Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

Anyhoo ,with all that gas and oil that's just been found they all just better watch what they are blowing up

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Mike Jackson has said as much also. It's a bit of a tactical nightmare.

Hence the reason Flt. Lt. William Wales and HMS Dauntless have both been in the news this week, the latter accompanied by unattributed briefings about how many Argentine fighters it could shoot down (all of them) and how quickly (within minutes).

Their deployments may well have been planned many months ago, but then those responsible for the planning were well aware many months ago of the upcoming anniversary.

Nobody should be under any illusions about the symbolism at play here. Symbolism is, after all, something the British are particularly good at. We have sent, or are sending, the sovereign's grandson and the sovereign's most potent warship to fly her flag a few miles off the coast of Argentina. We're telling anyone who cares to take notice that we have the sovereignty and the means to hold onto it.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Osem

Well we can rely on the French for those... lol

I really don't see the Argentinians mounting any sort of offensive with submarines in the area and see this as just more political point scoring by their leadership to divert attention away from other issues going on over there.

You can't fight off an air assult using just submarines though.

As soon as Cameron scrapped out aircraft carriers I though that Argentina would start to kick off.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

You can't fight off an air assult using just submarines though.

As soon as Cameron scrapped out aircraft carriers I though that Argentina would start to kick off.

Of course you can't but there aren't just submarines there. As has already been stated there is a state of the art destroyer, plus the ground defences. The Argentinians can't occupy the Falklands without naval superiority and they don't have it.

It's all academic anyway because this fuss is just the usual rhetoric designed to take Argentinian minds off problems at home.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Osem

Of course you can't but there aren't just submarines there. As has already been stated there is a state of the art destroyer, plus the ground defences. The Argentinians can't occupy the Falklands without naval superiority and they don't have it.

It's all academic anyway because this fuss is just the usual rhetoric designed to take Argentinian minds off problems at home.

But they will have air superiority, which is all they need to fly troops and equipment in, and to launch air attacks on our ships.

Without the carriers we wouldn't have won last time.

But the type 45 destroyer negates the air superiority...

In an intensive attack, a Type 45 destroyer would be able to simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than the remaining Type 42 destroyers operating together.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But the type 45 destroyer negates the air superiority...

As they've not progressed much past the Mirage's they used in the early '80s I don't think they'll be too much of an issue..

At least this time the ship defences against Air to Ship missile attacks should be more effective between Seagnat decoy and the Aster30/PhlanX systems hopefully we won't have another HMS Sheffield disaster..

[Tim Deegan]

One type 45 destroyer can't defend the whole of the Falklands. And a simultanious attack from a number of Argentinian aircraft using modern weapons could easily overwhelm a type 45's air defences.

Number one rule in any battle "never underestimate your enemy".

Actually, it can, especially against the forces the Argentinians can deploy.

Read up on it.

"The Type 45 destroyer is the most advanced anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic ship in the world equipped with 48 Sea Viper missiles and the Sampson radar, which is more advanced than Heathrow air traffic control
The ship is in a league of its own in air defence able to track dozens of multiple targets"

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

One type 45 destroyer can't defend the whole of the Falklands. And a simultanious attack from a number of Argentinian aircraft using modern weapons could easily overwhelm a type 45's air defences.

Number one rule in any battle "never underestimate your enemy".

As Hugh's already stated the type 45 should never be underestimated..

I'm sure though that with any escalation then it wouldn't just be one type 45 for long..

[Hom3r]

We can easy defend the Falklands.

Look what happened to The ARA General Belgrano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

It wouldn't supprise me if a few Subs were in the area.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

One type 45 destroyer can't defend the whole of the Falklands. And a simultanious attack from a number of Argentinian aircraft using modern weapons could easily overwhelm a type 45's air defences.

Number one rule in any battle "never underestimate your enemy".

Is this assertion based on inside information that contradicts this week's public warnings issued to Argentina by Un-named sources within the RN?

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Chris

Is this assertion based on inside information that contradicts this week's public warnings issued to Argentina by Un-named sources within the RN?

No it's based on my knowledge, combined with history, and the fact that I've been discussing this with my brother (who served on a type 45 recently) in depth over the last few days.

Edit: Sorry my brother was on a type 42, and not a type 45.

[Kymmy]

HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry were type 42s, also the Argentine Navy has a type 42 .. and of course we still have a few of them... It was shown with the sinking of our type 42's that they seriously lacked in air defenses and was one of the main reasons for the type 45 air defence systems development.. We're talking about something that could knock individual birds with jet packs attached out of the sky at the distances that exocets were launched at.. Including even an Anti-ballistic capability..

Type 42's had Phlanx capability same as the new 45's but not a decent fire control.. otherwise the exocets would never have got close

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

No it's based on my knowledge, combined with history, and the fact that I've been discussing this with my brother (who served on a type 45 recently) in depth over the last few days.

Edit: Sorry my brother was on a type 42, and not a type 45.

It is unlikely that your brother has spent much, if any, time with anyone who has genuine experience of the Type 45 seeing as the first deployment was a matter of months ago and the first deployed crew is therefore still aboard.

The Type 45 destroyer can engage more targets simultaneously than five Type 42s working together. Its radar is also infinitely better and can detect aircraft take-offs from 250 miles away, a feature the Type 42 destroyers deployed to the Falklands in 1982 lacked.

History is the reason the new Type 45s are designed and specified the way they are. It is a faulty analysis to conclude that in the event of a conflict, things would unfold as they did before. The aircraft that successfully hit our ships in 1982 would have been detected well outside of Exocet range had the Type 45's capabilities been available. They would also in all likelihood have been destroyed. And had they managed to get close enough to fire, the incoming missiles would have had an entirely new defensive system to cope with.