ITV NEWS Argentina plan on re taking the falkland islands

[TheCracker]

Britain, and France briefly before hand, both had colonies on the Falklands before Argentina was even a unified country. Argentina's only claim to the islands is that they're situated roughly off their coast.

 

[Liquid]

Well, granted in 1832 the Argentinians did have a colony there, but the British had 'come back' to reclaim the one they left earlier. They hadn't technically abandoned it, but due to our loss in the American revolution, we had to withdraw significant numbers from our bases abroad.

So in 1832 we sternly asked the Argentinians to leave, to which they begrudgingly complied. A base was built in 1834 and a permanent colony was established in 1840 and it's been 'ours' ever since, and as we and the Falklanders have said, they're quite happy for it to remain that way.

Staying with Iberian-language countries, it's the same story with Gibraltar. We gave them referendums to cede to Spain in 1967 and 2002 and the vote was 99% No on both occasions.

They and the rest of the BOTs have almost complete autonomy, except for the fact that the UK is ultimately responsible for good governance in addition to defence matters and diplomatic relations.

 

[FlyingFox]

There are 2500 british troops stationed on the Falklands. so I doubt it.

 

[Alex.]

We've sent our Destroyer the HMS Dauntless to the Falklands today.

 

[Dotini]

We've sent our Destroyer the HMS Dauntless to the Falklands today.

I hope it is not made of aluminum!

Somewhat worried,
Steve

 

[Liquid]

We've instructed HMS Dauntless to sail there, but it hasn't gone yet. A routine changeover replacing a ship already there, according to the MoD. It's standard protocol for us to have a military presence there; while they have autonomy, the rules to being a BOT means that we're responsible for defence and diplomacy matters. I wouldn't panic just yet.

That said, it's interesting to see that plans to introduce greater British protection to the islands have been blocked. Our position all along has been that it's for the Falklanders to decide their own allegiance, but it's still an interesting development, considering the rising tensions.

 

[BiggRayy]

But Argentina continues to press its claim of sovereignty over the islands in the South Atlantic.

Above says it all , if your jobless get ready for national service boys because we be rowing the atlantic.

 

[ExigeEvan]

We've sent our Destroyer the HMS Dauntless to the Falklands today.

Another Type 45 deployment, another brilliant claim. This time it's that a Type 45 can shoot down the entire air forces of South America.


I think people are undermining the creative nature of the RAF and HM Armed Forces and severely over estimated the abilities of Argentina.

In the first Falklands war we flew Vulcan bombers (with only some success) all the way from the UK, yet no one thinks we could do that with the current strike force? Further to that we have some of the most advance launch and missile systems at our disposal that when unleashed far outweighs the strike force of the original Harrier force.

Combined with the current abilities of the FAA, which isn't much improved from those of the first war, then the Eurofighters stationed there are certainly 'adequate'.

But it'll never come to that.

 

[niky]

I hope it is not made of aluminum!

Somewhat worried,
Steve

Damn those Argentinians and their aluminium eating Mercury bombs!

 

[Tired Tyres]

Damn those Argentinians and their aluminium eating Mercury bombs!

Aluminum melts at lower temperature than steel. It's what lost us most of the ships we lost the last time. They literally started to melt after being hit by missiles. Not nice if you are below decks.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Aluminum melts at lower temperature than steel. It's what lost us most of the ships we lost the last time. They literally started to melt after being hit by missiles. Not nice if you are below decks.

Nope I'm pretty sure that we lost most ships because of high-explosive induced holes in our ships.


[EDIT] Daily Mail reports we're sending a Trafy' down to the area. It's not surprising that it's happening, more surprising that the Mail thought it was news as few ever really know where a Trafy' is in the world anyway!

 

[Dotini]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet
In 1982, during the Falklands War, the Exocet became noted worldwide when Argentine Navy Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard warplanes carrying the AM39 Air Launched version of Exocet caused irreparable damage and disabled the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Sheffield on 4 May 1982; and when the 15,000 ton merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor was struck by two Exocet anti-ship missiles on 25 May. Two MM38 ship-to-ship Exocet missiles were removed from the old destroyer ARA Seguí, a retired US Sumner class, and transferred to an improvised launcher for land use.[12] One of these was fired at, and caused damage to, the destroyer HMS Glamorgan on 12 June.

The Exocet that struck Sheffield impacted on the second deck, 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in) above the waterline and penetrated deeply into Sheffield's control room,[13] near the forward engine room, creating a hole in the hull roughly 1.2 by 3 metres (3.9 by 9.8 ft). It appears that the warhead did not explode.[14] Accounts suggest that the initial impact of the missile destroyed the ship's electrical generation systems and fractured the water main, preventing the fire suppression mechanisms from operating and dooming the ship to be consumed by the fire. The loss of Sheffield was a shock to the British.

