Falklands war - the sequel?

[Mikey]

Yeah, I get it. Still doesn't help with what's become the modern application of a carrier, though.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Against the Argentinian air force's level of technology, can drones be possibly be used in an Air Superiority role, or it's nit likely yet?

I wonder how much less a dedicated Drone Carrier would cost to operate compared to an equivalent traditional carrier.

[Mikey]

I wasn't aware that anyone was fielding drones that were built to perform an air-superiority role.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I wasn't aware that anyone was fielding drones that were built to perform an air-superiority role.

I am far from saying they are. I was just wondering if anything of the kind had been presented, even if its not the sort of drone that would be the most in demand at the time.

[Deepcrush]

GK snip

I'm not saying that they would launch such an attack or that it would end on good terms for them. Simply that it is possible given the current defenses the UK has deployed to the area. Also, while wiki is nice to have, I'm not willing to bet the safety and control of a region to it. Also, at only a few hundred miles you don't have to just use ships. At that range, passenger aircraft could be used to ferry a few hundred troops a piece.

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.

They may have been highly trained by AFAR standards at the time, but they were laughable in comparison to anything but greens fresh out of boot by US standards. The problem is that now you have a lot of the AFAR troops having trained with the US, UK and Germany. So they are likely to be far better off.

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.

Great, a unit six years out of combat and likely to have replaced much of its numbers since and some police? That's really only hurting my faith in the UK's ability to hold the ground.

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

Doubtful, an untried fleet unit against an enemy that can simply wear said fleet down by sheer numbers. Again, your religion of "UK rules all" doesn't inspire me anymore then any other form of propaganda. The RN has also largely crippled itself by dropping what little carrier power it already had. You went from three jeep carriers to one and now you're facing a possible threat that could out number you in the air without hope of reinforcements. This again leaves it possible for the AFAR to exploit the current UK weakness if they can accept the losses in aircraft at the start.

[Captain Seafort]

Also, at only a few hundred miles you don't have to just use ships. At that range, passenger aircraft could be used to ferry a few hundred troops a piece.

Against a Rapier battery? Don't be daft.

They may have been highly trained by AFAR standards at the time, but they were laughable in comparison to anything but greens fresh out of boot by US standards.

So was most of the US army at the time - you were only just recovering from Vietnam. In any event, the troops who took the Falklands were just as good as a typical NATO squaddie - fortunately for us Pinochet promptly started posturing along the border and the Argies had to pull all their decent troops back to guard against him, which meant they had to send badly-trained conscripts to the Falklands.

Great, a unit six years out of combat and likely to have replaced much of its numbers since and some police?

And? We're still talking about a unit of one of the best armies on the planet, sitting behind three layers of the best AA kit on the planet.

Doubtful, an untried fleet unit against an enemy that can simply wear said fleet down by sheer numbers.

No, it isn't - the Argies, as I keep trying to tell you, don't have enough operational aircraft to wear their way through.

Again, your religion of "UK rules all" doesn't inspire me anymore then any other form of propaganda.

I've never said anything of the sort - I've simply said that we'd kick the shit out of anything the Argies can throw at us. Against something like an MEU it would, obviously, be an entirely different matter.

The RN has also largely crippled itself by dropping what little carrier power it already had.

I wouldn't say crippled - it's still vastly more capable than the majority of the world's navies, but I agree that it's been centuries since it was this weak.

you're facing a possible threat that could out number you in the air without hope of reinforcements.

Who said anything about no reinforcements - we can massively beef up the Falklands defences within 48 hours.

This again leaves it possible for the AFAR to exploit the current UK weakness if they can accept the losses in aircraft at the start.

Again, you're assuming their losses would leave them with the ability to land any troops.

[alexmann]

And? We're still talking about a unit of one of the best armies on the planet, sitting behind three layers of the best AA kit on the planet.

Thank you. The Air Force is still better though.

[Deepcrush]

Against a Rapier battery? Don't be daft.

Which was the point of me pointing out that an airstrike would be used PRIOR to such landing.

So was most of the US army at the time - you were only just recovering from Vietnam.

Yes, of course... glad you put some thought into that statement. Most of the US Army was trained by bootcamp standards...

From here out its not my fault that I can't take you seriously anymore if you can't be bothered to think before replying.

In any event, the troops who took the Falklands were just as good as a typical NATO squaddie - fortunately for us Pinochet promptly started posturing along the border and the Argies had to pull all their decent troops back to guard against him, which meant they had to send badly-trained conscripts to the Falklands.

Yeah, since most NATO troops have trouble with the idea of "Fire and move" that doesn't help your point much.

And? We're still talking about a unit of one of the best armies on the planet, sitting behind three layers of the best AA kit on the planet.

Being A company of a largely green unit that could be facing several divisions of troops of similar ability...

No, it isn't - the Argies, as I keep trying to tell you, don't have enough operational aircraft to wear their way through.

You keep trying to tell me that your opinion based off of wiki based off of other peoples guesses about the AFAR is that they don't have enough to wear their way through your opinion of the UK's forces based off of wiki based off of other peoples guess based on simulations as it hasn't been tested in combat and that I should trust in said opinion layering.

Still not inspiring at all.

I wouldn't say crippled - it's still vastly more capable than the majority of the world's navies, but I agree that it's been centuries since it was this weak.

From three to one is crippled, the only further to go would be zero carriers (which you guys plan to do anyways) which counts as destroyed.

Who said anything about no reinforcements - we can massively beef up the Falklands defences within 48 hours.

With what? What kind of reserve force do you have in the area and why isn't it already on call?

Again, you're assuming their losses would leave them with the ability to land any troops.

I'm assuming that it is POSSIBLE. Which has been my point this whole time, that the issue is possible. Because hand waving a victory out of suspected ability is something I leave to Bush Jr.

[Captain Seafort]

Which was the point of me pointing out that an airstrike would be used PRIOR to such landing.

An airstrike with what? The ground attack aircraft that had already been shot down by the Typhoons, the T45 or the Rapier? Once again, you are talking about 40-50 aircraft, most of which are several decades old, against four of the best interceptors in the world, one of the best AAW ships in the world, and the Rapier battery.

You keep trying to tell me that your opinion based off of wiki based off of other peoples guesses about the AFAR is that they don't have enough to wear their way through your opinion of the UK's forces based off of wiki based off of other peoples guess based on simulations as it hasn't been tested in combat and that I should trust in said opinion layering.

And your opinion is that a few dozen examples of old badly maintained junk can get through some of the best kit on the planet. You're being stupid.

From three to one is crippled, the only further to go would be zero carriers (which you guys plan to do anyways) which counts as destroyed.

There are no plans to go to zero - we'll go down to one when Ocean goes into refit, stay there when she comes out and Lusty's scrapped, and go up again when QE comes into service. Not ideal, but we'll have to make do.

With what? What kind of reserve force do you have in the area and why isn't it already on call?

We'll reinforce from the UK, basing AAR from Ascension - Mount Pleasant can take any heavy transport aircraft.

I'm assuming that it is POSSIBLE. Which has been my point this whole time, that the issue is possible.

No, it isn't possible baring gross stupidity on the part of the local commander.

[Deepcrush]

An airstrike with what? The ground attack aircraft that had already been shot down by the Typhoons, the T45 or the Rapier? Once again, you are talking about 40-50 aircraft, most of which are several decades old, against four of the best interceptors in the world, one of the best AAW ships in the world, and the Rapier battery.

And your point is... what exactly? Maybe you could show me some information on the last time those four interceptors successfully took on 12:1 odds and won? Maybe you can show me why those four interceptors are immune to explosions? Maybe you can show me a battle that had the T45 take out four dozen aircraft?

Any of that would be nice, otherwise all your preaching is nothing but propaganda.

And your opinion is that a few dozen examples of old badly maintained junk can get through some of the best kit on the planet. You're being stupid.

Wrong three times in one sentence, that's good even by your standards. A, I never said anything about badly maintained anything. I haven't seen anything that says anything about the AFAR airforce falling apart. B, I said could not can. C, Questioning your opinion when you've provided nothing but "because you say so" answers isn't stupid. Its simply called questioning. If you came into my classroom and tried to turn in a paper with an essay stating "You are right because you say so and to question what you say so is stupid". Not only would I fail you but I'd have your parents brought in to explain why they are embarrassing you by allowing you to attend public school. Then I would have your parents put on report for neglect of child.

There are no plans to go to zero - we'll go down to one when Ocean goes into refit, stay there when she comes out and Lusty's scrapped, and go up again when QE comes into service. Not ideal, but we'll have to make do.

So then, yes... you're carrier based abilities are simply crippled until you can get the QE to service.

We'll reinforce from the UK, basing AAR from Ascension - Mount Pleasant can take any heavy transport aircraft.

And what kind of reinforcements will those bring? How quickly can the UK ship them? How soon can they be combat able?

No, it isn't possible baring gross stupidity on the part of the local commander.

Really? Not possible? Care to show why that is by chance. Maybe something about your government laughing it off... no, no they're taking it seriously. What about the US, you're most likely support if things fall apart for you... no, again the US is also taking it as seriously as any 1st rate power can take any two 2nd rates arguing without just stepping in directly. Maybe you can show the PRC making a stand against Argentina's stance... ah that's another no since they're helping to fund Argentina in exchange for oil rights. Could be maybe that the AFAR haven't been able to put their aircraft up... minus they were at the Joint Flight Expo for Chile, Argentina, Brazil and a couple other southern and central American countries. And if they're in the air, moving and not crashing in a horrible ball of fire with people screaming for mercy then its very POSSIBLE that they were in the air under their own power.

Again, do you have any proof as to why its not possible?

[Graham Kennedy]

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?

The RN aren't the ones writing the cheques.

British military history since World War II has been one long story of the treasury saying "we can't afford that". And they get away with it because military spending just isn't a very high priority for most of the British Public. Sad but true.

[Mikey]

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?

The RN aren't the ones writing the cheques.

British military history since World War II has been one long story of the treasury saying "we can't afford that". And they get away with it because military spending just isn't a very high priority for most of the British Public. Sad but true.

Well, I know the RN doesn't write its own budget, but I didn't realize that it would be willing to go ahead with the QE project if it meant crippling its current carrier power in order to bolster such in the future. Especially not for a nation with a maritime history like yours.

[Graham Kennedy]

Well, I know the RN doesn't write its own budget, but I didn't realize that it would be willing to go ahead with the QE project if it meant crippling its current carrier power in order to bolster such in the future. Especially not for a nation with a maritime history like yours.

The original intent was to have the carriers ready in around 2014, as I recall. The original plan was to phase the Invincibles out as the QEs came in. But then with the delays in the F35 project, they figured they'd save money by slowing down the carrier building project. Honestly they really wanted to cancel the QEs completely. Trouble was that they'd already spent a lot of the budget on them, and the original contracts had whopping big penalties built in if the government cancelled. The result was that it was cheaper to finish the ships than cancel them, so they have the wonderful idea now of completing both, then immediately putting one into mothballs. They'll probably end up selling it or just scrapping it, truth be told - not long ago they finished rebuilding all our maritime patrol Nimrods at huge cost only to immediately to chop them up for scrap just as they entered service because it was too expensive to operate them.

Being stuck with the QEs, they figured they'd save some money by retiring most of the Invincibles early, keeping only a minimal force active. Then they figured to save even more by retiring all the Sea Harriers and using the last Invincible as a helicopter ship whilst HMS Ocean was in refit. It left a huge hole in capability, but then it saved money and that's what they actually care about.

That's just how it goes in the British armed forces. Spend a fortune on equipment, then penny pinch it to death all along the line.

Latest bit I heard on the Falklands :

The South American country's foreign minister claimed that Trident nuclear missiles were being carried on board a submarine deployed to the region by the Royal Navy.
It comes as tensions continue to rise over the islands, which are claimed by the Argentinians as their territory.
The allegation was immediately rebuffed by a senior British diplomat, who also described claims by the Argentinians that military bases on the island could be used to launch attacks on South America as "absurd".
Hector Timerman, the Argentinian foreign minister, accused the British of sending the nuclear submarine into a nuclear-free zone and lodged a formal protest at the United Nations.
He said Britain was "militarising the region" after the Royal Navy sent one of its most advanced warship to the islands, and as Prince William enters the second week of his six-week tour of duty there as an RAF search and rescue pilot.

The only nuclear weapons that the British possess are aboard the Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines. I rather doubt one of those has been sent to the Falklands... if only because there's no actual need to. Given that their missiles have a range of some 7,000 miles, they could quite happily nuke Argentine from the English Channel. Sailing them down south would only bring them closer to the Argentine anti submarine defences, such as they are.

The whole Argentine position is pretty stupid, but this really is an absolutely absurd claim.

[Mikey]

As is the idea that the UK is preparing to launch an invasion of Argentina from a base which is the military equivalent of the Nome, Alaska post office.

As to the QE project... with only two in the works, surely you couldn't recoup nearly enough from selling one to offset half the development and construction costs?

[Graham Kennedy]

You have to understand how the treasury thinks. They've already spent most of the development costs and a good portion of the construction costs. They can't do anything about that, so they are going after the operating costs. Half as many ships means half as much money to spend from now on. It means that much of what is spent so far is wasted, but so what? Spent is spent as far as they're concerned. Their interest is in reducing what they have to spend from now on.