Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Because Sea Harrier FA.2 has been retired and Harriers Gr 7 and Gr 9 don't have scanning radars?
    With our modern AWACS, new type 45 destroyers with its advanced air defence capability, the loss of the sea harriers radar capability is not that big a deal and even today the harriers we do have are still more than capable enough to gain air superiority in any air to air combat.

    (Original post by Bagration)
    Because we can't use our deterrent on Argentina
    We had a nuclear deterrant in 1982.

    In theory we could use substrategic trident but we dont need to as a few tomahawks landing in argentina would have the desired effect.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    It's just that you vastly underestimate the logistical scale of sending a single destroyer to the South Atlantic, let alone a carrier, two attack submarines and tens of thousands of men and women. (Not that that would be anywhere near a large or powerfull enough force to capture an island over 8000 miles away)
    It would just be tasked through ascension island again. Getting subs there is in relative terms dead easy. Rearming them is the hard part but still achievable.

    You forget that with our forces already in place in falklands we would have advance warning of invasion and the invasion would likely be a drawn out and bloody affair.

    The argentinian navy is no match for ours despite thier semi modern MEKO class frigates and destroyers which only have moderate ASW capabilities and would be easily targetted by our fleet boats. The argentinian diesel boats are only a moderate threat to our surface fleet and negligable threat to our sub fleet. Our ASW assets and techniques are far more advanced than argentinas so its unlikely the 3 argentinian boats could achieve a successful attack on any High Value Units.

    Argentina has no carrier so would be relying on shore launched aircraft as in 1982. We would easily strike the land airfields with tomahawk and once the argie subs have been eliminated would probably have a fleet boat off argentinian coast doing both intel gathering on enemy aircraft sortie launchs and/or special forces insertion.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Not to mention the fact that our carriers are old as ****, regularly break down. I am assuming you are reffering to the Type 45 destroyers, and not the 42's, because i can assure you that the 42's would not last a minute in modern combat, their missile system was designed in the 60's and is all but useless against modern weaponry and countermeasures, they would be nothing but a shield to take what was fired at the carrier. Infact that is now their sole purpose when sailing as part of a taskforce and they carry a piece of equipment which enlarges their radar signiture to that of a capital ship.
    Are carriers would get there fine. they are not as unreliable as people claim.

    Type 42 is obviously clearly outdated as an air defence platform but the argentinian air force is not much more advanced anyway and our AWACS and other AEW capabilities mean that the 42's wouldnt be that big a deal.

    You are only partially right about the T42's role as carrier defence. For a start our HVU taskgroup tactics are different to 1982 based around more modern threats with a slightly different layered defence approach.

    The aim of the countermeasures which increase RCS is not to make the type 42 itself a direct target. Its to cause confusion on the enemys radar picture as well as "seduction" of enemy missiles by presenting a massive RCS target where the carrier/ship is. The ship then drives out of the RCS bloom meaning the missile already locked on to the bigger target doesnt "see" the real HVU as it clears the missiles radar.

    That type of countermeasure is commonplace accross the whole surface fleet.

    That counter measure is also useful for "blind" missile launches as the enemys missile will use its radar and look for a large target and with several similar sized targets on radar its simple chance wether it locks onto the HVU or one of the decoys.

    Oh not forgetting we would be aware from EW of the enemy attempting to get a task group radar picture hence such countermeasures can sometimes be used to create several targets that appear to be of HVU size which is confusing to the enemy radar operator especially if we are running an EMCON silent routine as they wont have any EW intelligence to identify which radar target is which.

    A lot of the engagements would be won and lost on Electronic Warfare of which our electronic warfare capabilities are good. Countermeasures are only useful once the enemy has a radar picture and/or missile launch has been confirmed.
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Submarines: Russian Borei Class Astute Class
    The borei class is a SSBN and astute is a SSGN!!!

    You clearly know little about submarines.......:rolleyes:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    The Empire WILL Strike back.

