www.ditl.org

GrahamKennedy wrote:I'd have thought the T45 would do rather better than half a dozen. It's specifically designed to deal with saturation attack by many, many attackers. Hard info is difficult to come by but a documentary on the building of the class stated that it could engage 36 targets simultaneously, whilst I've seen an interview with a guy who worked on the project and said "The thing that Sea Viper brings to the party relative to that is the number of fire control channels – there are many many more than on the Type-42. So, that allows us to overcome some of the Soviet-type saturation attacks where you get 20, 30, 40 plus missiles being fired at you; the Type-45 would be able to engage all those targets, near-simultaneously"

It's limited to carrying 48 missiles, so between them one Type 45 and the Typhoons should heavily chew up even a hundred plane raid. Of course neither system will be 100% effective, but then neither will the attackers either.

I've read a little bit on the numbers, but for me its a question of theory vs true ability. How much faith can I put in one ship and four aircraft against nearly a hundred. How much faith can I put in 500 light infantry vs upwards of 20,000 AFAR light infantry.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:But that kind of highly operational force requires a lot of supply to operate effectively. And if the Falkland Islands really fall in Argentinian hands, I just don't see the UK just wash their hands. Is the UK fleet that spread out that it can't possibly achieve naval and air superiority over the islands when Round 2 of the war would come around?

Depends on how "highly" operational they want it to be. If they are just landing infantry, a few tanks and some shoulder launched missiles then all you need is some ammo and a grocery store.

Deepcrush wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:I'd have thought the T45 would do rather better than half a dozen. It's specifically designed to deal with saturation attack by many, many attackers. Hard info is difficult to come by but a documentary on the building of the class stated that it could engage 36 targets simultaneously, whilst I've seen an interview with a guy who worked on the project and said "The thing that Sea Viper brings to the party relative to that is the number of fire control channels – there are many many more than on the Type-42. So, that allows us to overcome some of the Soviet-type saturation attacks where you get 20, 30, 40 plus missiles being fired at you; the Type-45 would be able to engage all those targets, near-simultaneously"

It's limited to carrying 48 missiles, so between them one Type 45 and the Typhoons should heavily chew up even a hundred plane raid. Of course neither system will be 100% effective, but then neither will the attackers either.

I've read a little bit on the numbers, but for me its a question of theory vs true ability. How much faith can I put in one ship and four aircraft against nearly a hundred. How much faith can I put in 500 light infantry vs upwards of 20,000 AFAR light infantry.

Indeed. But then how much faith do we have that the Argentine air force is even capable of mounting a major strike operation? As I said earlier, they never even tried to do so in the last war even though the number of Harriers in the air at any given time was quite small, and they were far less capable than Typhoons. Not to mention how poor the ship defences were in general.

I went to look at the wiki article on their airforce and it's even less impressive than I thought. The bulk of it is comprised of the same aircraft they were using thirty years ago. 14 Daggers, 15 Mirage III and 5, and 34 A-4AR. That's 63 rather elderly aircraft and that's it, that's their entire combat force. The rest of the air force is made up of propellor driven light ground attack aircraft, utility transports and helicopters, and an aerobatic team. No idea what their training, maintenance and support is like, but I doubt that force is going to be launching saturation attacks against anybody.

As for those 20,000 troops - sailed to the island by ship, with a nuclear submarine around? A Trafalgar is a world above the Churchill class used in the Falklands, and an Astute is arguably the best submarine in the world (and certainly in the top three). And then to conduct an opposed landing. And it's even crazier if they try it without air superiority.

Not saying it's impossible for them by any means, but neither would it be a sure thing for them. And it must weigh on their minds that the last government that failed was summarily booted out of office for it.

GrahamKennedy wrote:I'd have thought the T45 would do rather better than half a dozen. It's specifically designed to deal with saturation attack by many, many attackers. Hard info is difficult to come by but a documentary on the building of the class stated that it could engage 36 targets simultaneously, whilst I've seen an interview with a guy who worked on the project and said "The thing that Sea Viper brings to the party relative to that is the number of fire control channels – there are many many more than on the Type-42. So, that allows us to overcome some of the Soviet-type saturation attacks where you get 20, 30, 40 plus missiles being fired at you; the Type-45 would be able to engage all those targets, near-simultaneously"

It's limited to carrying 48 missiles, so between them one Type 45 and the Typhoons should heavily chew up even a hundred plane raid. Of course neither system will be 100% effective, but then neither will the attackers either.

They said that it is capable of simultaneously engaging five times and many targets as a type 42.

Deepcrush wrote:Also, where in the last war you were fighting untrained conscripts, you'll be facing troops who in some cases have been trained by British/American/German troops during UN training operations.

The troops who originally invaded were highly-trained professionals - a combination of special forces and marines. They still took far longer than they should have to subdue the RM force, given the disparity in numbers and equipment.

You have 500 trained light infantry on site, with some civil patrol type reserves.

We've got less than that in terms of actually infantry - only a single company. Total numbers, however, are over a thousand, and and you can put money on every single one of them getting involved if the Argies put boots on the ground.

How much faith can I put in one ship and four aircraft against nearly a hundred.

When the few are the best in the world and the many are obsolete junk, a lot.

How much faith can I put in 500 light infantry vs upwards of 20,000 AFAR light infantry.

Not much - the point that I keep making is that there's no chance in hell of Argies getting that many onto the islands in the first place.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Is the UK fleet that spread out that it can't possibly achieve naval and air superiority over the islands when Round 2 of the war would come around?

It's not a matter of being spread out - last time the RN virtually abandoned all its standing commitments to head south. The problem is that we have no fixed wing naval air capability whatsoever, and won't until Queen Elizabeth commissions. Until then we're reliant on a single helicopter carrier, which is in no way shape or form capable of providing the necessary air support to retake the Falklands.

As an aside,

Captain Seafort wrote:we have no fixed wing naval air capability whatsoever, and won't until Queen Elizabeth commissions.

How the hell did the RN let things get to this point? Surely, they could have kept one or two carriers - even outdated ones - around until the QE was floating?

Captain Seafort wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Is the UK fleet that spread out that it can't possibly achieve naval and air superiority over the islands when Round 2 of the war would come around?

It's not a matter of being spread out - last time the RN virtually abandoned all its standing commitments to head south. The problem is that we have no fixed wing naval air capability whatsoever, and won't until Queen Elizabeth commissions. Until then we're reliant on a single helicopter carrier, which is in no way shape or form capable of providing the necessary air support to retake the Falklands.

/goes reading up on current Royal Navy's aircraft carrier conundrum

I see. Yhea, you are thoroughly screwed in that regard. Who's idea was it to leave the fleet with almost no fighter carrying capability?

A ten-year gap of having to rely on the Americans and the French... Yuck. At least, the QueEz looks nifty.

Mikey wrote:How the hell did the RN let things get to this point? Surely, they could have kept one or two carriers - even outdated ones - around until the QE was floating?

We are keeping a couple of carriers - Lusty till 2014, the Ocean. The problem is that we've got nothing to fly off them since the Harrier was taken out of service.

Bottom line is that we're skint.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:How the hell did the RN let things get to this point? Surely, they could have kept one or two carriers - even outdated ones - around until the QE was floating?

We are keeping a couple of carriers - Lusty till 2014, the Ocean. The problem is that we've got nothing to fly off them since the Harrier was taken out of service.

Bottom line is that we're skint.

Oh, OK. That's much better planning. Well, at least you've got a couple of... flat-topped tenders?

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:How the hell did the RN let things get to this point? Surely, they could have kept one or two carriers - even outdated ones - around until the QE was floating?

We are keeping a couple of carriers - Lusty till 2014, the Ocean. The problem is that we've got nothing to fly off them since the Harrier was taken out of service.

Bottom line is that we're skint.

It's far from the first time the Crown is getting short on money. Yet never before you had to sacrifice national security imperatives to make ends meet. Relying on the Americans for the airstrike projections?

Let's hope nobody dares exploit that opportunity before 2016.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Yet never before you had to sacrifice national security imperatives to make ends meet.

Far from the first time - we came off the two-power standard in 1922 because we couldn't afford it. We came off the one-power standard after WW2 because we couldn't afford it. We withdrew from East of Suez because we couldn't afford it. We cancelled CVA-01, mothballed Eagle and then scrapped the old Ark because we couldn't afford it.

Mikey wrote:Well, at least you've got a couple of... flat-topped tenders?

They're good enough if you've got fixed-wing air support provided by another source, as was proven last year in Libya. The problems start if you need to take your air support with you.

Kinda the point of an "aircraft carrier," innit?

Mikey wrote:Kinda the point of an "aircraft carrier," innit?

They carry plenty of aircraft, just not the fixed-wing variety.