Royal Navy sends nuclear sub with cruise missiles to Falkland Islands

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 




The Virginia class is a scaled down Sea Wolf, and the Sea Wolf itself doesn't particularly bowl me over in terms of being a next generation design, but then I haven't exactly been given a guided tour.


Pretty much on the money here Retseh. In the trades the Sea Wolf's are called Pier Wolf's. I'll leave that to your understanding.


Our submarines still do not possess a truly long range anti submarine weapon, a flaw in my opinion.


If I am reading things right..they don't need it. That will have to suffice for now.


In the submarine field, and this is just a personal opinion of course, only some of the Russian designs and the German Type 212 truly impress me,


I saw some of the videos on the U 212. I am not real impressed. I also saw some photos of a typhoon boat tied up to a pier. One of those Russian sites of photos taken all over Russia. Was not very impressed with this as well. Also not terribly impressed with their new boomer. Does it not have two screws?? Was looking at Google earth up in the fiords at Polyarny and also the other side of Russia at Vladivostok. Interesting views..even from Google Earth.
The Fiords at Polyarny and Murmansk appear to be very naturally deep fiords.
I can see where it would be very tempting to see if one can sneak a boat in there to take photos through a periscope ..at night. But that is just the stuff of legends...right!!!??

Saw the Indian Navy submarines out of the water on a barge in the Harbor at Mumbai. I did not know that was how they made their repairs. Sort of a crude floating drydock. Kilo class boats I think.

The Australian Navy has their boats tied up to piers on an island connected by a causeway outside of Perth. While I dont believe most of the photos on Google Earth are recent it is interesting to see. The weapons loading pier is way on the other side of the island and has their own pier... from where the rest of the boats are tied up.

Interesting what you can see from Google Earth.


The British certainly have ability, but their stagnant development process renders them permanently playing catch up in every field.


I tend to agree with this but from what I see our economy is slated to go into the same direction..by design. We have lousy politicians on every side...the Brits even more so. They are going to have a hell of a time getting those carriers out to sea. However...I think we are going to be in the same boat with the Gerald Ford Class of ships. I also thinks someone will drastically cut the numbers of these being built.


One of these days you and I really need to discuss what happened to the USS Scorpion - perhaps the second greatest underwater conspiracy theory in history.


I think the Scorpion was sunk by a Russian Torpedo..not one of ours.... a runaway as the news would have us believe. It was a tit for tat..based on some Soviet projects or maneuvers with which we had been interfering in trying out some new equipment.

There was a two page ad taken out in the local paper here many years ago on the loss of the Scorpion. A full two pages on it...paid for by the Navy. Do you know how much a full two pages costs in a large metropolitan newspaper??? I read the two pages over several times....then I sat back and looked at it from afar...laying on the floor. That was when the thought came to me that this was the official company line. It was what most of us were supposed to believe.

Now ..you dont have to buy into this ..it is just what I believe.
I believe something was covered up here..something more important than the loss of the Scorpion and all her crew.

Thanks,
Orangetom




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture The UK's participation with the US in any activity require's the same agreement, be it a country or individual; No one can take advantage of you with out your consent.


I'm not too sure what you are referring to, because I don't recall saying anything about Anglo-American operations or back scratching.

I am pretty sure however, that that was another poster. Please refresh my memoury. Thanx



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I think the Scorpion was sunk by a Russian Torpedo..not one of ours.... a runaway as the news would have us believe. It was a tit for tat..based on some Soviet projects or maneuvers with which we had been interfering in trying out some new equipment.

Now ..you dont have to buy into this ..it is just what I believe.
I believe something was covered up here..something more important than the loss of the Scorpion and all her crew.

Thanks,
Orangetom




Orangetom - we are in complete agreement, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Scorpion was destroyed by a Soviet torpedo launched by a Kamov Ka-25 helicopter which took off from one warship and returned to a second so the maintenance crew would not know about the missing torpedo, thereby limiting the number of people involved in the conspiracy.

This was all in retaliation for the loss of the K-129 which the Soviets believed was perpetrated by the USS Swordfish.

Quite what the K-129 was up to when it was out of its patrol area and so close to the Hawaiian islands is of course the greatest conspiracy related question.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
could be why the royal Navy has been selling so many nice new destroyers to agentinas neighbour and arch enemy in the south atlantic....mmmm



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
the uk recieved absolutly no fuel or arms from the Usa , during the falklands conflict , it was widely reportd at the time thst Mrs Thartcher felt the USA where not to be trusted , what with argentina being in your owbn back yard , in fact the brits used chilean intelligence to provide accurate reports as the ones from US intelligence prooved whoefully out of date ...



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by gambon
the uk recieved absolutly no fuel or arms from the Usa , during the falklands conflict , it was widely reportd at the time thst Mrs Thartcher felt the USA where not to be trusted , what with argentina being in your owbn back yard , in fact the brits used chilean intelligence to provide accurate reports as the ones from US intelligence prooved whoefully out of date ...


Blatantly false.

The British have spent the last 28 years feverishly trying to peddle this lie about the lack of any American involvement in providing assistance to them during the Falklands conflict.

First and foremost is the so called "Sidewinder Myth".

This from the official Naval History website:

www.naval-history.net...




Even then Ascension was invaluable. The Task Force could not be completely self-contained and a lot of men and supplies had to be ferried out to the South Atlantic by a constant stream of RAF Hercules and VC.10's, chartered freighters and mainly undisclosed American aircraft bringing in such stores as the latest Sidewinder AAM's. These were either delivered to the ships as they called in or passed by, or in urgent cases, air-dropped to them on the way to the Falklands or South Georgia.



In actual fact the exact number of missiles supplied by the US was made public in 2002 as being 105. These were supplied at just 48 hours notice by the US and were taken from the inventories of front line USAF units.

These FACTS have been verified by no less than:

Lord Renwick, a senior diplomat in the British embassy in Washington; and

Lord Powell of Bayswater, Lady Thatcher's key foreign affairs adviser - who also stated that the UK would have lost were it not for American assistance.

All reported here:

www.guardian.co.uk...

No one wants to take anything away from the job the British did down in the South Atlantic, but this constant attempt to completely disregard historical facts because the British cannot bear to admit they received direct material assistance has to be shown to be the lie it is every time someone states it (and as a story, it is a repeat offender here on ATS from our British "friends").



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
i believe the myth is the other way around , propogated by the USA , and lord renwick states , the missiles supplied were used to free up the missiles already owned to frontline units .....

[edit on 5-5-2010 by gambon]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by gambon
i believe the myth is the other way around , propogated by the USA , and lord renwick states , the missiles supplied were used to free up the missiles already owned to frontline units .....



You know, if you just want to make stuff up that's fine, but here's the quote from the link:



Lord Renwick, a senior diplomat in the British embassy in Washington, who went on to become ambassador, told the programme: "My role was to go along to the Pentagon and ask them for 105 Sidewinder missiles. These were the very latest version, which were far more accurate than the earlier versions and we wanted them delivered within 48 hours. That meant stripping part of the frontline US air force of those missiles and sending them to the South Atlantic."


Missiles were stripped FROM front line units of the USAF and SENT DIRECTLY TO the South Atlantic within 48 hours.

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gaderel

Someone here is trying very hard to make Brits, Continentals, and Aussies out of us.


This wont ever happen, you have my word.

The Americans will never be good enough at soccer to be British, wont ever be good enough in bed to be European, and wont ever be drunk enough to be Australian.



"Cricket?

What's cricket?"




posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


from time magazine

"Missiles. The U.S. sold Britain about 100 AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles (for $48,000 apiece). Of 27 Sidewinders fired by Harriers during the war, 23 scored hits. These, however, were most probably British missiles; the U.S.-supplied Sidewinders were used only to replenish inventories in Britain.

Read more: www.time.com...

lady thatcher also disagrees with her erstwhile advisors assesment of the value of the aid as overestimated......


[edit on 5-5-2010 by gambon]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999


By the way..on the subject of submarines..what do you make of the decision to put women on our submarines?? I am very dubious about it but I have been expecting it for some years now since back when they put women on surface ships...back then I knew it was coming. It is all over the papers here in this area.



Because I have nothing of value to add, I'll supply some humour.


I don't know if those two highlighted phrases are quite appropriate, even though they may well be correct





posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


Wait a second, didn't your original post say that the US provided no weapons or FUEL to the UK, and now you post a link saying this:



Fuel. As part of a routine agreement, the U.S. sent 1.5 million gal. of aviation fuel to the joint U.S.-British airbase at Ascension Island.


As for the missiles - that article is now 28 years old. As of 2002 we know the TRUTH which is that those missiles went straight from the US to the South Atlantic. We have the guy who procured them telling us that fact.

So - in summary, do you still stand by your original statement that the US did not provide any weapons or fuel to the UK for use in the Falklands conflict or does 1.5 million gallons of aviation fuel, 105 air to air missiles, an unknown quantity of 20mm ammunition, ASW sonobuoys, laser target designators, and new radars for your Sea Wolf missile systems still not count?

In short, is anything you stated originally even remotely true?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Not only did America supply all the missiles but it's now quite well known most of the Harrier pilots were actually usaf pilots it's also rumoured an american Sub actually sunk the Belgrano. If it wasn't for us Britain would highly likely have lost the falklands and been majorly embarassed.

As for the second rate tech like the challenger 2, eurofighter, type 45 and others I suppose it's all we can expect from such a small ruined country past it's prime.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
So - in summary, do you still stand by your original statement that the US did not provide any weapons or fuel to the UK for use in the Falklands conflict or does 1.5 million gallons of aviation fuel, 105 air to air missiles, an unknown quantity of 20mm ammunition, ASW sonobuoys, laser target designators, and new radars for your Sea Wolf missile systems still not count?

In short, is anything you stated originally even remotely true?


Hi Retseh. Care to provide a reliable source regarding all these items you quote. Interested how the RN would have been able to fit new radars to their Seawold system en route!

Methinks you are making it up as you go along in order to somehow prove US involvement - without which the British would not have succeeded. I do not doubt the US provideded (at cost and probably reluctantly) some aid (inetl et al) but not to the extent you suggest.

Regards



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by winterwarlock
Not only did America supply all the missiles but it's now quite well known most of the Harrier pilots were actually usaf pilots it's also rumoured an american Sub actually sunk the Belgrano. If it wasn't for us Britain would highly likely have lost the falklands and been majorly embarassed.

As for the second rate tech like the challenger 2, eurofighter, type 45 and others I suppose it's all we can expect from such a small ruined country past it's prime.


Proof please.

As far as I am aware, the Pilots were RN/RAF NOT USAF since how the hell do USAF pilots fly from carriers. No US sub sunk the Belgrano, it was HMS Conqueror .... do not try and take this away from the guys that did this.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by winterwarlock
Not only did America supply all the missiles but it's now quite well known most of the Harrier pilots were actually usaf pilots it's also rumoured an american Sub actually sunk the Belgrano. If it wasn't for us Britain would highly likely have lost the falklands and been majorly embarassed.

As for the second rate tech like the challenger 2, eurofighter, type 45 and others I suppose it's all we can expect from such a small ruined country past it's prime.


What??

second line is also a What??

Wish i could swear on here because your post was probably the stupidiest thing i have EVER seen on ATS and you deserve to be thoroughly mocked for being such a simpleton.



Nurse, Nurse!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by winterwarlock
 


I suspect you have been watching far too many American war films which rely on commerciability rather than factual representation.

You obviously have got a great carear ahead of you when you leave High School as a script writer for 3rd rate movies which go straight to DVD bargain buckets.

It is a good job that I have been around these boards long enough, and around the block quite a few times, to know that you are not representative of Americans as a whole.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 




Bamm! What a slap in the face..

Someone post that man 50cc's of history book.. Stat!



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Hi Retseh. Care to provide a reliable source regarding all these items you quote. Interested how the RN would have been able to fit new radars to their Seawold system en route!

Methinks you are making it up as you go along in order to somehow prove US involvement - without which the British would not have succeeded. I do not doubt the US provideded (at cost and probably reluctantly) some aid (inetl et al) but not to the extent you suggest.

Regards


Here's a tip Paraphi - try reading ALL the posts in a thread before you single one out, the links were all sat right above where you were posting, but let me help you out (sigh)

1.5 million gallons of fuel, 20mm ammo, sonobuoys, and Sea Wolf radar systems:

www.time.com...

105 AIM-9L Sidewinders sent straight to the Task Force link:

www.guardian.co.uk...

Any more questions?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
and then the faa used a completey untested missile design in the most important flap for ages , rather than one they had trained with and knew actually worked with no problems....?



fuel........You seem to miss this part.... "As part of a routine agreement....."

eg fuel was not sent as a special supply mission for the falklands
the fuel goes to ascension island anyway, it's a british dependancy rented as a base by the usa...you presume this fuel was solely for the task force , when there is no proof to thet fact at all,it is simply stated as being sent to ascension , same as normal ., In fact the amount of fuel mentioned is no greater than any normal amount used there , or sent there for daily ops at the time , the sonar boueys that are mentioned where built bya british aerospace owned companyi seem to remember ?and were undergoing usn trials at the time b4 being recalled rather quietly..

Unsure as to the status of the sea wolf you mean ... I can only think of the sea wolf missile , again a bac / marconi product ...


[edit on 6-5-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 6-5-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 6-5-2010 by gambon]






top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join