It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What if the Falklands conflict happened now?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 05:07 PM
Good point, the RN's lack of close-in air defense killed a lot of sailors in 1982.

It's a lesson the RN has taken to heart, I believe every major RN surface vessel is equipped with at least one CIWS mount, the Type 42's with two each, the CV's with three each. The Type 23's have two 30mm AA guns each, but they're apparently not Goalkeeper or Phalanx.

[edit on 9/2/05 by xmotex]


posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 12:45 AM
i swear the um..landing craft, one of our assualt carriers has two phalanxes on the rear of the ship alone.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 02:02 AM
Phalanx has yet to be proved in combat, and those 20mm shells only become really effective at ranges of less than 1000M, that's cutting it awful close for something that is coming at you at 600mph.

The 30mm Gau-8A fitted to the Dutch Goalkeeper system has much better reach and whilst equally untested in combat, is a better basis for a CIWS.

And let's not forget that a Phalanx CIWS equipped warship has been hit by Exocets, namely the USS Stark, but then no CIWS is going to be effective if you neglect to turn it on.

I wouldn't place too much trust in these weapon systems, they are easily overwhelmed by a multiple launch.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 02:38 AM
QUOTE : "And let's not forget that a Phalanx CIWS equipped warship has been hit by Exocets, namely the USS Stark, but then no CIWS is going to be effective if you neglect to turn it on. "


one of the chief " issues" that survivors and campaigners who acuse the RN and MOD of negligence and coverup in the matter of the " HMS sheffield " sinking was that counter measures were deployed too late / not at all and sensors were switched off / degraded to reduce interference with comms systems

its a while since i lokked into it , but there are several vocal websites

PS - this is something to consider for the folks claiming " invincible was sunk " - how have they silenced the invincible survivors while the sheffield critics are so vocal ??????????



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 02:52 AM
Ive got an easy answer..invincible wasnt sunk :p easy.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:15 AM
IIRC , HMS coventry sailed accros the bows of HMS Broadsword , as Broadsword was aiming the seawolf system to enage the incoming Aircraft - if coventry hadn`t sailed accross her bows , then the seawolf would have fired and destroyed the attckers - (Seawolf , IIRC has a 100% engagement record for the last 25 years) - but seawolf didn`t fire , the seacat`s on the coventry missed , and she got bombed and sank.

And the FINALLY close this thread:

Tuesday 1st June

[b31] - Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible shot down south of Stanley by Roland SAM (2.40 pm). Flt Lt Mortimer RAF ejects and is later rescued from the sea.

So , an aircraft was shot down , flying from HMS Invincible on the 1st June 1982.

If the ship had been sunk the day before , where did this aircraft fly from?

Hermes was full , by this time , as the RAF had arrived with Harrier GR3`s and were embarked on both ships.

SO you can`t say `it was on Hermes` as Hermes was full.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by Harlequin]

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 02:33 PM
I did a little check up or Argentina.. They seem to be in a worse shape now than 82 even!
No good.. They'll lose a replay of the Falklands..They would have had a better chance in 82..
They screwed up big time in 82..
Anyone with a half-a$$ force could have held Falklands..very pathetic..
Maybe they needed some Russian jets..MiGs maybe..

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 02:40 PM
anyone got a link to the exocet penetrating the hull clip?
SAw that somewhere long ago..

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:07 PM
I've seen a close up of a Harpoon penetrating a ship but the Exocet shots I've seen were all hits filmed from a distance.

Here's another factoid that often gets over-looked. The Exocet that hit the Sheffield didn't explode, the rocket motor started a fire that the crew couldn't control - that really surprised me.

If you doubt this, just take a look at the photos of the abandoned ship, there is zero blast damage, just a neat hole in the side.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:23 PM
If Argentina try to reclaim the Falklands again, just send a SAS squad, kill Maradona period. They would cry for a year and will stop fighting. Plus they will suck in the World Cup (again)

Seriously, I don't think they will stand a change. With Satellites working now 24/7 the Argentineans will never have a chance of a surprise attack... so there it goes their only advantage. Plus what country would sell them weapons, not Europe, nor the US. Maybe Venezuela would lend them their F-16 and their soon to arrive Mig-29's...

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:11 AM
About a year after the Falklands Island war was over I was listening to my short wave radio and having breakfast when the BBC anounced that the British Government was taking bids on oil leases off the coast of the Falkland Islands. This war was about oil and access to off shore oil territorys.
My point is that the Argentines did not take the Islands for the Sheep. Most Americans today havent a clue. I doubt that the average Englishman does either.
The Argentines obviously wanted access to the oil to help their economy. This means that they would have sold the oil on the open market, driven down the price of oil, gotten the profits themselves and paid off thier loans to the World Banks. Do you people honestly think the banks would allow this when they make loans to the oil companys ????
Do you think the oil companys would allow the Argentines to operate as independents and drive down the world price for oil. Do you people think the oil companys tolerate independents in such a obviously closed market system.
If the Argentines wanted these islands they should have taken them in WW2 when the British and Americans were very busy with the Germans and Japanese. However oil had not as of yet been discovered. These wars are not all that you people think. There is much more to them than most people think. Some of you would do well to learn to think along this line of thought instead of thinking that all these weapons and technology are greatness. It is most often the political reasons which are never made public which is the real events behind the news. Not the politically expedient rubbish the news media reports.

This sequence of events is being repeated today just in different forms.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:50 PM
It makes sense, but its still blind stupidity to try and take a group of islands from a country with one of the best trained armed forces in the world, as i remember been told, one american senator or politician said to the argentian ambassador or the like, 'are you crazy?'

