Argentine Fleet in dire straits

Rocket_Ron

Lantern Swinger
RR, SSN's were used as advance warning for air attack in 82 as they were off the coast...
That`ll be why we were never surprised by low level incoming then ?
Oh, hang on...

For Argentina to succesfully invade and hold the FI would require them to inflict the single most succesful surprise amphibious assault in history.
I would have thought 6th Jun 44 might have taken that tag ?

Well Said twig, a lot of decent comments on here, interspersed by Daily Mail reading scare mongering *******. 1 t45 and astute class ssn would do for any argi belligerence.
If you only need one T45 and one sub why haven`t The Admiralty cut back to this level ? Its just about the only stand alone fight we`d have, everything else being a multi-national affair.

Whats with coming into a thread and calling participants ******* ? Can`t you get your point across without swearing ? Does every opinion have to be the book opinion, or you`re out ? Nothing stifles interesting debate like your behaviour.

Funny thing about new shiny tech. When you read the brochure its all singing and all dancing, ready for anything. Like missiles, for instance. And yet in `82 a bunch of antiquated non supersonic planes, dropping dumb iron bombs, some of which didn`t even go off, sank a shit load of boats. If you`d have done a review in `81 you`d have never thought that that was a possibility.

...plus we have TLAM now so a boat could easily take out their airfields (airburst TLAM are good for parked aircraft, there's a film of exactly that on youtube), so no, it'll never happen....
Our most decisive leader since Winston baulked at attacking the mainland first time round, just which politician do you think would make that decision now-a-days ?
 

WreckerL

War Hero
That`ll be why we were never surprised by low level incoming then ?
Oh, hang on...

SSN's are good but not that good, it's one thing to say aircraft are inbound, but to be able to tell what their targets are, get real.

Funny thing about new shiny tech. When you read the brochure its all singing and all dancing, ready for anything. Like missiles, for instance. And yet in `82 a bunch of antiquated non supersonic planes, dropping dumb iron bombs, some of which didn`t even go off, sank a shit load of boats. If you`d have done a review in `81 you`d have never thought that that was a possibility.

Funny thing about the Falklands, it was 30 years ago and things have moved on since then and the islands are far better defended now then in 82 when it was up to a company of Marines and the Falkland islands Defence Force, who acquitted themselves very well as it happens.



Our most decisive leader since Winston baulked at attacking the mainland first time round, just which politician do you think would make that decision now-a-days ?

You never know until it happens (which it won't).
No matter how hard you try to put spin on it, Argentina are less capable now than ever they were in '82, I'm surprised you haven't tried to draw parallels even further back in history.

And as for surprise amphip operations, apart from Dieppe possibly, ALL amphip ops are surprise ones, from WW2 through to Korea and Suez. They'd all fail otherwise wouldn't they.
 
That`ll be why we were never surprised by low level incoming then ?
Oh, hang on...
I think the reasons for that were well documented and undisputed. If you knew anything about how modern battlegroups work in this era of warfare, you'd possibly understand.

I would have thought 6th Jun 44 might have taken that tag ?
That's a bit irrelevant, isn't it? Are you drawing parallels with a totally covert amphibious expeditionary force retaking heavily fortified positions in the Falklands by a wholly under-resourced and -equipped second world nations state with Operation Overlord?

If you only need one T45 and one sub why haven`t The Admiralty cut back to this level ? Its just about the only stand alone fight we`d have, everything else being a multi-national affair.
Are you on drugs or something? What's with the final sentence, as if it means anything outside the 'Comments' bit on the Daily Mail website? We have six T45. We bought them to satisfy an operational profile based on future conflict and platform capability. One T45 would do the job of three T42 and two T22 out there. The rest would be swept up by the SSKs. That is ... if the Argentines had a navy to face this opposition. Take my word for it. I have seen the Argentine navy up close. You haven't. I work on T45. You don't. Cards on table. Your move. Try not to let supposition and bullshit get in the way of quantifying your come-back now.

Does every opinion have to be the book opinion, or you`re out ? Nothing stifles interesting debate like your behaviour.
No. But it helps when your opinion is reinforced by fact or experience, not blind trolling masquerading as fact and experience.