    Has to be one of the best media headlines of all time!!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by warrenpenalver)
    With our modern AWACS, new type 45 destroyers with its advanced air defence capability, the loss of the sea harriers radar capability is not that big a deal and even today the harriers we do have are still more than capable enough to gain air superiority in any air to air combat.
    Britain doesn't have a seaborne AWACs. We can run off our landbased AWACs, but it's hardly as effective as a carrier-borne airborne search radar. To be fair, the Argentine Air Force is rubbish but there's no doubt that the removal of the FA2s had a really damaging effect on Britain's ability to fight in the air at sea.

    (Original post by warrenpenalver)
    We had a nuclear deterrant in 1982.

    In theory we could use substrategic trident but we dont need to as a few tomahawks landing in argentina would have the desired effect.
    It's probably true, but that's a political issue, as to whether Whitehall would want to attack the mainland or not.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by warrenpenalver)
    You forget that with our forces already in place in falklands we would have advance warning of invasion and the invasion would likely be a drawn out and bloody affair.

    The argentinian navy is no match for ours despite thier semi modern MEKO class frigates and destroyers which only have moderate ASW capabilities and would be easily targetted by our fleet boats. The argentinian diesel boats are only a moderate threat to our surface fleet and negligable threat to our sub fleet. Our ASW assets and techniques are far more advanced than argentinas so its unlikely the 3 argentinian boats could achieve a successful attack on any High Value Units.

    Argentina has no carrier so would be relying on shore launched aircraft as in 1982. We would easily strike the land airfields with tomahawk and once the argie subs have been eliminated would probably have a fleet boat off argentinian coast doing both intel gathering on enemy aircraft sortie launchs and/or special forces insertion.


    Are carriers would get there fine. they are not as unreliable as people claim.

    Type 42 is obviously clearly outdated as an air defence platform but the argentinian air force is not much more advanced anyway and our AWACS and other AEW capabilities mean that the 42's wouldnt be that big a deal.

    You are only partially right about the T42's role as carrier defence. For a start our HVU taskgroup tactics are different to 1982 based around more modern threats with a slightly different layered defence approach.

    The aim of the countermeasures which increase RCS is not to make the type 42 itself a direct target. Its to cause confusion on the enemys radar picture as well as "seduction" of enemy missiles by presenting a massive RCS target where the carrier/ship is. The ship then drives out of the RCS bloom meaning the missile already locked on to the bigger target doesnt "see" the real HVU as it clears the missiles radar.

    That type of countermeasure is commonplace accross the whole surface fleet.

    That counter measure is also useful for "blind" missile launches as the enemys missile will use its radar and look for a large target and with several similar sized targets on radar its simple chance wether it locks onto the HVU or one of the decoys.

    Oh not forgetting we would be aware from EW of the enemy attempting to get a task group radar picture hence such countermeasures can sometimes be used to create several targets that appear to be of HVU size which is confusing to the enemy radar operator especially if we are running an EMCON silent routine as they wont have any EW intelligence to identify which radar target is which.

    A lot of the engagements would be won and lost on Electronic Warfare of which our electronic warfare capabilities are good. Countermeasures are only useful once the enemy has a radar picture and/or missile launch has been confirmed.

    The borei class is a SSBN and astute is a SSGN!!!

    You clearly know little about submarines.......

    Has to be one of the best media headlines of all time!!
    I doubt very much as to whether any more than a handful of people outside the Armed Forces subform know what EMCON is or understand radar warfare at all. At any rate, we aren't saying the Argentines would win, we're just saying that if we want to be able to mount an effective military mission 8,000 miles away, our military is under-prepared to do such a thing as a result of lack of funding. Not that in the field, Argentina could beat Britain.