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:02 PM
Yeah..a country that'll have its forces streteched over a distance of 15000+kms.
A country that has only transonic cappable a/c that can be operated in the region..(now one sqdrn of tornadoes in falklands)..
The plan was plausible.. Its just that the argentinians suck at it..
Put countires like Iraq/Iran/Pakistan/S Africa/Japan/Turkey etc. in Argentina's place.. They'd all have pulled it off.. In the 80's and even now
(not iraq now of course)..

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:21 PM
You have to remember, argentina being who she was at the time was also a major factor in the war. With her being an "ally" with most of our "ally's" we couldnt really call in favours. I mean if it had been iran then the US I think would be the first ones to suggest helping.

Just my humble opinion.
Ps, They could manage to take the island, but I think we could have took it back. If not just send in JB.

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:24 PM
A lot was made of the offshore oil drilling around the Falklands and yet the UK has never seen one penny of revenue from these "vast" reserves in over 20 years.

The problem was that oil was so cheap that the cost of extraction would have been prohibitive - oil prices at the time were just $10 per barrel.

Now however that all seems set to change:

At the time of the conflict, the real reason that Argentina invaded was to deflect public and press attention away from the multiple problems that the Junta were beset with at the time (spiralling inflation, unemployment, murder of political opponents etc) and they saw the Malvinas as something that would (and did) unite the people - unfortunately they had to beat the UK to succeed in gaining the popularity they sought, and of course they didn't, so ultimately it actually hastened the demise of those 3 pumped up little Hitlers.

I was at college in the UK at the time of the conflict, and I always remember the announcements made by the MOD representative who became something of a public celebrity at the time, I keep thinking his name was John Knott but that was the former defence secretary, anyone know what that guys name was and what ever became of him in the years that followed ?


posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 05:10 PM
Yes, i take in what you say about how our forces certainly were stretched, but please, with the reputation of such as the gurkhas and our other special forces alone, wouldnt you be slighty scared that you just pissed of this country?

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 05:57 PM
The Brits back then did not want the oil on the market...not then and not now. The Brits had spent a bundle on the North Sea fields ..they dont want this oil on the market driving down prices and stealing their profits. They do want to know where the oil is located so drilling closely supervised will happen. Then it is capped off and put into storage. No independents allowed in this market...just like diamonds.
Same thing happened in Vietnam. Oil wells were drilled on and off shore and when found ..capped off. When they were done they turned it over to a communist system to keep out competitors and keep the oil in storage by putting the whole country in storage. Communist governments are the perfect tool to keep resources/nations in storage as they are too stupid to make anything happen economically. Way to dumb.
Oil and natural gas has been discovered in Central see how long it took to bring war and unrest to those nations.
The Crime of Saddan Hussein is not that he killed so many of his own people...the banks and oil companys dont care one whit about that. His major crime is that he sold oil independently to France and Germany cutting the big companys out of the profit loop. This done through the oil for food program. This was a sweet little deal for Saddam as he got weapons and all kinds of other technologys from France and Germany.
What the United States has done is to cut off France and Germany from a independent supply of energy and made them dependent on the big guys again. Sort of like when a drug dealer comes in to a new neighborhood and undercuts the others already there. Doesnt take the established drug dealers long to tag team this new guy and stop fighting amongst themselves while taking care of this new territorial threat. Then they go back to fighting each other or acquiring ...merging.
You can easily tell that Iraq is in storage by a war front as the price of this new source of oil is not reflected at the pump. Prices are going up not down. You dont have to go to college to do the math.
Same thing with the Alaskan Oil...none of it went to American to depress prices. It still doesnt come here today. This was done without war but nonetheless it was done. How to keep oil off the market to keep prices high and the public dumb.
You guys need to think about this aspect of economics while you are flexing your weapons/war mentality could be screwing yourself at the pump. Not everything is as it seems.


posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:36 AM
Availability doesn't drive oil prices down, only demand does (or lack thereof), OPEC sees to that.

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
I always remember the announcements made by the MOD representative who became something of a public celebrity at the time.....
......anyone know what that guys name was and what ever became of him in the years that followed ?

- His name was Ian McDonald.
As far as I know he was a middle ranking civil servant at the MOD and had a brief moment of 'fame' thanks to his selection to be the 'speaking clock' type sober spokesman for HM Gov during the Falklands conflict.

I can't help with any details about what became of him, sorry.

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Communist governments are the perfect tool to keep resources/nations in storage as they are too stupid to make anything happen economically. Way to dumb.


ahem...You forget that the soviet union has managed its oil resources very efficiently during the communist era..

Also winchester, I'm not talking of those countries politically but in terms of military might and capabilities..The argies were very well positioned politically in 82 (vis-a-vis the US etc)..
If they had an AF say like the venezuelans do now, or Saudi Arabia or even Malaysia, yes Malaysia, then they would have the opportunity to bleed the stretched supply routes..
Really, with missiles like the Exocet II any surface ship will be in trouble.
Plus with GBUs having extended ranges of 100km+ and missiles like the sunburn available for sale, it wouldn't take a military genius to sketch out a definitive "bleed at sea-entrench on land" strategy.
After all the islands are abt 500km off the mainland and way down south.
Having said this, I agree that the argie arme forces are quite useless as of now, and their economy would not be able to withstand sanctions of any sort.

I am eager to know the stance of Brazil in 82 w.r.t. flaklands though..

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in