Funny thing about new shiny tech. When you read the brochure its all singing and all dancing, ready for anything. Like missiles, for instance. And yet in `82 a bunch of antiquated non supersonic planes, dropping dumb iron bombs, some of which didn`t even go off, sank a shit load of boats. If you`d have done a review in `81 you`d have never thought that that was a possibility.
These boats were designed and built during a fallow period in the RN, when our brief was GIUK gap warfare stopping the Northern Banner Fleet coming over the top or Atlantic combat against the Tupolev swarms. It wasn't made for close-in AAW, hence our vulnerability to these low level targets, and certainly subsonic second-generation ASMs, the likes of which we'd never seen before. Again, if you knew anything about the Royal Navy and had studied it at close quarters for the past four decades (like I have) then you'd possibly identify the myriad of lessons learned built into warships since and learn to accept then as being effective. Whatever you have - be it the best in the world - your enemies will always surprise you, and that goes for your enemies as well. One T45 can cover a heck of a lot of airspace with clean, effective radar. It can assign any number of long and medium range, agile, supersonic missiles to multiple targets, fire missile after missile and track each to its target. It can (despite rumours from people like you) hide in open sea, quickly realign it's stance, self defend, attack and coming soon, pick off distant surface targets with its SSM batteries. The Astutes are practically invisible, hampered only by depth. They can launch any detail of weapons and disappear to attack again using a shitload of clever tricks you don't know about. That is all I need to tell you. Us? Good. Argentines? Cack. Just accept it, and stop trying vainly to imagine there is any grain of credibility in your feeble speculation. Unless, of course, you know more about it all than me ...

Our most decisive leader since Winston baulked at attacking the mainland first time round, just which politician do you think would make that decision now-a-days ?
Oh Christ. Here we go. You DO write for the DM 'Comments', don't you?

'Most decisive leader'? This is the one who in 1981 wanted the navy down to little more than a coastal force by 1990? The one who instantly put 1.8m on the dole? The one who when faced with a seemingly insurmountable task of recovering British Sovereign Territory from an invading force 8000 miles away was (yes) considering dropping a low-yield nuclear device on Cordoba? The one who admittedly smashed the unions, but in the same action created the fresh-green shoots of a capitalist culture that is the sum of the parts of the current financial meltdown? The same woman who miscalculated the feeling of the British Public with Poll Tax and simply forgot the edicts of a constitutionally elected Cabinet-led government and butt-fucked her ministers? And, when it was all dark and the Falklands were under the blue and white flag, had to rely on the stoic leadership and determination of Admirals to shine a torch on the only pathway out of it. Most decisive leader, my ********. She only baulked because had she done so, it would have destroyed her instantly, brought down the government and country and handed the Falklands to the Argentines. Haig warned her of this. American support would have vanished and this country would have been fucked. No one would make that decision now-a-days because (as then - as she wanted to forget) it is against any NATO charter of self-defence that could be worked and invoked. No one would make it because nuclear devices are for use in strategic warfare, not for wiping out cities full of innocent people. Please think about what you write, eh?

Levers
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
Chris Craig (captain of HMS Alacrity in '82) in 'Call for Fire' makes it clear that "SSN's are good but not that good, it's one thing to say aircraft are inbound, but to be able to tell what their targets are" is a valid comment although he puts it rather differently, in the sense that the takeoffs were reported but the rest was down to the ships. The air warning radars of the day (like 965), standfast Seawolf's doppler radar, couldn't see through the land returns; they were designed to detect a threat from far away to a ship far out at sea.
 

Rocket_Ron

Lantern Swinger
In your haste to put me down, you`re not actually reading what i`m writing.
For example, Purple Twiglet mentioned the biggest surprise amphib assault, i commented that that would have been D-Day surely, Wrecker points out they`re all surprise, and LA says its not relevent.
Nowhere have I mentioned an amphibious assault, because thats not how i believe it`d happen. Re-supply yes, assault no.


No matter how hard you try to put spin on it, Argentina are less capable now than ever they were in '82,
Yes i agree. But our lack of ships, AWACS, MRA, fast jets, our world-wide commitments spreading us even thinner, our reducing numbers meaning more intense operations and less breaks in-between, mean we`re not as capable either. Whether our increasing use of, and advancing technology, can fill that gap is the discussion point.
I`m firmly in Stalin`s camp with this though, quantity has a quality all of its own.
Meaning this...
One T45 would do the job of three T42 and two T22 out there.
...is not strictly true, as it`d only take one unfortunate incident, anything from (using an `82 example again) using the Sat-Phone to running into a discarded fishing net, stopping the job. Obviously i accept that the comms incident won`t be repeated, but it highlights that we don`t know what we don`t know, silly little things can have huge consequences, and we can only hope a T45 is as good as the catalogue says it is.
 