Some of the crew of Sheffield were of the opinion that the missile exploded, others held the view that it had not. The official Royal Navy Board of Enquiry Report, however, stated that evidence indicates that the warhead did not detonate. During the four and a half days that the ship remained afloat, five salvage inspections were made and a number of photographs were taken. Members of the crew were interviewed, and testimony was given by Exocet specialists (note that the Royal Navy had 15 surface combat ships that were Exocet-armed in the Falklands War). There was no evidence of explosion although burning propellant from the rocket motor had caused a number of fires, which continued unchecked as a result of a punctured fire main.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[ExigeEvan]

I'm not sure what your point is, but this article sums it up best.

The sinking of the Sheffield is sometimes blamed on a superstructure made wholly or partially from aluminium, the melting point and ignition temperature of which are significantly lower than those of steel. However, this is incorrect as the Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel.[13] The confusion is related to the US and British Navies abandoning aluminium after several fires in the 1970s involving ships that had aluminium superstructures. The sinking of the Type 21 frigates HMS Antelope and Ardent, both of which had aluminium superstructures, probably also had an effect on this belief though these cases are again incorrect and the presence of aluminium had nothing to do with their loss. In both cases, it is likely the ships would have been lost in any event, due to the amount of explosives involved in such small ships, though aluminium fires did break out. Ardent in particular took a severe pounding, suffering eleven bomb hits, five of which exploded; no ship of her type of any era would have been able to survive such an attack. The fires on these ships did result in one clear change, which was the shift away from the nylon and synthetic fabrics then worn by British sailors. The synthetics had a tendency to melt on to the skin causing more severe burns than if the crew had been wearing non-synthetic clothing. The official report into the sinking of the Sheffield, recently disclosed under UK Freedom of Information laws after an extensive campaign by ex-RN personnel,[9] severely criticised the ship's fire-fighting equipment, training and procedures and certain members of the crew.[14]

 

[Tired Tyres]

Nope I'm pretty sure that we lost most ships because of high-explosive induced holes in our ships.

Exocet's hit above the waterline with a chemical explosive warhead. The hole it makes won't sink a ship by letting water in.

It burns through things rather than knock through as a kinetic weapon would.

You can melt Aluminum in a high school metalwork class. You can't melt steel in one, at least not the high school I went to, you need a forge for that.

British ships at the time had way too much Aluminum in them and did not carry enough armour to protect them from missile attack.

The prevailing wisdom was that anti missile defences would shoot down incoming missiles. Sadly unless the ship has Sea Wolf that wasn't so.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Classic sabre rattling, or actual threats?

I don't think Argentina can fight the Royal Navy, let alone her majesty's entire armed forces. Probably won't help when America will likely side with the UK if a war did actually break out.

 

[Liquid]

Classic sabre rattling, or actual threats?

I don't think Argentina can fight the Royal Navy, let alone her majesty's entire armed forces. Probably won't help when America will likely side with the UK if a war did actually break out.

Of course the US will side with the UK. We're in the driving seat to claim the oil.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Exocet's hit above the waterline with a chemical explosive warhead. The hole it makes won't sink a ship by letting water in.

That's like saying you can't shoot a plane down unless you hit it in the wing. There's all sorts of systems that keep a 21st century ship afloat and upright, it's not just a barge with guns. Further disruption to these systems (fuel and stowed weaponry) leads to secondary damage to the vessel.

This is demonstrated by the fact the Exocet that hit Sheffield didn't explode, it was a pure Kinetic impact.

British ships at the time had way too much Aluminum in them and did not carry enough armour to protect them from missile attack.

Read my quote, wrong on all accounts. Don't confuse US ship incidents with British design.

And you can never armour a ship enough to stop a missile hit, there's simply too much mass and too many weak spots to cover.

The prevailing wisdom was that anti missile defences would shoot down incoming missiles. Sadly unless the ship has Sea Wolf that wasn't so.

Anti-missile tech was still new and unproven at the time, which is why Sheffield amongst other was used as a screen to the aircraft carriers and why the Sheffield was targeted as it was believed, due to the size of the radar return, to be a carrier.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Your first sentence doesn't deserve a reply.

The kinetic value of a missile is a joke compared to an actual kinetic weapon such as the gun mounted in the turret at the front of the ship for example.

Ships have always been armoured to survive the biggest hit that they themselves are able to deliver. This stopped with cutbacks in the 60's and 70's where it was decided that armour was not necessary since missiles would replace the gun and missile defence systems would protect the ship. This is a case of politicians convincing themselves that something that is really a cut can be something constructive instead.

