Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by warrenpenalver)
    Has to be one of the best media headlines of all time!!
    ha ha, glad you liked it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    I'd argue that it wasn't a threat, and that the reason the UK decided to sink it was more or less along the same lines as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    What, to win?
    Awfully sorry for trying to win the war, old chap.

    On the title:
    If they invaded, take the island back, sink every single Argentine Naval Ship we lay our sights on (when we sank the Belgrano it was escorted by two destroyers that we could have also sunk, but didn't for some stupid reason)
    Totally incapacitate their military and use 'strong words' (ie: If you ever do this again we will bomb your homeland) and then be done with it.

    And to all those saying we couldn't take them back...we certainly could. Especially if it's after our new carriers and destroyers are fully commissioned, plus, the four Typhoons that are stationed on the Falklands would down any and every Argie fighter before the Argie knew he was being shot at. To this end it is actually quite possible that we wouldn't need the aircraft carriers.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I've updated the pictures from earlier - this post to give an idea of the sort of wildlife down there, it's not all about oil and strategic interests.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    when we sank the Belgrano it was escorted by two destroyers that we could have also sunk, but didn't for some stupid reason
    It wasnt necessary to sink the 2 destroyers at the time and later on it wasnt needed as the argentinians turned yellow and ran crying home to mummy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by warrenpenalver)
    It wasnt necessary to sink the 2 destroyers at the time and later on it wasnt needed as the argentinians turned yellow and ran crying home to mummy.
    When you're in a war destroying the enemy is necerssarry. And how were they meant to know the Argentines would surrender later on?

    Benefit of hindsight eh?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    When you're in a war destroying the enemy is necerssarry. And how were they meant to know the Argentines would surrender later on?

    Benefit of hindsight eh?
    Nope its called following orders and also simple submarine tactics.

    If it was as black and white as you suggested then wed have sunk every ship, killed every argie soldier, bombed every argie base etc etc etc.

    You dont need to destroy the enemy but defeat them. The two do not necessarily have to go together.

    The British followed the belgrano for 3 days before sinking it following a decision by the PM.

    There was no need to loiter in the area once the basic damage assessment was complete. Remaining will increase your chance of detection. The 2 destroyers were not aware of the belgranos sinking but were dropping depth charges due to believing theyd been fired on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Unfortunatly we no longer have the ability to do anything whatsoever apart from perhaps writing a stern letter in true British fashion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    What, to win?
    Awfully sorry for trying to win the war, old chap.

    On the title:
    If they invaded, take the island back, sink every single Argentine Naval Ship we lay our sights on (when we sank the Belgrano it was escorted by two destroyers that we could have also sunk, but didn't for some stupid reason)
    Totally incapacitate their military and use 'strong words' (ie: If you ever do this again we will bomb your homeland) and then be done with it.

    And to all those saying we couldn't take them back...we certainly could. Especially if it's after our new carriers and destroyers are fully commissioned, plus, the four Typhoons that are stationed on the Falklands would down any and every Argie fighter before the Argie knew he was being shot at. To this end it is actually quite possible that we wouldn't need the aircraft carriers.
    Yes 4 Eurofighters armed to the teeth with "several" missiles would be able to shoot down an invading force?

    Perhaps we could bomb them from 4000 miles away like last time? Oh damm we don't have any bombers anymore.

    Send the Royal Navy? Yea we probably have a couple of rowing boats on standby somewhere that the cadets will be making full use of. Maybe we could send the two aircraft carriers that we didnt buy in time?

    Shall I go on...?

    p.s. Post may contain sarcasm and nuts.


    Q_M
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Q_M)
    Yes 4 Eurofighters armed to the teeth with "several" missiles would be able to shoot down an invading force?

    Perhaps we could bomb them from 4000 miles away like last time? Oh damm we don't have any bombers anymore.

    Send the Royal Navy? Yea we probably have a couple of rowing boats on standby somewhere that the cadets will be making full use of. Maybe we could send the two aircraft carriers that we didnt buy in time?

    Shall I go on...?

    p.s. Post may contain sarcasm and nuts.


    Q_M
    Well, as you have an RAF symbol in your display pic, and yet have still misspelled 'hangar' as your location, your opinion doesn't go very far.

    Still, an invading Argentine force would likely only contain a couple dozen aircraft, including 1960s Mirage 5As, a few less than capable A-4s and a 'Finger' or two, then yes, a modern Typhoon that is faster, more agile and equipped with longer range missiles than any of them (possibly even the METEOR missile if they 'invaded' in a couple of years) then yes, it is entirely plausible that these four Typhoons could hold off a much larger force than themselves.