WreckerL

War Hero
Just taking your first point. You say that you never mentioned an amphip assault so how do propose this mythical Argentine force invading then, I don't believe there is another way unless you envisge a mass para drop that sneaks in under the radar.
 

Rocket_Ron

Lantern Swinger
Well, if it were me, and i`m available as a consultant (from up here, down there`s too cold and windy), it`d be along the lines of Entebbe. Commercial airline, declared emergency, onto runway and SF come spilling out. Take a few key points, hold the airfield, await re-supply and reinforcements, home in time for tea.

Thats the basics. it works on targeting the weak links, human nature. E.g Nobody would authorise shooting down an airliner, not all defences would be on a war-footing/fully armed-wasn`t it The Maginot Line where the French OC Armoury had the weekend off with the key in his pocket ?

Of course it`ll never happen. But as i`ve always said, now that we`ve fortified it, if​ they did get in, we`d never get them out.
 

Rumrat

War Hero
Just taking your first point. You say that you never mentioned an amphip assault so how do propose this mythical Argentine force invading then, I don't believe there is another way unless you envisge a mass para drop that sneaks in under the radar.
Are you thick, stargate.
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
Of course, no one in RAF Mount Pleasant would ever have thought that a commercial airliner, flying thousands of miles off course on a flightpath seeing 3 commercial flights every 2 weeks may be landing in suspicious circumstances.
Then of course the 200 something SF, charging off a plane would naturally be able to kill everyone they meet, despite the base being huge in size, and full to the brim of people with guns and defensive positions. Then of course they can hold the runway whilst simaltaneously knocking out the dispersed AD sites, interceptors and so on.

Its a good thing the Argentines are supermen isnt it?
 

Rumrat

War Hero
Of course, no one in RAF Mount Pleasant would ever have thought that a commercial airliner, flying thousands of miles off course on a flightpath seeing 3 commercial flights every 2 weeks may be landing in suspicious circumstances.
Then of course the 200 something SF, charging off a plane would naturally be able to kill everyone they meet, despite the base being huge in size, and full to the brim of people with guns and defensive positions. Then of course they can hold the runway whilst simaltaneously knocking out the dispersed AD sites, interceptors and so on.

Its a good thing the Argentines are supermen isnt it?
Just like you to put a few obstacles in the way. Senor.
 
Of course, no one in RAF Mount Pleasant would ever have thought that a commercial airliner, flying thousands of miles off course on a flightpath seeing 3 commercial flights every 2 weeks may be landing in suspicious circumstances.
Then of course the 200 something SF, charging off a plane would naturally be able to kill everyone they meet, despite the base being huge in size, and full to the brim of people with guns and defensive positions. Then of course they can hold the runway whilst simaltaneously knocking out the dispersed AD sites, interceptors and so on.

Its a good thing the Argentines are supermen isnt it?
Oi! Let's not let facts and statistics get in the way of shit-stopping speculation and moronic conjecture, shall we? I mean, we have to build a credible story here, make the Argentines to be on par with the Israelis, ignore elephant-sized key points and blindly hope for the worst.

Levers
 

jrwlynch

Lantern Swinger
Well, if it were me, and i`m available as a consultant (from up here, down there`s too cold and windy), it`d be along the lines of Entebbe. Commercial airline, declared emergency, onto runway and SF come spilling out. Take a few key points, hold the airfield, await re-supply and reinforcements, home in time for tea.
Because of course a commercial airliner out of Argentina, hundreds of miles off the usual airlanes, flying no known schedule, will be instantly landed without question and told to taxi right over to the "CAPTURE AIRFIELD HERE" sign, won't it?

In fact, it gets told to circle and dump fuel for an hour or three (because it must be a transcontinental flight to be anywhere near Mount Pleasant being its nearest divert field, and so it must be massively heavy with Jet-A, and the runway's wet and a bit mossy and short for a fully-loaded widebody...) which gives plenty of time to form up and welcome it, and when it lands it gets told to park up well away from anywhere. Fire risks and all that... you *did* have an emergency, didn't you?

Now, you can try hastily disembarking your elite Buzos Tacticales from a 767 down the (bulletproof?) inflatable escape slides and having them fire-and-manoeuvre half a mile to anything significant, under GPMG fire (at least) all the way, but that sounds like the forgotten martial art of Stupid-Fu to me. "First, we smash our enemy's knuckles with a brutal jaw strike! Then, we shatter his kneecap with our testicles! And to finish him off, we fall to the ground and bite the steel toecaps off his boots with our teeth!"
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top