    As far as I'm aware, Argentina doesn't possess any proper AShMs or any proper AWACs or even AEW aircraft. They have 3 Super Etendards equipped (ostensibly) with Exocet which is pretty outdated. So the likelihood of them beating us in a fight has been diminished, compared to the 80s when FAA could fly dozens of exocet-capable aircraft.

    Astute isn't an SSGN though. It's an SSN. Oscar-I/II are SSGNs because they possess a large payload of missiles designed specifically to attack ships.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    we're just saying that if we want to be able to mount an effective military mission 8,000 miles away, our military is under-prepared to do such a thing as a result of lack of funding. Not that in the field, Argentina could beat Britain.
    We were under prepared in 1982! Its doable just going to take a bit of time to amass forces, redistribute deployed assets etc. although theyd likely send a small taskgroup out fairly quick especially a fleet boat. gives us the ability to carry on politics by other means while we wait a bigger taskforce to recapture the islands itself.

    (Original post by Bagration)
    As far as I'm aware, Argentina doesn't possess any proper AShMs or any proper AWACs or even AEW aircraft. They have 3 Super Etendards equipped (ostensibly) with Exocet which is pretty outdated. So the likelihood of them beating us in a fight has been diminished, compared to the 80s when FAA could fly dozens of exocet-capable aircraft.
    theyve got a few adapted P3 orions and a couple of other yank old MPA's but thats about it.
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Astute isn't an SSGN though. It's an SSN.
    Just as tomahawk equiped Swiftsures and Trafalgar boats are SSGN's, so is Astute as all of the astute class are planned to be tomahawk equiped.

    The G in the hull classification stands for guided missile of which tomahawk is one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Britain doesn't have a seaborne AWACs. We can run off our landbased AWACs, but it's hardly as effective as a carrier-borne airborne search radar. To be fair, the Argentine Air Force is rubbish but there's no doubt that the removal of the FA2s had a really damaging effect on Britain's ability to fight in the air at sea.
    We still have the seaking AEW which gives the medium range capability.


    Almost certainly theyd use the landbased AWACs with multitanker refuels to get a decent time in the area of operations.

    The RAF harriers are still just as capable in medium to close range air to air engagements. But yes its the long range interception and engagement capability of the sea harrier thats been lost!

    (Original post by Bagration)
    It's probably true, but that's a political issue, as to whether Whitehall would want to attack the mainland or not.
    well from the military perspective, taking out select military targets such as airfields, naval facilities etc is a easily militarily justifiable attack plan.

    Assuming the argies dont back down then it would be almost inevitable that tomahawk would be used IMO.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by warrenpenalver)
    The borei class is a SSBN and astute is a SSGN!!!

    You clearly know little about submarines.......:rolleyes:
    I'm getting things mixed up.

    In regards to the SSBNs, the Vanguard is the Borei's counterpart and I for one would prefer the Borei.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What Bagration said.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    I'm getting things mixed up.

    In regards to the SSBNs, the Vanguard is the Borei's counterpart and I for one would prefer the Borei.
    Why?

    And why are you comparing a 80's sub to a modern?

    Surely it should be compared to what replaces Vanguard?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Why?

    And why are you comparing a 80's sub to a modern?

    Surely it should be compared to what replaces Vanguard?
    They've been in service since '93, I'd hardly call that the 80s.

    It should be compared to what replaces the Vanguard class, however as of yet, there hasn't been any news of a replacement, as far as I can see.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    lol they think maggie knew about the oil, theres been rumours for years. hopefully the uk would kick the **** out of argentina if they tried that **** again
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Submarines: Russian Borei Class Astute Class

    5th Generation Fighters: Russian PAK FA US F22 Raptor
    you're a moron

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class

    there.. the astute class is better because I have posted a link to it to on wikipedia

    also were talking about now, stuff like the russian jets arent even in service

    10 years behind everyone else
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dzeh)
    you're a moron

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class

    there.. the astute class is better because I have posted a link to it to on wikipedia

    also were talking about now, none of these russian things are even in service

    10 years behind everyone else
    The whole point of linking the wikipedia page was to show you the differences between the two, having failed to realise that you've stood out among many idiots in this thread, congratulations.

    The Astute Class is an SSGN, whereas the Borei Class is a SSBN. Now, let's compare the Russian SSBN(Borei Class) to the British SSBN(Vanguard Class), there's no comparison, the Russians win hands down. It's faster, can go deeper underwater, will have more men aboard and carries 15 Bulava SLBMs(which apparently have evasive maneuvering, mid-course countermeasures, decoys and a warhead fully shielded against both physical and electromagnetic pulse damage, range is approximately 8000km). I'll concede that the Vanguard Class has been around for 15 odd years, however considering the fact that Russia has endured a complete transformation and 2 economic collapses, I'd say it's a sign that they're back for good.

    You could compare the Astute Class to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severod...lass_submarine perhaps.

    As for the Russian 'things'(i.e submarines) not being in service, 1 has been built and is currently under trial. 2 are being built, with a further 2 expected in the future. The Astute Class only has 1 as of present.

    10 years behind everyone? Russia suffered a severe crisis at the end of the 90s due to the Asian Economic Crisis and took time to rebuild it's economy. Moreover, switching from communism to capitalism takes time - then again, you'd have probably though Russia was still a communist country.

    Good job moron.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    They've been in service since '93, I'd hardly call that the 80s.

    It should be compared to what replaces the Vanguard class, however as of yet, there hasn't been any news of a replacement, as far as I can see.
    They were designed and construction started in the 80's.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    The Astute Class is an SSGN, whereas the Borei Class is a SSBN. Now, let's compare the Russian SSBN(Borei Class) to the British SSBN(Vanguard Class), there's no comparison, the Russians win hands down.

    As for the Russian 'things'(i.e submarines) not being in service, 1 has been built and is currently under trial. 2 are being built, with a further 2 expected in the future. The Astute Class only has 1 as of present.

    10 years behind everyone? Russia suffered a severe crisis at the end of the 90s due to the Asian Economic Crisis and has slowly picked up the pieces and rebuilt the Russian economy. Moreover, switching from communism to capitalism takes time - then again, you'd have probably though Russia was still a communist country.

    Good job moron.
    Yes, and? Russia is still 10 years behind, even the jets dont come into service till 2015 or 2017

    As for the submarines, read on:

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/astute/

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/borei-class/
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    The whole point of linking the wikipedia page was to show you the differences between the two, having failed to realise that you've stood out among many idiots in this thread, congratulations.

    The Astute Class is an SSGN, whereas the Borei Class is a SSBN. Now, let's compare the Russian SSBN(Borei Class) to the British SSBN(Vanguard Class), there's no comparison, the Russians win hands down.

    As for the Russian 'things'(i.e submarines) not being in service, 1 has been built and is currently under trial. 2 are being built, with a further 2 expected in the future. The Astute Class only has 1 as of present.

    10 years behind everyone? Russia suffered a severe crisis at the end of the 90s due to the Asian Economic Crisis and took time to rebuild it's economy. Moreover, switching from communism to capitalism takes time - then again, you'd have probably though Russia was still a communist country.

    Good job moron.
    How do you know a plane which has had one test fight is better than a tried and tested aircraft? Thats the most idiotic thing in the whole thread.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Providing the majority of people living in the Falklands still want to be associated with Britain and that, 'defend' them.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    How do you know a plane which has had one test fight is better than a tried and tested aircraft? Thats the most idiotic thing in the whole thread.
    :rofl:

    Look at the stats dear.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    :rofl:

    Look at the stats dear.
    Good God..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    :rofl:

    Look at the stats dear.
    :facepalm2:

    What stats suggest it is better?

    And secondly... since when do statistics matter on a plane that has flown once? It has no combat experience, or all you know it might melt in the sun.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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 proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.