Anti missile technology was sufficiently developed that no ship equipped with sea Wolf was sunk.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Your first sentence doesn't deserve a reply.

Evidently you've learnt something then.

The kinetic value of a missile is a joke compared to an actual kinetic weapon such as the gun mounted in the turret at the front of the ship for example.

So what happened then? Because accounts and inspections show the Exocet (which British had experience with) didn't explode. And Sheffield couldn't have been hit with a "chemical" warhead because it wasn't an Aluminium ship like you previously claimed.

So with Kinetic energy and some remaining rocket fuel the missile simply destroyed systems above the waterline that incapacitated the ship.

Ships have always been armoured to survive the biggest hit that they themselves are able to deliver. This stopped with cutbacks in the 60's and 70's where it was decided that armour was not necessary since missiles would replace the gun and missile defence systems would protect the ship. This is a case of politicians convincing themselves that something that is really a cut can be something constructive instead.

Anti missile technology was sufficiently developed that no ship equipped with sea Wolf was sunk.

You can make a ship as armoured as you like. They'll still make a warhead big enough to blast through it. And on a ship there's a very finite limit to how much mass you can sit above the waterline before you lose stability.

Regarding the Sea Wolf success, it was only equipped on 2 ships and no records of them encountering an Exocet. Even the British Navy doubted the effectiveness and had to use intelligence on the Exocet missiles to gain some advantage.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Evidently you've learnt something then.


So what happened then? Because accounts and inspections show the Exocet (which British had experience with) didn't explode. And Sheffield couldn't have been hit with a "chemical" warhead because it wasn't an Aluminium ship like you previously claimed.

So with Kinetic energy and some remaining rocket fuel the missile simply destroyed systems above the waterline that incapacitated the ship.


You can make a ship as armoured as you like. They'll still make a warhead big enough to blast through it. And on a ship there's a very finite limit to how much mass you can sit above the waterline before you lose stability.

Regarding the Sea Wolf success, it was only equipped on 2 ships and no records of them encountering an Exocet. Even the British Navy doubted the effectiveness and had to use intelligence on the Exocet missiles to gain some advantage.

You are the one comparing apples to oranges mate not me.

I made no such claim at all. I said ships contain a lot of aluminum. This does not mean made out of aluminum.

 

[ExigeEvan]

You are the one comparing apples to oranges mate not me.

I made no such claim at all. I said ships contain a lot of aluminum. This does not mean made out of aluminum.

So please explain this

British ships at the time had way too much Aluminum in them

What was the Aluminium for then? Wrapping sandwhiches?

 

[BobK]

Ships have always been armoured to survive the biggest hit that they themselves are able to deliver.

That's more or less true for battleships and to an extent for cruisers as well as the ironclads which preceded them. But destroyers have always been unarmored.

So with Kinetic energy and some remaining rocket fuel the missile simply destroyed systems above the waterline that incapacitated the ship.

I highlighted what actually started the fires. Likely as not, though, it was the kinetic energy of the missile which knocked out the water mains.

You can make a ship as armoured as you like. They'll still make a warhead big enough to blast through it. And on a ship there's a very finite limit to how much mass you can sit above the waterline before you lose stability.

I doubt an Exocet would have done much more than scratch the paint of the USS New Jersey though.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I doubt an Exocet would have done much more than scratch the paint of the USS New Jersey though.

Maybe, but if Battleships of that scale were still a threat you'd probably see bunkerbuster-esque shipping missiles.

 

[Dotini]

On a related note is the story of the General Belgrano:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Liquid]

Belgrano: Not our finest hour.

I still wouldn't worry about any sort of war/conflict yet.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Belgrano: Not our finest hour.

I still wouldn't worry about any sort of war/conflict yet.

Pam? Even the Argentinians accept it was a legitimate act.

 

[Liquid]

Pam? Even the Argentinians accept it was a legitimate act.

Ond there was still controversy around it, even if the Argentines accepted it.

Plus 1,200 drowning sailors is still a horrible figure, regardless whose side it is. I think 300 died in total.

And "Gotcha!" was very tasteful.

 

[ExigeEvan]

And "Gotcha!" was very tasteful.

True.

 

[Tired Tyres]

So please explain this

What was the Aluminium for then? Wrapping sandwhiches?

Firstly you said ships were sunk by holes my missiles, I simply pointed out that the missiles hit above the waterline. You then asked if that means you can only shot down an aircraft if you hit its wing? That's apples and oranges mate.

As for aluminum, that's internal superstructure.

 

[ExigeEvan]

As for aluminum, that's internal superstructure.

Comprehension fail.

However, this is incorrect as the Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel