The Royal Navy is proud of its new fleet of Type 45 destroyers. Having
initially named the first two ships HMS Daring and HMS Dauntless, the
Naming Committee has, after intensive pressure from Brussels , renamed
them HMS Cautious and HMS Prudence. The next five ships are to be named
HMS Empathy, HMS Circumspect, HMS Nervous, HMS Timorous and HMS
Apologist.
Costing £850 million each, they meet the needs of the 21st century and
comply with the very latest employment, equality, health & safety and
human rights laws.
The new user-friendly crow's nest comes equipped with wheelchair
access. Live ammunition has been replaced with paintballs to reduce the
risk of anyone getting hurt and to cut down on the number of
compensation claims. Stress counsellors and lawyers will be on duty
24hrs a day and each ship will have its on-board industrial tribunal.
The crew will be 50/50 men and women, and balanced in accordance with
the latest Home Office directives on race, gender, sexuality and
disability. Sailors will only have to work a maximum of 37hrs per week
in line with Brussels Health & Safety rules, even in wartime! All the
vessels will come equipped with a maternity ward and nursery, situated
on the same deck as the Gay Disco.
Tobacco will be banned throughout the ship, but cannabis will be
allowed in the wardroom and messes. The Royal Navy is eager to shed its
traditional reputation for; "Rum, sodomy and the lash"; so out has gone
the occasional rum ration which is to be replaced by sparkling water.
Although sodomy remains, it has now been extended to include all
ratings under 18. The lash will still be available but only on request.
Condoms can be obtained from the Bosun in a variety of flavours, except
Capstan Full Strength.
Saluting officers has been abolished because it is deemed elitist and
is to be replaced by the more informal, "Hello Sailor". All information
on notices boards will be printed in 37 different languages and
Braille. Crew members will now no longer be required to ask permission
to grow beards or moustaches - this applies equally to women crew
members.
The MoD is working on a new "non-specific" flag because the White
Ensign is considered to be offensive to minorities. The Union Flag had
already been discarded.
The newly re-named HMS Cautious is due to be commissioned soon in a
ceremony conducted by Captain Hook from the Finsbury Park Mosque who
will break a petrol bomb over the hull. She will gently slide into the
water as the Royal Marines Band plays "In the Navy" by the Village
People. Her first deployment will be to escort boat loads of illegal
immigrants across the channel to ports on England 's south coast.
Prime Minister Cameron said, "While these ships reflect the very latest in
modern thinking, they are also capable of being up-graded to comply
with any new legislation coming out of Brussels and gets the full approval of Georgie Osborne ."
His final words were, "Britannia waives the rules."
|
|
A friend's son is in the RN, recently tied up alongside USS Harry S. Truman - said to his dad, made ours look like HMS Harry Potter.
|
The "New Navy" piece was emailed to Mrs ON, obviously it is tongue in cheek but I hope it is common knowledge that we could not retake the Falklands if the Argentinians moved in.
We have had a third rate navy for decades.
tinyurl.com/5vsex5b (Telegraph)
tinyurl.com/72dvg8v (Telegraph)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 29 Jan 12 at 17:03
|
"I hope it is common knowledge that we could not retake the Falklands if the Argentinians moved in."
Well that must be a positive. Looking back on that sad episode it hardly seems credible the amount of blood that was spilled and money wasted over a few rocks in the South Atlantic.
|
With lots of oil under them, soon to be financially viable transport to the northern hemisphere markets.
Do you really think we went to war for a few rocks?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 29 Jan 12 at 17:07
|
Basically yes combined with loss of face political need . Oil was not a major issue at the time and even now the viability of reserves and the ability to extract them is far from proved.
If there are viable reserves all the more reason to sit down with the Argentinians and come to a sensible settlement.
|
>> Well that must be a positive. Looking back on that sad episode it hardly seems
>> credible the amount of blood that was spilled and money wasted over a few rocks
>> in the South Atlantic.
>>
No nation on Earth would let a foreign power invade it's territory and enslave it's people, if we had done it we would have lost all credibility and been seen as a pushover for any future such event. Unless you think it would have been ok to leave the islanders in the hands of a facist military dictatorship?
|
>> as a pushover for any future such event. Unless you think it would have been
>> ok to leave the islanders in the hands of a facist military dictatorship?
40 million Argentinians seem to cope OK, don't see them rushing to leave.
|
No nation on Earth would let a foreign power invade it's territory and enslave it's people,
Very few nations on earth have a an island colony, the remnant of an empire, thousands of miles away.
|
|
i don't think the distance really matters. They want to remain as they are. They have no wish to be part of argentina. If they wish to be some point down the line then that's upto them. Until then they can huff and puff as much as they like.
|
|
And a lot of the people of Hong Kong didn't want to be part of China either. At the end of the day the UK will have to sit down with Argentina and come to a compromise. The Falkalnds war achieved nothing, just delayed a settlement for another generation and over a 1000 people died over misplaced national pride on both sides.
|
Nothing to do with oil. Everything to do with political needs.
And do you think Tony Blair would have been so keen to have his own war if the Falklands had not been such a brilliant personal success for Margaret Thatcher?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 29 Jan 12 at 17:46
|
>> And do you think Tony Blair would have been so keen to have his own
>> war if the Falklands had not been such a brilliant personal success for Margaret Thatcher?
TB got involved in three I think. Former Yugoslavia, Afghan and Iraq. The first was essentially humanitarian aid. The latter two were symptoms of decaying grandeur overlaid with a degree of arslikhan to Bush.
None were likely to gain the kudos involved in reclaiming invaded sovereign territory.
|
>> TB got involved in three I think. Former Yugoslavia, Afghan and Iraq. The first was
>> essentially humanitarian aid. The latter two were symptoms of decaying grandeur overlaid with a degree
>> of arslikhan to Bush.
None were likely to gain the kudos involved in reclaiming invaded sovereign territory. there was sierra leone as well. I think that started him off in that direction.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 29 Jan 12 at 18:00
|
|
the lease ran out on hong kong (most of it anyway) no lease on the fi. I don't see it myself they've been banging on about it for years still no talks.
|
>> And a lot of the people of Hong Kong didn't want to be part of
>> China either. At the end of the day the UK will have to sit down
>> with Argentina and come to a compromise. The Falkalnds war achieved nothing, just delayed a
>> settlement for another generation and over a 1000 people died over misplaced national pride on
>> both sides.
>>
What tripe.
The place is ours and has been for hundreds of years, simple as that. The people that live there wish to remain British..there's nothing else to discuss.
Another nearby country has taken a shine to it and would like it, too bad.
|
>>The place is ours and has been for hundreds of years<<
+1 ~ 100%
|
>> >>The place is ours and has been for hundreds of years<<
>>
>> +1 ~ 100%
>>
My father was a Marconi radio operator in the Falklands when it was a Navy coaling station during the first world war. He was there when the Germans had a go at it.
|
Was an argument over some barren rocks worth 1000 lives and hundreds more maimed and injured. No of course not. Ask their wives mothers and children
Will we eventually come to an agreement with Argentina over the transfer of sovereignty. Yes of course we will.
Was it in the interest of the political leadership of Argentina and the UK to have a military dispute at the time. Of course it was.
Would we receive any support for a similar operation in the future from the Unities States or any other country. No
|
>>
>> Was an argument over some barren rocks worth 1000 lives and hundreds more maimed and injured. No of course not. Ask their wives mothers and children
Could as easily ask falkland islanders if it was worth it. Not sure what the geography of the place has to do with anything?
>> Will we eventually come to an agreement with Argentina over the transfer of sovereignty. Yes of course we will.
I can't see it myself, those there in the FI don't want it, until that changes which I can't ever see, we won't.
>>
>> Was it in the interest of the political leadership of Argentina and the UK to
>> have a military dispute at the time. Of course it was.
Possibly, but reading that you make it sound like the whole thing was staged.
>>
>> Would we receive any support for a similar operation in the future from the Unities
>> States or any other country. No
Well we did then from a few countries then, so although no-one can see into the future, I think it's reasonable to say we would again.
|
"Could as easily ask falkland islanders if it was worth it. "
You could but not one Falkland Islander came to any harm did they?
"I can't see it myself, those there in the FI don't want it, until that changes which I can't ever see, we won't. "
If it's politically expedient their views will be ignored.
"but reading that you make it sound like the whole thing was staged."
Not staged but very convenient
"I think it's reasonable to say we would again."
The US has already made it clear that they would not and expect a political settlement.
|
>> You could but not one Falkland Islander came to any harm did they?
No, but looking at the regime that invaded hardly guaranteed. Even if they weren't harmed at the time, it hardly makes invading ok.
>>
>> If it's politically expedient their views will be ignored.
I don't think so far too much support in the UK for them. Particularly the more argentina huff and puff.
>>
>> Not staged but very convenient.
Post the war yes not really at the time.
>> The US has already made it clear that they would not and expect a political
>> settlement.
>>
I believe they said that last time and they still helped us. Actions tend to speak louder than words.
>>
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 29 Jan 12 at 23:32
|
"Even if they weren't harmed at the time, it hardly makes invading ok. "
Not it doesn't and the Argentinians were wrong to invade but our military response led to over 1000 people died as a result of this petty dispute. A 1000 people who died in quite horrible ways. Yes we might have lost face if we hadn't made a military response but so what. The Islanders were under no threat to their lives and no doubt would have continued with their day to day existence under Argentinian rule much as before. Alternatively they could have been evacuated if they had so wished. A compromise could have been worked out a solution could have been arrived as it will be eventually . A totally pointless war. War is seldom a solution to a problem and never less than in this last burst of patriotic fervour.
|
|
well maybe to you it was petty. But to them it wasn't it was their homeland. I don't know why you so are dismissive of them and their rights. Invaision is hardly some small issue to be worked out. There will be a solution argentina will grow up you don't see france still huffing and puffing about the channel islands. why should they have to leave their homes. You wouldn't stand for it so why should they just because they live x distance from the uk?
|
|
At the end of the day was it worth 1000 people dyeing? Just think what that means in term of human misery and suffering. That's what has to be weighed up against the rights of 2000 Islanders to live under British rule. You clearly believe that that much carnage was worth it. I don't
|
|
i do you don't set off on a course like that saying how many people will die compared to the rights of y number it's not really quantifiable. If only 2000 people were invaded in the uk would that be ok? Are you anti war in all circumstances? What would you have done force them off the islands, just because it was expediant to do so?
|
The Islands where found by a Dutchman first.House of Orange can't have been bothered to far away.
Then the French who sold the islands to the Spanish.Brits landed killed some of the islanders and put their flag up.
I wonder if their is oil why BP or Shell arn't looking.
|
>Will we eventually come to an agreement with Argentina over the transfer of sovereignty. Yes of course we will.
What "transfer of sovereignty"? It ain't going to happen.
You're welcome to go and discuss it with the islanders though.
|
>>
>> Was an argument over some barren rocks worth 1000 lives and hundreds more maimed and
>> injured. No of course not. Ask their wives mothers and children
Well I happen to think it was. There are consequences in everything we do as human beings...and that extends to countries that want to bully others as Argentina did. Why on earth should the Falkland Islanders be subject to invasion and a complete culture change because Aregntina fancied expanding her borders to somewhere that 200 years ago a couple of Argentine's lived on then moved away.
I cannot undertsand your spineless thinking. Who else shall we give up to someone else? Channel Islands? Isles of Scilly?
>>
>> Will we eventually come to an agreement with Argentina over the transfer of sovereignty. Yes
>> of course we will.
It might be an option to the eternal hand wringers in society, but fortunately there are often those more inclined to negotiate from strength, not roll over at the first hurdle.
>> Was it in the interest of the political leadership of Argentina and the UK to
>> have a military dispute at the time. Of course it was.
It was to the Argies, but for this country it was exceptionally risky. That Margaret Thatcher came out of it so well was for two reasons. 1, for winning, which was not a certainty and 2, for being so decisive - which was her way.
>> Would we receive any support for a similar operation in the future from the Unities
>> States or any other country. No
Incorrect. The USA did us favours under the radar, as did France and a few others. We wouldn't necesarily get the same level of co-operation from the current US govt...but in a year's time it could easily be a Republican president. An established democracy that complies with international law will not suddenly become a total pariah with no help whatsoever.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 30 Jan 12 at 11:43
|
I regret military aggression in any form, but I can't agree with CGN on this one.
1. It wasn't Thatcher who chose the military approach, it was Galtieri. He sent soldiers, not diplomats.
2. The cost and casualties were only known with hindsight - Argentina might well have withdrawn in response to the task force, but whether it would or not is irrelevant.
3. As I have already remarked, there would not seem to be much point in having armed forces if you are going to ignore an invasion of your territory.
It may well have been a territory a long way off and with a small population, but you are either invaded or you aren't - you can't be a bit invaded. If somebody annexed the tip of Cornwall, would we stop and have a debate as to whether it was worth fighting for?
More debatable as to whether we should have gone to war in the Middle East, I would have thought.
|
>> We wouldn't necesarily get the same level of co-operation from the current US govt...but in a year's time it could easily be a Republican president. An established democracy that complies with international law will not suddenly become a total pariah with no help whatsoever.
Er... it was Reagan's Secretary of State, the evil Fenian Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who gave the Argentine military dictatorship the nod to invade the 'Malvinas'. The calculation, very clearly, was that Britain wouldn't do anything about it.
When Mrs Thatcher surprised the world by going for it, the US had to decide between Argentina and us. That was what happened, as far as one could see...
A country's strategic interests and alliances don't change with every administration you know.
'The two-party system is the perfect one-party system' (a late and much lamented Hungarian Marxist friend).
|
>>it was Reagan's Secretary of State, the evil Fenian Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who gave the Argentine military dictatorship the nod to invade the 'Malvinas'. The calculation, very clearly, was that Britain wouldn't do anything about it.<<
Interesting Sire, but the administration ultimately decided to declare support for the British.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Kirkpatrick
|
>> the administration ultimately decided to declare support for the British.
That's what I said perro. However, I did make a mistake: the evil Fenian wasn't Secretary of State. Spelt her name wrong too ... Doh...
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 30 Jan 12 at 14:13
|
>> A country's strategic interests and alliances don't change with every administration you know.
>>
I don't suppose they do...but...George W Bush would have been supportive. Obama would not.
I'd bet a Republican, on average, would be more pro us.
|
>> George W Bush would have been supportive.
The chimp who suckered Blair into the war on terror in Afghanistan and then decamped to Iraq to ruin that country? Do me a favour Westpig. With friends like that... we and everyone else are a lot better off with Obama who is at least high-minded and rational. Thank heaven the crooked sleazebags fronting for the Republican party don't stand a chance against him.
|
Obama is a politician who came out of one of the most corrupt political machines in the USA and still has some strange bedfellows.
He still carries a huge chip on his shoulder from his heritage.
He is no friend of ours.
|
Roger - say what you mean - He's Black
And you dont like it,
Oh and BTW he came out of one the least corrupt parts of the US political machine
Just check out the latest bunch of Republican nominees.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 30 Jan 12 at 19:27
|
>> Roger - say what you mean - He's Black
>>
>> And you dont like it,
I took Roger's comment to mean that Obama has family that came from Kenya...and doesn't like us much because of our colonial type history with Kenya.
In a similar fashion that we aren't popular over there with 7th generation Irish.
|
There goes your chance of a holiday in the US..
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312
|
>> we and everyone else are a lot better off with Obama who is at least
>> high-minded and rational.
That's a matter of opinion. He wasn't supportive of the Libyan doings..until of course us and France managed to topple Gaddafi...why not?
He hasn't done a great deal really.
|
|
Alas he has delivered very little, but at least he has been pretty tough on Israel.
|
>> Alas he has delivered very little
That's exactly what hypnotized, moronic US vox pop always parrots. 'I'm disappointed really...' It's been fed to them ad nauseam by the mass media.
What are these people supposed to 'deliver' anyway? If Obama had casually spent a few tens or hundreds of billions on impulsive half-baked mass murder in the middle east, would he be seen as having 'delivered' something?
He never looks like a chimp or sounds like one. He looks like a statesman. He has tried to reform the utterly disgraceful US health system which deprives those most in need of anything but emergency cover, for when it's too late. The opposition to that, by the existing vested interests backed by the same mass media, was incredibly virulent, so that particular attempt to 'deliver something' was stymied by the forces quite frankly of evil and reaction.
Perhaps by his second term he will have got the measure of some of those forces. I hope so.
I've never seen Obama put a foot seriously wrong. Can't say the same of many US presidents since FDR.
|
big snipquote
>> Perhaps by his second term he will have got the measure of some of those
>> forces. I hope so.
>>
>> I've never seen Obama put a foot seriously wrong. Can't say the same of many
>> US presidents since FDR.
>>
I think that's a bit harsh AC, he's deeply unpopular in a fair part of america, and whether we agree or disagree about healthcare I think it's a bit trite to say it's because of the media, maybe in part. But a lot of people in the US believe in little or no government involvement in healthcare, I don't think they need the media to lead them around on that one.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 10:19
|
>>
>> That's a matter of opinion. He wasn't supportive of the Libyan doings..until of course us
>> and France managed to topple Gaddafi...why not?
It may have looked that way, but he was onboard from the beginning, if he wasn't Gaddafi would still be there, us and France would have had no chance without US help from the beginning.
|
>> It may have looked that way, but he was onboard from the beginning, if he
>> wasn't Gaddafi would still be there, us and France would have had no chance without
>> US help from the beginning.
>>
I'm not syaing there was no help from the US at all, there obviously was...just that it was somewhat half hearted and begrudging, a back seat role despite having all the decent assets. Obama didn't 'get it', he did what he had to, to go along with two major allies, nothing more.
|
>> Obama didn't 'get it', he did what he had to, to go
>> along with two major allies, nothing more.
>>
At least he knows where Libya is, a question that seemed to defeat one of the Republican hopefuls (Cain?).
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 09:34
|
>> At least he knows where Libya is, a question that seemed to defeat one of
>> the Republican hopefuls (Cain?).
>>
There's an enormous amount of Americans that don't know much about anywhere else. A very high percentage don't have passports.
Even their news channels are exceptionally insular.
I caught a cab once in New York and the driver upon hearing my accent told me he regularly watched the BBC news on a particular channel, 2 hours on a specific night, purely because he wanted to know what was going on in the world, not just the USA.
You can have some tremendous fun in a bar if you have even a modicum of knowledge of history, because even quite intelligent people over there are clueless beyond their own stuff.
I'm not anti-American by the way, I quite like the place, the pro's outweigh the cons.
|
>> There's an enormous amount of Americans that don't know much about anywhere else. A very high percentage don't have passports. >>
They don't need to travel to Spain to get a suntan. Until the sangria and sand holidays caught on with the Brits, most of us did not have passports either. Even limiting your travels within the confines of Califonia, you would find sun, sand, sea, surf, snow, mountains, deserts, vineyards, orange groves, tallest pine trees, 14300 ft peak, and a point 280 ft below sea-level.
>> Even their news channels are exceptionally insular. >>
They don't have the history of a colonising nation to have any interest in the rest of the world.
>> I'm not anti-American by the way, I quite like the place, the pro's outweigh the cons. >>
If you visit or stay there long enough, you might just come to empathise with their insularity and understand their point of view of the world.
BTW, I must declare an interest: I have travelled far and wide, but I do love the USA in particular and visiting its many National Parks more than anywhere else in the world.
|
>> I'm not anti-American by the way, I quite like the place, the pro's outweigh the
>> cons.
That's 'cos they eat Big Macs, Krispy Kremes and drink Coca Cola while waiting around :-)
|
Most (except three or four) of you on this thread need to get a reality check, and look at the facts. As the saying goes "Wake up and smell the coffee" even if it is Kopi Luwak and you don't like the aroma or the taste that is coming your way.
Obama: Republicans have a majority in the House (242 vs 193 Democrats) and in the Senate they need to gain just four seats to win the majority.
Libya: March 2011 "After leading the initial assault on Libyan defences in March, the US took a supporting role in the operation, partly because of problems on Capitol Hill.
Neither house of Congress had endorsed the action. The administration argued that such authorisation was not necessary, and maintained that Washington’s participation in the conflict fell far short of “hostilities”. "Washington was offering Predator drones, intelligence support and even strike aircraft when needed." “They are not launching Tomahawk missiles day and night, but they are doing a lot behind the scenes.” "
Falklands: The days when Britain was a world super power are long gone, and however much we may wish to keep the colony for whatever reason, reality will bite soon. Like it or not, the Islanders will come to realise that they will at some point in the not so distant future become an Argentine island.
Defence: You need to be very rich to be able to afford a functioning modern navy and air force. Our position on the UN Security Council is not guaranteed to last many years. We are at the top table only due to our nuclear deterrent. In terms of our economic strength, we are in the G7 now but it won't be long before we may not even be in the G10.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 10:35
|
>> Most (except three or four) of you on this thread need to get a reality
>> check, and look at the facts. As the saying goes "Wake up and smell the
>> coffee" even if it is Kopi Luwak and you don't like the aroma or the
>> taste that is coming your way.
>>
>> Falklands: The days when Britain was a world super power are long gone, and however
>> much we may wish to keep the colony for whatever reason, reality will bite soon.
>> Like it or not, the Islanders will come to realise that they will at some
>> point in the not so distant future become an Argentine island.
>>
>> Defence: You need to be very rich to be able to afford a functioning modern
>> navy and air force. Our position on the UN Security Council is not guaranteed to
>> last many years. We are at the top table only due to our nuclear deterrent.
>> In terms of our economic strength, we are in the G7 now but it won't
>> be long before we may not even be in the G10.
>>
>>
Too many people (and politicians in particular) don't seem to realise that we have not been a world power since the first world war.
This is a scruffy skint island off the coast of Europe and the sooner we stop acting like a bully and within our means the better it will be for everyone. The UK is a laughing stock in many parts of the world.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 10:51
|
>> This is a scruffy skint island off the coast of Europe and the sooner we stop acting like a bully and within our means the better it will be for everyone. The UK is a laughing stock in many parts of the world.
Self-deprecation is one thing ON, and masochistic Eeyorish whingeing is another.
Where are these 'many parts of the world' exactly? My impression used to be that the UK is often criticized, but quite often taken if anything more seriously than it deserves these days. Perhaps I am out of date.
|
>> This is a scruffy skint island off the coast of Europe and the sooner we
>> stop acting like a bully and within our means the better it will be for
>> everyone. The UK is a laughing stock in many parts of the world.
>>
We're top 7 in the economy stakes.
Top 5 or 6 for military.
We're not done for yet.
|
>>This is a scruffy skint island off the coast of Europe and the sooner we stop acting like a bully and within our means the better it will be for everyone. The UK is a laughing stock in many parts of the world.
Such a negative post, ON.
We've had better times but we are nowhere near as skint as others, and as for bullying, we are doing no more than standing our own ground, as indeed we should.
Scruffy? Well, not where I've settled.
Would I live anywhere else - not likely!
|
>>We're not done for yet<<
Not by a long chalk!
>>Scruffy? Well, not where I've settled<<
Same here but - O/N does live in Scotland.
>>Would I live anywhere else - not likely!<<
ditto, and I/we can choose to live anywhere.
|
>> Such a negative post, ON.
>>
The truth can be.
>> We've had better times but we are nowhere near as skint as others, and as
>> for bullying, we are doing no more than standing our own ground, as indeed we
>> should.
We are trillions in debt and still borrowing like there is no tomorrow, whos war are we going to join in next?
>> Scruffy? Well, not where I've settled.
Nor where I live, but many areas have litter strewn boarded up high streets, and we have a crumbling infrastructure.
>> Would I live anywhere else - not likely!
>>
Nor me, but don't think that there are not better places to live.
|
>> Such a negative post, ON.
>>
>> The truth can be.
No. The truth is just the truth. It's neutral. But what you wrote wasn't 'the truth' by any stretch of the imagination. It was a sour, miserablist caricature.
|
You need to get out and about a bit more, and without your rose tinted specs.
I know there are some truly dire places in the world but for a supposedly first rate country we are looking a bit shabby.
If you think last summers riots were bad wait until the cuts really start to bite.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 16:52
|
>> You need to get out and about a bit more, and without your rose tinted specs.
Damn cheek. Debt, unemployment, the odd riot and patches of urban decay are to be found in most if not all advanced capitalist countries. I think it's you who need to get out and about more ON.
|
>> Most (except three or four) of you on this thread need to get a reality
>> check, and look at the facts. As the saying goes "Wake up and smell the
>> coffee"
I think you would do well to heed your own advice.
>>
>> Falklands: The days when Britain was a world super power are long gone, and however
>> much we may wish to keep the colony for whatever reason, reality will bite soon.
>> Like it or not, the Islanders will come to realise that they will at some
>> point in the not so distant future become an Argentine island.
It's not really a fact, it's your opinion, there is no inevitability about that.
>>
>> Defence: You need to be very rich to be able to afford a functioning modern
>> navy and air force. Our position on the UN Security Council is not guaranteed to
>> last many years. We are at the top table only due to our nuclear deterrent.
>> In terms of our economic strength, we are in the G7 now but it won't
>> be long before we may not even be in the G10.
Not sure why you think that, it's an urban myth. To vote someone off the P5 in the SC we would have to vote ourselves off, it requires all 5 members to vote for it. That isn't happening anytime soon.
>>
>>
|
>> >>
>> I'm not syaing there was no help from the US at all, there obviously was...just
>> that it was somewhat half hearted and begrudging, a back seat role despite having all
>> the decent assets. Obama didn't 'get it', he did what he had to, to go
>> along with two major allies, nothing more.
>>
Well with the US moving away from Europe and towards Asia, it was always going to happen that they would have to step back and let us deal with things in the 'local area'. I don't think it was begruding at all. More a case of letting UK and France be the front runners with the US vital in the background to the Libya op. In a lot of ways the US brought far more to the show than we did, in an equipment sense.
|
I suspect there's a fundamental difference between Hong Kong and the Falklands insofar as I understand that the Falklands did not have an indigenous population when GB claimed them. Whereas HK was obtained via what is widely regarded as an unequal treaty as a result of China losing a war to force them to accept large scale imports of Opium from the British East India Company which resulted in wide scale social and health problems in China at that time.
The leased part of HK was the New Territories, possibly following another skirmish and pressure from GB's (then) strong military forces, this lease ran-out in 1997. Whereas the island could theoretically have remained under GB government in perpetuity the water supply comes from the New Territories so it would have been unsustainable as a stand-alone entity.
The HK people I know have mixed feelings, many believing that one occupying power was merely exchanged for another, others feeling that they are Chinese but there is a growing resentment between Hong Kongers and Mainlanders due to differences (which grew up over 150 years of British rule) in the cultural norms plus there is resentment over wealth too.
I've not looked at when Europeans (Spain/Portugal perhaps) occupied Argentina, however I would contend that only the indigenous inhabitants of Argentina can make a strong case for a prior claim to the Falklands, besides this I would suggest it is up to the Falklanders to decide their future ?
|
I sincerely hope we would make haste to save the Falklands should the Argies try their hand again.
It would be like stabbing our forces in the back after the losses involved chucking the aggressor out last time, if we simply complained to teacher like some bullied schoolboy.
Post war UK governments know quite a lot about backstabbing our forces (including the Gurkhas) who over the centuries fought and died to defend this island and way of life and keep it and its peoples free.
Good old Tommy, a hero when it suits but an unwanted burden when they've used you up.
|
|
Call me cynical but I have always thought oil and still do. Most conflicts have resources as a basis. Water, food, gold, wood, slaves, and oil have all been fought for, forget all the politicians bull excrement about the will of a few hundred people, they would abandon them in the blink of an eye if it suited their ends.
|
|
serious question, 30 years ago how much was know about the oil down there?
|
>> serious question, 30 years ago how much was know about the oil down there?
Its always been suspected there is oil there, (and gas, minerals etc etc) even 30 years ago.
Dont get too carried away tho, the oil situation is not proven, its still in the guesstimate stage (and there is some thought the small company that "found" it could be lying - sorry - exaggerating)
|
>> Dont get too carried away tho, the oil situation is not proven, its still in
>> the guesstimate stage (and there is some thought the small company that "found" it could
>> be lying - sorry - exaggerating)
oh i know a little about the companies down there. Keep an eye on the share price, people keep talking about oil as though there were loads of it and it was a gimmie. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of progress with oil that can be got at. Plenty of talk though.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 29 Jan 12 at 18:00
|
>> serious question, 30 years ago how much was know about the oil down there?
>>
One big thing the Falklands have in their favour is if there is oil there it should not be too difficult to get at as the islands sit on a big shallow plateau, same sort of setup as the North Sea. You can park drilling rigs on the bottom while you work. Unlike the deep water stuff that went wrong in the Caribbean.
|
The difference with the Falklands is that we now have more than one man and his Lee Enfield already there.
About 1,200 people, according to the MoD:
www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/FalklandsGarrisonStillGoingStrong.htm
|
About 1,200 people, according to the MoD:
Defending 2,000 islanders and half a million sheep. An absolutely absurd waste of money. Each islander is probably costing us more than a RBS director
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 29 Jan 12 at 19:17
|
>> Defending 2,000 islanders and half a million sheep. An absolutely absurd waste of money. Each
>> islander is probably costing us more than a RBS director
Good practice for the lads. We'd have them anyway ;-)
|
|
I don't see what's absurd at all about it all, they require defending so we do. The fact that they are far away or have lots of sheep shouldn't make any difference.
|
>> Defending 2,000 islanders and half a million sheep. An absolutely absurd waste of >>money.
Is that how it should be done. They're not financially worth it, so we'll abandon them?
How about they are 'our subjects' and they should enjoy the full protection of our state, like the rest of us do?
|
>> No nation on Earth would let a foreign power invade it's territory...
... if it could do something about it.
There would have been no point at all in us having armed forces if we had ignored the invasion. Thatcher got that one right, in the face of some opposition from her own side, including some of the military it was rumoured, who doubted our capability even then.
If anyone is to blame for the failure to solve it diplomatically, it was Leopoldo Galtieri. Any ambition Argentina had for dominion over the Falklands was doomed for a generation at least as soon as the invasion started.
Speaking of political motivation, Galtieri is where the finger should be pointed as regards that, too. IIRC he was rather unpopular at the time, and had he succeeded with the invasion would have rehabilitated himself for a while. In the event, I think he was gone within days of the recapture of Port Stanley.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 29 Jan 12 at 19:09
|
Very, very clever (says the ole woman) many a true word spoken in jest though :(
If we offload the welfare pigs* we could make a down payment on an aircraft carrier or two, and even a few Harriers as well, then pay the rest orf weekly.
*Can work wont work.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14925620
£1.3 billion to extract 350 million barrels of oil. Whether this includes storage, refining and/or shipping to a refinery is not clear.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14925620
Funny that they are not inundated with the big guys wishing to help them exploit the "oil"
Its a very suspect find at the moment
|
|
Maybe it is not financially viable.............yet.
|
I wouldn't expect any real information on oil in the Falklands, or in that corner of Antarctica, or anyway in the somewhat forbidding waters between, to be publicly available. Those who know, if there are any, are profoundly stum by professional habit. It's the same everywhere. Some people know but we don't.
The Falklands war was a watershed in my personal evolution. I covered bits of it from here for a French newspaper. I was at the Foreign Office briefing the day the thing started in South Georgia. As someone raised during the second world war I agreed completely with Mrs Thatcher, who I didn't like much politically, on the need to chuck the Argentines out.
I was much amused and enlightened by the weird country dance that went on. Mrs Thatcher, basically a friend of the Argentine military, suddenly discovered that they were fascizing oppressors. Everyone on the left, who basically hated the Argentine military for very good reasons, suddenly discovered that Argentina was a third world country being bullied by imperialist Britain.
It was absolutely hilarious. However, many people I knew didn't get the joke at all, to my lasting scorn. Nor did Mrs Thatcher.
|
Reading some military commentator's thoughts on the logistics of an Argentine attack seem to indicate that the Brits have considerably more firepower in the area.
I think there are Lightnings based on the islands which are capable of destroying the aging tArgentinian planes. They still have Super Etenfards and some stuff dating back as far as the fifties. Paratropp transports would be picked off with ease.
The Argentine government must be extremely nervous about starting a water-borne invasion with the knowledge that we may, and probably do, have a nuclear sub or two prowling around off the coast of the mainland. Remember last time how their carrier was kept well away by fear alone.
I'm not at all sure the Argies would risk an invasion. The huge loss of their forces wouldn't go down too well with the population.
Ted
|
>> I think there are Lightnings based on the islands >>
The last of them was taken out of service in the 1980s. I expect they have some fast jets of some sort there.
|
|
Typhoons - not the WW2 ones
|
As Ted says there's now a decent garrison on the islands and an airfield capable of handling transports if reinforcements are needed. Fighter planes too though I think they're Tornados or Typhoons. Lightnings are long gone.
Argentina will fight an economic war this time by way of boycotts, refusal of overflight landing rights etc. Some of this already going on in relation to Falklands flagged vessels. Argentina is being supported by other South American nations.
Some sort of leaseback deal likely within another decade or so.
|
The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands is based on a brief occupancy by soldiers from the United Provinces of the River Plate, a Spanish colony that included Argentina or part of it. The British repatriated them, with little violence I seem to remember. But the records are skimpy. There is no record of any indigenous inhabitants. The indigenous inhabitants of Argentina vanished long ago.
At the time of the Falklands war I was surprised to learn from an Algerian acquaintance that the British were thought to have wiped out an indigenous population. He didn't know there wasn't one and never had been. I wouldn't be surprised if this was still widely believed in the third world where we are traditional villains, if grudgingly admired here and there.
Mrs Kirchner is a hell of a lot better looking than Mrs Thatcher I must say.
|
So am I....come to that !
Ted
|
|
You Sir, are a Star, first order.
|
|
For what it is worth CG, I wouldn't want you on my team. Nuff said. Night. x
|
I would rather have CG in my team than you. Nuff said.
|
|
Your both bottom of the league in my book!
|
|
Can't fathom that one out...
|
|
Time to sink this thread before it turns into wave after wave of dreadful puns.
|
|
There'll be enough puns along shortly to keep this thread afloat for weeks.
|
|
Well some of us are making heavy weather of it, but I am sure we can make some headway and keep it on an even keel.
|
|
We could re-name the Falklands Great Britainette, and admit all future immigrants there instead! - then when its full, we could let the "Argies" have it!!
Last edited by: devonite on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 12:24
|
Oho!
The type 45 destroyer, HMS Dauntless, will soon be en route to the Falklands!
According to reports, it has enough air warfare capability to take out the entire South American airforces, never mind Argentina's.
Last edited by: Roger on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 14:36
|
>> Oho!
>> The type 45 destroyer, HMS Dauntless, will soon be en route to the Falklands!
>> According to reports, it has enough air warfare capability to take out the entire South
>> American airforces, never mind Argentina's.
>>
>>
One whole ship, the Argentinians msut be petrified.
It only takes one missile coming the other way, as we found out last time.
|
>>It only takes one missile coming the other way, as we found out last time<<
That 'last time' was 30 years ago, type 45's will be bristling with 21st century defensive capabilities.
|
And the oppostion will be using 21st century offensive capabilities
Wasn't HMS Sheffield bristling with 20th century defensive capabilities when it was sunk by 20th century missiles ?
|
Kirchner is no Galtieri , so I don’t think in my wildest nightmares it will come to that,
But if it does then Britain will do what it has to do (and does best)
|
>> And the oppostion will be using 21st century offensive capabilities
>> Wasn't HMS Sheffield bristling with 20th century defensive capabilities when it was sunk by 20th
>> century missiles ?
As the story goes, the Shiney Sheffield was not at full action stations at the time of the attack, therefore not evey system would be manned. Also, her radar that should have detected and tracked the missile was not in operation as the ship was using other systems that would temporarily disable it.
A failure in communications from another ship that had detected the attacking aircraft meant she had no warning. Other than that she unfortunately fulfilled her task of defending the major ship (carrier) as the missile may have travelled on to hit the Invisible which was not far away.
There was also a story that as Exocets were used mainly by ourselves and usually friendly people at the time and there were few other sea-skimming missile types around, our systems weren't so good at finding them. The Argies remember also had a Type 42 sister ship to Sheffield.
Up until this incident it was felt on the ships that the Argies could or would not do anything serious. Certainly the fleet was set in a peacetime mode, equipment wise and culturally. It was felt that the Argies would back down before the fleet arrived. Long range radar warning was not available after the scrapping of the proper carriers.
The sinking of the Type 21s was in part due to them being in restricted waters, most RN ships being designed for NATO North Atlantic anti-submarine roles - open water ops. Having been on frigates in a Norwegian fjords being 'attacked' by orange aircraft, defence is difficult unless long range radar is available. Aircraft can pop up over the mountains and do their thing before the (then) close range defence systems could lock on and fire. Much more thought has been given to close range defence now. Posh missile systems designed to take out ships over the horizon are of little use against people in a fast rib boat armed with RPGs for instance as would be found in the Gulf.
After the Falklands many additions and changes were made to ships and training of the crews. Sea survival was taken more seriously, with many new bits of kit being fitted in ships to aid escape from darkened, smoke-filled, damaged ships. Much of this proved to be a little dangerous in its own way as older ships were not designed for this kit, so already narrow passageways within the ships were packed even more by this extra gear.
Last edited by: four wheels good... on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 17:59
|
>> After the Falklands many additions and changes were made to ships and training of the
>> crews. Sea survival was taken more seriously, with many new bits of kit being fitted
>> in ships to aid escape from darkened, smoke-filled, damaged ships. Much of this proved to
>> be a little dangerous in its own way as older ships were not designed for
>> this kit, so already narrow passageways within the ships were packed even more by this
>> extra gear.
The Falklands was 37 years after the end of WW2, so in that space of time, all those self same lessons forgotten.
Its now 29 years since the Falklands war, now I am not a gambling man, but I would be prepared to bet a few quid on all the same problems occuring again
The striking things about wars is the same mistakes are always repeated, See 1914 - 1939
|
I know we had "Smart" weapons, but were they really this "Smart"?>>
the missile may have travelled on to hit the Invisible which was not far away.
Last edited by: devonite on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 18:48
|
>> >>It only takes one missile coming the other way, as we found out last time<<
>>
>> That 'last time' was 30 years ago, type 45's will be bristling with 21st century
>> defensive capabilities.
The captain of HMS Sheffield said that too
And the Captain of HMS Coventry
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 17:03
|
The thing is - we took losses and won, where as they took losses and lost, that's the name of the game war.
|
>> And the Captain of HMS Coventry
I think the point Dog is trying to make is we have moved on technology wise in defence, the argentinians far less so. Although not a super weapon, they are still heads and shoulders above anything they have. They are still suffering the effects from 30 years ago in that they haven't replaced a lot of their kit lost.
>>
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 21:00
|
>> I think the point Dog is trying to make is we have moved on technology
>> wise in defence, the argentinians far less so. Although not a super weapon, they are
>> still heads and shoulders above anything they have. They are still suffering the effects from
>> 30 years ago in that they haven't replaced a lot of their kit lost.
Gross over confidence not borne out by any experience
I refer you to USS Cole (DDG-67)
|
|
So it's technology has moved, or are you saying techology gives not a significant advantage. There's nothing 'gross' in what I wrote, plenty of experience tells us technology gives us an advantage. I'm not saying it's a super weapon that would destroy all before (in this post or the one above) just that it's very important tool. Picking out odd cases from wiki doesn't really make your statement any more true.
|
At the time of the Falklands war a type 42 destroyer was a state of the art weapons platform.
Its record in real live war was pretty poor. 5 Deployed in the theatre, two sunk, one damaged and withdrawn from the battle.
Let me tell you about the Bismark, fabulous ship, state of the art, crippled by an obsolete fabric covered design relic of WW1
|
>> Let me tell you about the Bismark, fabulous ship, state of the art, crippled by
>> an obsolete fabric covered design relic of WW1
>>
I'm not sure what are you trying to say about technology in defence? I am guess you've read my post, but by posting up this, I'm still none the wiser what you mean. You seem to be thinking that I'm saying high tech is the be all and end all I'm not just that it's a significant advantage.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 21:00
|
What am providing you with, is real life actual state of the art bristling with technology ships that have not delivered on promise. The reliance on "state of the art" technology and the belief that one "state of the art2 weapons system would defeat a determined aggressor is foolish
I would have thought my examples were proof enough.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 18:14
|
|
At the moment a human has to decide to respond to a threat regardless of the technology, thats the weak link. (As in HMS Sheffield).
|
>> What am providing you with, is real life actual state of the art bristling with
>> technology ships that have not delivered on promise. The reliance on "state of the art"
>> technology and the belief that one "state of the art2 weapons system would defeat a
>> determined aggressor is foolish
>>
>> I would have thought my examples were proof enough.
>>
I don't think you're really grasping what I'm saying. You are arguing against a view point I haven't got nor made.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 18:25
|
>> I don't think you're really grasping what I'm saying. You are arguing against a view
>> point I haven't got nor made.
Apart from " plenty of experience tells us technology gives us an advantage"
My argument is, that it doesn't. Or if it does its exaggerated and not borne out by experience.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 18:34
|
>> My argument is, that it doesn't. Or if it does its exaggerated and not borne
>> out by experience.
>>
So technology of a higher state gives us no advantage. Would it be fair to say that's your position?
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 21:00
|
|
Anybody who has worked in a larger corporate enviroment will recognise the inability of 'the corporate memory' to learn from previous mistakes. Somebody has likened the behaviour to that seen in sufferers from early onset alzheimers. The forces enviroment, with significant shorter periods of service from those at lower level, will certainly be no better, and I would suggest probably worse than British industry. Is this a purely British disease, I would guess not, and support Zs proposition that generally people do not learn from their mistakes and evidence from a sucession of wars would confirm this.
|
>> Anybody who has worked in a larger corporate enviroment will recognise the inability of 'the
>> corporate memory' to learn from previous mistakes. Somebody has likened the behaviour to that seen
>> in sufferers from early onset alzheimers.
The loco engineer and railway journalist Roger Ford describes the most powerful seven words in response to 'new' ideas are:
Why Will if be Different This Time.
|
.>> Anybody who has worked in a larger corporate enviroment will recognise the inability of 'the
>> corporate memory' to learn from previous mistakes. Somebody has likened the behaviour to that seen
>> in sufferers from early onset alzheimers. The forces enviroment, with significant shorter periods of service
>> from those at lower level, will certainly be no better, and I would suggest probably
>> worse than British industry. Is this a purely British disease, I would guess not, and
>> support Zs proposition that generally people do not learn from their mistakes and evidence from
>> a sucession of wars would confirm this.
Fortunately, wars that involve the navy in a major way are very rare. Thirty plus years between each period of nastyness is several generations of junior rates certainly, possibly a couple for most senior rates and officers. Therefore any personal experience of any warfare, let alone anything modern is not there. Even most senior officers will not have that experience. Weapons, therefore tactics and a host of other things will have changed greatly in that time. No amount of excercises will prepare anyone completely for the real thing. Some very basic things will remain the same but not many.
Any war would be a steep learning curve for everyone involved, a lot of material and people will be tested seriously for the first time.
>>
|
>> >> My argument is, that it doesn't. Or if it does its exaggerated and not
>> borne
>> >> out by experience.
>> >>
>>
>> So technology of a higher state gives us no advantage. Would it be fair to
>> say that's your position?
I think its fair to say you need to advance in technology to stand still. And maintain a position of barely on level terms.
|
On the subject of last time I whiled away an hour or so yesterday evening reading Lord Franks's report into the conflict:
www.margaretthatcher.org/document/109481
Interesting reading. British policy in period beforehand described by our own side as 'micawberism'.
|
>> Interesting reading. British policy in period beforehand described by our own side as 'micawberism'.
Didn't the Franks report take at face value the (utterly unbelievable) claim that the intelligence services didn't know what the Argentinians were up to in advance of the invasion?
That and other fictions were needed in my opinion to save the 'special relationship' after elements in the US defense department, under the helpless dotard Reagan, had encouraged Argentina to invade.
|
|
It saddens me that so many people here are so quick to disparage their native country. :-(
|
|
Thats rich coming from you. According to planet roger its going to rat poo in a hand cart and you have nothing good to say about it.
|
>> That's rich coming from you. According to planet Roger its going to rat poo in
>> a hand cart and you have nothing good to say about it.
>>
I have nothing good to say about the people (AKA politicians) pulling the handcart, but our country has survived for many years, despite its rulers.
Whether it will survive in future is, to my regret (although I will not live to see it) more problematical, given the nature of the enemy within.
|
the enemy within.
And who might that be? Why so coy
|
Sam Salt (the captain of HMS Sheffield) was a qualified submarine captain who had served in Polaris and fleet submarines and was well thought of throughout the service. I believe he was let down by his senior team which led to the Sheffield being hit. The fact that he went on to command HMS Southampton soon after the war indicates that the navy did not believe he was in any way to blame for the loss.
I can remember where I was when the news that the Sheffield had been hit broke, I was in a submarine simulator training and getting prepared to take over the Polaris submarine which our opposite crew was about to bring back from a nuclear deterrent patrol.
|
This has got me thinking.
Navies in general and specifically surface weaponry (all of them) have never really delivered what they have promised or designed for when push comes to shove.
the Japanese navy never delivered. the German navy never delivered, The Russian navy has a nil score, Royal Navy was a complete disaster in the early years of WW2. The American navy took heavy losses.
The German Uboat force was the only decisive navy weapon in WW2, and was defeated not by a navy but by intelligence.
is a large powerful navy a discredited force?
Discuss.
|
|
The reason that submarines are so successful is you have to find them to destroy them and particularly with nuclear submarines they are not going to make themselves obvious or hang around if they think they have been sussed. These days it is a one hit war, if you get hit it is curtains. You can't make a surface ship invisible (yet) but you can a submarine (almost). On the surface airpower is paramount.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 18:45
|
>> On the surface airpower is paramount.
Yes. So today's surface capital ships are aircraft carriers, pretty well unaffordable for penny-pinching democratic countries with greedy self-indulgent taxpaying voters.
Park one offshore and you are threatening a country for hundreds of miles inland. Much better than a battleship or cruiser whose guns have a range of 20 miles or so.
But they make big fat targets, albeit ones that can defend themselves at a considerable distance, and the loss of a carrier is a terrible blow.
All war - not just naval war - is risky and unpredictable, and subject to disastrous knock-on effects from quite small cock-ups. Well-trained and well-equipped armed forces can skew the balance of probability in your favour. But they don't guarantee anything.
No leader or politician in his or her right mind (but alas, barmy ones are not unknown) would decide unilaterally on engaging in the orgy of official crime and murder which war is. Reciprocal brinkmanship going overcentre seems to be the usual cause.
|
>> Yes. So today's surface capital ships are aircraft carriers
Absolutely. But not just an aircraft carrier on its own but also all of the other ships of a battle group (or whatever they are called). America has lots of these. We have none.
To project power you do need these aircraft carriers (with planes!) and the rest of the battle group. NOt many countries have this these days.
|
An American battle group consists roughly of an aircraft carrier, two cruisers, half a dozen destroyers, two nuclear submarines, several tankers and supply ships, and probably a few more support role vessels. More than our navy could deploy even if they had the carriers and cruisers.
Remember to keep that lot on the road you have to have at least two more of everything for transit times, repair, refit, crew stand down and training. And that is for each battle group.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 19:36
|
An aircraft carrier can project power certainly. But its a hugely tempting and vulnerable target.
The "carrier battle group" is almost entirely made of a lot of hugely expensive ships and boats whos one role is to protect the carrier. The screen is a hundred miles round the thing.
A good sub skipper with a good boat and crew can take out the crown jewels.
Where did the Chopper come from that took out the USAs number one enemy? A land base.
|
>> A good sub skipper with a good boat and crew can take out the crown
>> jewels.
>>
Thats why a battle group has a couple of nuclear submarines as protection, the best bit of kit for finding a submarine is another submarine.
|
>> >> A good sub skipper with a good boat and crew can take out the
>> crown
>> >> jewels.
>> >>
>>
>> Thats why a battle group has a couple of nuclear submarines as protection, the best
>> bit of kit for finding a submarine is another submarine.
And the MOD (Navy) certainly won't announce that a nuclear boat is in the same waters!
|
I remember a moment from a jolly French gangster/police movie. Some geezer for some reason starts displaying his weapons, taking an improbable number of guns, knives, knuckledusters, coshes and so on from pockets and recesses all over his person. As he is doing so, another says sourly:
'Yeah, yeah, you're a real aircraft carrier...' (t'es un véritable porte-avions...').
|
|
I seem to remember once having a mobile with a pinging asdic sound as its ringtone. I'd like one now, or would if I knew how to put an external ringtone on my mobile. I've still got the Father Ted expletives someone here kindly sent me, that I haven't been able to use.
|
>> I seem to remember once having a mobile with a pinging asdic sound
Showing your age there AC
Its SONAR not ASDIC
|
Same thing matey. What bats use to fly at high speed through dense fir trees.
Works better under water though. Bats must be amazingly fast-reacting.
|
|
It is yes, but SOund Navigation And Ranging is a much better description than Antisubmarine Detection Investigation Committee
|
Didnt need to Wiki that, knew it anyway.
As i knew that RADAR used to be called RDF
|
It will always be asdic to me, just as radio will always be wireless.
Pin-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-GUH. See? Asdic.
:o}
|
>> It will always be asdic to me, just as radio will always be wireless.
>>
>> Pin-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-GUH. See? Asdic.
>>
>> :o}
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoQOyhB1ppk
SNORKERS! Good Oh!
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 20:57
|
>> SNORKERS! Good Oh!
God you're foul Bennett. Here, you can have mine. Yuck.
|
>> >> SNORKERS! Good Oh!
>>
>> God you're foul Bennett. Here, you can have mine. Yuck.
God bless Nicholas Montserrat for introducing we Poms to the delight of the word "snorkers"!.
SWMBO goes ballistic when I use it!
|
I guess the point I was trying to make was if you want naval power you need aircraft carriers. Which need protecting...
Otherwise it's not really worth the effort/expense if you only half do the job.
|
>> I guess the point I was trying to make was if you want naval power
>> you need aircraft carriers. Which need protecting...
>>
>> Otherwise it's not really worth the effort/expense if you only half do the job.
>>
Exactly, it is an expense we can't afford, and trying to do it on the cheap is like doing anything on the cheap, not worth the effort. Aircraft carriers without the backup won't survive five minutes in a conflict situation. And without aircraft, madness.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 31 Jan 12 at 20:12
|
HMS Dauntless
"The Type 45 destroyer is the largest and most powerful air defence destroyer ever built for the Royal Navy. It will provide UK Defence with a world-class military capability.
The prime role of the Type 45 destroyer will be air defence: protecting UK national and allied/coalition forces against enemy aircraft and missiles. It will carry the UK variant of the world-leading Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS) including the UK-designed Sampson multi-function radar.
This system, which has been named Sea Viper by the Royal Navy, will set new standards in air defence, capable of defending the Type 45 and ships in its company from multiple attacks from even the most sophisticated anti-ship missiles and aircraft".
www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/HmsDauntlessCommissionedIntoFleet.htm
|
There is more than one way to wage war, and some are immune to even the most sophisticated 21st century defensive systems!
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/01/argentina-falklands-economic-blockade
|
Guess who's in town?
HMS Dauntless!
Met a few of the lads last night, and sank a few beers with them.
|
|
Did I imagine it or was She heading for the Falklands a few weeks ago?
|
No you didn't, she was on the way there during the last round of sabre rattling.
|
|
So She's now gorn East to get on the lash with Ian?
|
Britain's new navy. - R.P.
