Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped 
Author Message
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
jonlumb wrote:
For something that takes a more active role, it's got to deal with the constantly updating technology of whatever is being perceived as a threat.


You mean like Nimrod? Based on a 1940s jet airliner... ;)

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:45 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
EddArmitage wrote:
And more importantly to me, personally, the Harriers are being retired sooner rather than later.
+1
We can live with one carrier, but a carrier without jets is pointless.

So now:
We're finding oil in the Falklands
We've got nothing to defend them with.

What's the betting the Argies go for attempt #2?

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:28 am
Profile WWW
Doesn't have much of a life
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:10 pm
Posts: 1057
Reply with quote
Well if the Argies have another go they will be up against the new Typhoon fighter/bomber squadrons that are based on the Falklands along with the several thousand army garrison - so security has been beefed up a bit since the 1980's :lol:

_________________
Image


Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:38 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
JohnSheridan wrote:
Well if the Argies have another go they will be up against the new Typhoon fighter/bomber squadrons that are based on the Falklands along with the several thousand army garrison - so security has been beefed up a bit since the 1980's :lol:

It's a little incongruous to call the Typhoon a fighter/bomber; it's a fighter that's been fitted with bomb hard points but it's a very imbalanced design in terms of air to ground capability. The pilot might as well be leaning over the side chucking the bombs down by hand.

The garrison is the major deterrent, along with the fact Whitehall has let it be known that there's generally at least one nuclear powered HK sub in the south atlantic most of the time. Hard to stage an amphibious invasion if half your ships have been sunk already.

Jon


Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:38 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
JohnSheridan wrote:
Well if the Argies have another go they will be up against the new Typhoon fighter/bomber squadrons that are based on the Falklands along with the several thousand army garrison - so security has been beefed up a bit since the 1980's :lol:

As long as they have a back up plan like sell the Falklands if the Argies make a successful attack. If they do beat the existing defences then we have nothing for a few years. By which point the whole situation will look very different. That will bring down the government. The existence of the HK subs is crucial. I would rather our conventional forces be boosted at the expense of Trident.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:44 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
JohnSheridan wrote:
Well if the Argies have another go they will be up against the new Typhoon fighter/bomber squadrons that are based on the Falklands along with the several thousand army garrison - so security has been beefed up a bit since the 1980's :lol:

They're only as good as their supply lines. And that far away the supply lines are stretched indeed. Unless they stock pile fuel, bombs and missles etc.
Amnesia10 wrote:
I would rather our conventional forces be boosted at the expense of Trident.
+1

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:12 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
They're only as good as their supply lines. And that far away the supply lines are stretched indeed. Unless they stock pile fuel, bombs and missles etc.

Plus you'd assume if the Argies did plan on invading, the first thing they'd do is take out the Falklands airstrip, since Typhoons don't have the Harrier's ability to use makeshift runways. A landside base, unlike a carrier, can't move out of the way to avoid attack. Although you'd assume the Falklands airstrip is pretty well protected from both air and land attack. The SAS/SBS could probably still take it out but I don't think the Argentine army has anyone that good...

Jon


Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:17 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.