campaign of terriotorial regain.
Yeah from the lite edition :rolleyes:, try this link from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597581.stm
No, you live in the past, we no longer have an empire so there is no need to have a huge navy to protect (send gunships..lol) as most commonwealth countries have their own navies now, and with vessels better armed and having long range missiles, plus membership of nato, the size is not so important today.
No, we trade mostly with europe now and what little trade of ours that goes by sea is trans-shipped from the uk via rotterdam (a safe route), from there on it is difficult to protect and too costly, I do agree though that we should HELP, as we do, and along with other european navies, to keep sea lanes safe from piracy etc but it is not a naval priority any more.
No. The vast majority of Britian Trade comes via Port, even from the continent, both by wieght and volume. The Chunnel is a single Double track train line nothing more.
As for the rest in foreign vessels, vessels might be forgien flagged but your point is?
so its just a line, nothing more? for your information it is not exclusive to the eurostar and day trips, vast amounts of freight carrying trucks and container trucks use the tunnel trains 24/7 plus there is a huge freight marshalling area in cheriton for the seperate goods trains that also use the line, as for my point?, I didn't say foreign flagged and also see post 89.
What utter utter rubbish, piracy has gone up as our Navy gets smaller, its an undeniable fact, espiecially so with our loss of presence in Hong Kong.
Not a Naval Priority? Keeping Britain's economy secure? Well please do tell me what these priorities are, with economic security comes political security and personal security. Your plan instead is for us to rely on other European Navies to do defend your intrests? And why the hell should they do that? I can't see the only other Naval Country, France, sticking their neck out for you or me, and nor do I want them to.
So you have changed your mind from most trade coming in under the Chunnel to now purely all from Rotterdam? Make your mind up pal. What little of our trade? You mean 90% that will have entered or left these lands on a ship?
And to the other point: Re: Callaghan's signing away of the Falklands plan, you just gave me another source, which says exactly the same thing more or less, in a slightly less (admittedly) pedantic way. The key point is still that Callaghan would have made a treaty rather than fight for the Falklands, and leased them out, signing away the rights of the People of the Falklands to self-determination. And what example would that set to Spain for Gibraltar, another location where the locals wish to remain British, do they not deserve Self-Determination as well? Or are people's rights to expensive to protect?
Yawn.
Repetitive questions?
Answer them correctly first time. Actually answering questions involve more than a sentence to answer. All your points have been disproved time, and time again.
Yes, its just a single double track railway, and as such is wieght and more importantly volume limited. Over 90% of british imports and exports transit by sea.
I suggest you read what I said again, only properly this time, 'pal' :rolleyes:
Of which I then disagree with, for you then to repeat yourself with bold screams. Really this is turning into a slagging match rather than a debate. Some of your statements are rediculous, "If you join the Armed Forces...." yes we expect them to fight, but men who have just returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq are physically and emotionally drained, and in no fit state to fight, whilst the enemy would have been training and preparing, whilst having a morale boost.
You say we had troops in Germany and Northern Ireland at the time, so that counters out the Iraq and Afghanistan arguement. NI aside, Germany was and is a barracks for the troops, and training areas, apart from the location, it is very little to being in Barracks in the UK, as it was not a mission of any kind. Furthermore we could move them in and out of Germany as we wanted. Furthermore you have not taken into account the fact that the British Army is much smaller today than it was 25 years ago, and so we had more troops availible.
And ask any Serviceman returning from Iraq or Afghanistan, (which I have) and they say it is a warzone. So stop calling it a peace keeping mission. We cannot leave there, because no-one will pick up the slack.
Good for you. I bet they love you.
Unfortunately Iraq and Afghanistan is exactly that a UN Sanctioned mission. The US would pick up the slack. We could pull troops out of NI, Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan. It might not fit into your world view, but we are not at war Anymore. Who exactly is the enemy the British Army is engaging?
And if for some reason the Falklands fell, then we would be AT WAR with Argentina. All commitment would be secondary. Argentina's Navy sunk. Any Argentina flagged ship at risk. Troops pull back from commitments and readied, a taskforce assembled and the falklands taken back.
With ease.
It was a close run thing in 1982. We've learnt our lessons and adapted our forces for it.
Post in two parts.
For the love of god, now please leave it be that we agree to disagree!
Well they've been through the roller quite a bit, and have yet To invade the falklands... Being a deomcracy, they have to be re-elected. The Junta had to stop themselves from being overthrown. Diffence.
And We have a large and availible heavy lift fleet... Who has a larger one?
Why has the Argentine Forces suddenly become better trained? The fact is the British Armed forces has more helicopters availible to it than it did in 1982...
Because it has no basis in reality. I've asked you why it is impossible to send a Light role infantry battalion, by its very nature, air transportable, by plane. We're not talking about a Mechanised or Armoured Formation here, But a formation whose heaviest pieces of equipment is its 81mm Mortars and 50. Cal HMGs. Thats the reason why your point is being ignored, because its not true...
So WHY can't a light role Battalion be transported by Plane? Why have Light role battalion suddenly become non air transportable?
Now you are confusing one way trips with round trips by medium range bombers or short range harriers. with refueling from Acension... lack of joined up thinking. A C-17 has a ferry range of 8100 km unrefuled. The Falkland Islands are 3300 miles from Acension. hercules can be IFR IIRC as well.
You must have the lowest comprehension of anyone I know. The Point was... that if an light role infantry battalion couldn't be transported by plane, then what of the PARA bats, which are all meant to be Air dropped...
As for air dropping, you could not air drop on the falklands, for the main reason that there is no suitable LZ. So as it stands both PARA and Light Role Battalions can be moved by air, and easily.
Of they are 'here', just that if you were to still maintain the presence in Afgahnistan, you would have to send ANOTHER, DIFFERENT unit to rotate in an out.
Yet again you argue against the ability of Argentina, but for the ability of the UK. And yet the point I originally made was that if the Argies retook the Falklands we would have trouble getting them back, I never said they could easily take them, more we would have trouble getting them back.
Really? everything you've typed has indicated that If the argentines wanted to retake the falklands, they could, and there would be nothing we could do.
They can't and there is.
Yes... As in the previous post, where as in 1982, they had 1 very old Commadno carrier and one Helicopter cruiser, with a limited number of limited capability harriers, we have 2 Aircraft carriers, a Helicopter assault ship with Vince at 9 months Readiness...
So any objective way you look at it, yes...
Actually they're in reserve, moth balled.
Why, whats will Ark Royal be doing? Neither Aircraft Carrier will be in reserve or refit for the rest of their service lives. So the actual carriers available to the RN hasn't changed.
The Ships will be there to protect the pphibs and the harriers which will be provide ground strike, with alot more effectiveness than their GR3 cousins in 1982. (forgot about those limited harriers did we?)
Why send now? The Falklands aren't going anywhere.
No we weren't fighting in Germany at the time. But we still had to keep the vast majority of our Comabt forces iN Germany regardless... And who will pick up our share? America for one.
'I only Claimed'. Yawn... You're whole points have been its ridculously easy for the argentines to take the falklands, and theres nothing we can do about unless we beef up the RN... And again, when asked how the Argentines would land men, you clam up...
'I believe...'
AMRAAM, and ASRAAM. They're acronyms... 8 Missiles x 4 = 32 Missiles. How many Argentine Aircraft can hit the Falklands in a lo-lo-lo mission profile? How many can fly to the Falklands? Indeed how many can even fly? How many can be mustered over the falklands at any one time?
And? we used 5 Infantry brigade and 3 Commando Brigade. 2 brigades worth of troops (at the time the parachute Regiment came under 3 Commando Brigade). But you're looking over the simply fact of the matter that teh Argentines couldn't land on the Islands in the first place. Who says we even need to Invade? block and starve the Islands out...
AND YET AGAIN, WHEN CALLED TO HIGHLIGHT A 'CRIPPLING' SHORTAGE you fail to do so. Words fail me. These Shortages are shortages indeed, but they impinge on peacetime deployments, not war footings. You have still failed to highlight any area which would prevent a taskforce from sailing.
Demonstrated a complete lack of understanding. I didn't credit you with being that ignorant. opposed Landings. Landings in the face of Enemy action. They enable an Amphibous force to land a point of their chosing, without using a port. They allow actually allow troops to hit the beach fighting.
Without these Glorified ferries as you put it, no country could land any troops on foreign soil. And is the main reason why the Argentines can not take the falklands, because they would literally have to sail into Port Stanley, before they could even begin fighting...
With an LPD and LPH, you can land troops at any beach, or any point within helicopter range, which stretches enenmy troops to cover all possible landing sports, making them weaker, or force them to concede a landing.
You've never served in the Military, because as anybody tells you, that when somebody declares one on the country who pledged an oath to serve and defend with your life, you don't simply go home to recharge your duracells. So should the need arrise and troops coming back from depolyment or just redployed, they will do it.
Yes you keep saying the Torando isn't a young aircraft. ovrlooking the fact that its a good 15 years younger at the very least than the youngest Argentinean aircraft.
You yet to MAKE a key point. The argentines did have local airbases for one in 1982. Pebble Island for one. But Should Mount Pleasant fall what do you think one of the first thing the Garrison would do? wreck the Runway and all heavy equipment. And then what do you think would be the first target for TLAM's? Mount Pleasant...
As for trying to attempt a Pincer moverment with 25 de Mayo and Belgrano, first time I've heard it called a tactically poor decison. had the wind been better, the Taskforce probably would have been crippled.
How about just going away? I'm not going to agree to disagree. You're wrong, end of story. and I will keep disproving every assertion until you away?