    PLUS, Typhoons in Britain would also be dispatched, as well as transport aircraft transporting more missiles to the area.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Argie Millitary then only were able to sink ships because the French sold them exocet missiles (typical, it would be the bloody French right?)

    Their pilots were good (probably still are) but their ground troops didn't have the training or skills to match. Most retreated, left their positions and ran like cowards.

    Those were stupid enough to stay were mostly killed.

    I doubt it's really changed that much in 28 years. I bet their ground troops are still shocking.

    Also bear in mind that some of the first Argie troops landed were commando's, and then other soldiers and armour to back them up and they were still held off by a small detachment of Royal Marines for a certain length of time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    Well, as you have an RAF symbol in your display pic, and yet have still misspelled 'hangar' as your location, your opinion doesn't go very far.

    Still, an invading Argentine force would likely only contain a couple dozen aircraft, including 1960s Mirage 5As, a few less than capable A-4s and a 'Finger' or two, then yes, a modern Typhoon that is faster, more agile and equipped with longer range missiles than any of them (possibly even the METEOR missile if they 'invaded' in a couple of years) then yes, it is entirely plausible that these four Typhoons could hold off a much larger force than themselves.

    PLUS, Typhoons in Britain would also be dispatched, as well as transport aircraft transporting more missiles to the area.
    Oh dear I got a letter wrong...my opinion must be void. I'll have to change it urgently. Ah...done. Now that I have an RAF roundel and have spelt hangar correctly I'm back in the game?

    How long do you expect four aircraft to hold off an invasion from air and sea realistically? I'm not actually sure that the Eurofighter even has its air to sea capability at all yet?

    It wouldnt get as far as that anyway. The government would just give it to them straight away anyway.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Spoof)
    Also bear in mind that some of the first Argie troops landed were commando's, and then other soldiers and armour to back them up and they were still held off by a small detachment of Royal Marines for a certain length of time.
    An excellent film to watch on this subject is "An Ungentlemanly Act."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Q_M)
    Oh dear I got a letter wrong...my opinion must be void. I'll have to change it urgently. Ah...done. Now that I have an RAF roundel and have spelt hangar correctly I'm back in the game?

    How long do you expect four aircraft to hold off an invasion from air and sea realistically? I'm not actually sure that the Eurofighter even has its air to sea capability at all yet?

    It wouldnt get as far as that anyway. The government would just give it to them straight away anyway.
    Well done, I'm proud of you.

    Four aircraft of this quality would deny the Argentines air superiority, it doesn't matter if they can get their ships into the area (which is doubtful anyway as our submarines would be there sharpish and hopefully sink everything they had) but if they did manage to land troops, our infantry, coupled with the ground attack capability of the Typhoon would certainly grind their forces down to a halt. (I dont think that the Argies have aircraft carriers in their fleet? Not sure about that)

    Then, within one or two days another squadron of Typhoons, and any other land launched aircraft could be in the area to help.
    (With possibly further help in the form of the CVF armed with 30 F-35s on its way)

    It would probably actually be easier than last time.

    But, as you send, this is assuming that our current government would jump to the Falklands aid. Which I sincerely hope they would.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    Well done, I'm proud of you.

    Four aircraft of this quality would deny the Argentines air superiority, it doesn't matter if they can get their ships into the area (which is doubtful anyway as our submarines would be there sharpish and hopefully sink everything they had) but if they did manage to land troops, our infantry, coupled with the ground attack capability of the Typhoon would certainly grind their forces down to a halt. (I dont think that the Argies have aircraft carriers in their fleet? Not sure about that)

    Then, within one or two days another squadron of Typhoons, and any other land launched aircraft could be in the area to help.
    (With possibly further help in the form of the CVF armed with 30 F-35s on its way)

    It would probably actually be easier than last time.

    But, as you send, this is assuming that our current government would jump to the Falklands aid. Which I sincerely hope they would.
    1...I don't know if you realise but at some point those 4 F2s (with very little ground attack capability if any) will have to land and re-arm at the airfield which if I was in charge would have been attacked first?

    2...What are we going to do if they send a fleet to wipe out the airfield? Spit at them?

    3...What fleet are we going to send "sharpish"? We don't have anything available. Everything we've got is either wrecked, being repaired, being tested because its brand new or in Somalia casually watching people being kidnapped by pirates.

    4...How are those "one or two Sqns" of F2s going to get to the Falklands in a couple of days...if at all?

    5...We don't have any F35s at the moment and again we have no way of getting them there.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If I recall correctly, a single Typhoon was able to defeat several F-16s during trials in Singapore a few years ago (as well as unconfirmed rumours of them getting the better of F-22s in close range engagements). I think four of them should be able to cause significant damage to Argentine assets until such time as reinforcements arrive.

    Still, a war won't happen.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    An excellent film to watch on this subject is "An Ungentlemanly Act."
    Love that film! With old what'shisface in it. The House of Cards chappy.

    Very jealous of the Governor's car and bonnet flag. And feathery hat.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    Love that film! With old what'shisface in it. The House of Cards chappy.

    Very jealous of the Governor's car and bonnet flag. And feathery hat.
    Yes I know who you mean, can't remember his name and I am too lazy to look it up right now (and the laptop I am using is too slow.

    It's a good film about the build up to it, and the fight the Royal marines put up.

    I watched it all on youtube, hopefully it's still there. The whole film.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You're right. It is on Facetube. Here it is for anyone interested.

    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...y+act&rclk=pti
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Q_M)
    1...I don't know if you realise but at some point those 4 F2s (with very little ground attack capability if any) will have to land and re-arm at the airfield which if I was in charge would have been attacked first?

    2...What are we going to do if they send a fleet to wipe out the airfield? Spit at them?

    3...What fleet are we going to send "sharpish"? We don't have anything available. Everything we've got is either wrecked, being repaired, being tested because its brand new or in Somalia casually watching people being kidnapped by pirates.

    4...How are those "one or two Sqns" of F2s going to get to the Falklands in a couple of days...if at all?

    5...We don't have any F35s at the moment and again we have no way of getting them there.
    The Typhoon has 13 points where it can carry weapons. It is likely that most of these, if not all, in the event of an Argentine invasion would be dedicated for use by air-to-air missiles. If we assume six would be used as BVR (Beyond Visual Range missiles) then we can also assume that the four Typhoons would inflict twenty-four losses on the Argentines with one flyout, as I doubt the evasive effectiveness of the Argentine fighters, and this isn't even counting the WVR missiles they would be carrying, nor the Rapier missiles launched by ground forces, nor by anti-aircraft missile launcher by the Royal Navy. The Argentine ability to withstand such losses is non-existant.

    A fleet? What fleet?

    I said we'd send our Nuclear Submarines sharpish, and as there are always two of these one patrol at any one time, these could be both dispatched immediately to the Falklands area and there within a fortnight, ready to cause significant damage to any 'fleet' the Argentines sent. In fact, as we now have a significant military presence on the islands, if the government seriously felt the Falklands was once more threatened they would likely send the subs as a precaution in case of invasion.

    Typhoons would easily get to the Falklands within a few days, with either mid-flight refuelling or stopping off in the US or another nation.

    I said 'if the Argies attacked when we have our F35s', which means we WOULD have F35s, and most likely also have our CVFs as well to get them there. Couple this with the fact that we'd also have our Type 45s fully operational, the effectiveness of the outdated Argie air force is basically nullified.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If the Argentinians attacked the Falklands again - they would need a few things.

    - A very substantial force which could quickly take and heavily reinforce the island.

    - Heavy naval and air force elements to defend the airspace and waterways leading to the island

    - a good and well organized logistical operation to keep the units well supplied

    - a professional and non conscripted armed force that could have at least some chance of standing up to the very well trained and now largely battle hardened units (due to the war on terror) of the British armed forces.

    - modern equipment which would have a chance of defending against very high tech weaponry in the British fleet.

    This would all take massive backing from the government and a huge sum of money to provide all these resources that are needed to provide them, the military would need to be drilled extensively in beach landing operations and a campaign of naval/army cooperation would need to be worked on to make a heavily contested landing possible against the heavy military presence on the islands.

    This is a massive operation but if they got it all together then we would be hard pressed to stop them, our current defensive capabilities on the islands would need to give the attackers a severe hammering during the initial battle to drain enemy resources and buy time for a relief force.

    Britain would also need to put together a large force to regain control which would take time money and effort, many united would have to be diverted away from current hotspots in Afghanistan and iraq and modifications to weapn configurations and camouflage plus new training would need to be done for most units bar the Marines perhaps.

    Both sides would need an epic effort to make it happen.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 15, 2010
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.