Royal Navy sends nuclear sub with cruise missiles to Falkland Islands

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
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)


Hi Retseh. I have read this whole thread. However, care to back up your assertion that the US provided radars for Seawolf and ASW bouys? This is where I am challenging you. A single un-sourced link to Time is hardly reliable. Try something official.

A tip for you. If you cannot back up your statements with legit sources then you are making it up. What other conclusion can be drawn?

Regards




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:27 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 .....

[edit on 5-5-2010 by gambon]


There is probably some truth to this. Older stocks of missiles if working/operational would be used first....and carefully too...based on availability of replacement stocks.

Even conventional weapons have a shelf life and maintenance is performed on them on a schedule. High tech weapons in particular...verses say small arms weapons and ammunition. It would be prudent to use the existing stocks already on the front lines first.

It is the same with torpedoes. I was told by the crew on the 688 class boat I was working on at the time that the Brits used Three torpedoes to sink the General Belgrano. This told me that they were getting rid of older stocks of torpedoes. Modern torpedoes would only take one or two. No problem if they worked fine. This just means that when you get back you will not be going through the difficulty and hardship of offloading three torpedoes. Nor will they have to be scheduled for maintenance and upgrades etc. Once again ...a prudent decision on someones part.

I have done the process of on loading and off loading torpedoes on the 688 class boats and it is a labor intensive process. Also hazardous if you are not aware of the evolutions happening. You can lose a finger/fingers very quickly if you are not aware of what is happening and when and are careless with your hands. Not having to do three more offloads when you get back is a relief.

I think your statement is correct..in freeing up missiles already on the front lines...but they would want spares..to fill the void...you never want to get down to zero balance on these tools.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 6-5-2010 by orangetom1999]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 



Originally posted by paraphi
Hi Retseh. I have read this whole thread. However, care to back up your assertion that the US provided radars for Seawolf and ASW bouys? This is where I am challenging you. A single un-sourced link to Time is hardly reliable. Try something official.

A tip for you. If you cannot back up your statements with legit sources then you are making it up. What other conclusion can be drawn?

Regards


Nice try - but I don't buy it.

Having missed the link on the first pass, you're now trying to make out that you really did see it, but what you meant to say was that Time Magazine (of all things) is not a credible source, so now of course you want a second source.

You're just a time waster, I'm not wasting any more energy on you. If you choose not to believe it, that's your call.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:27 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.


WOW! You should work for Hollywood with an imagination like that mate. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The Fleet Air Arm flew the FRS 1s (Sea Harriers) in 1982 whilst the AV8B Harrier II entered service in the US Navy/Marines in 1983 - a year later.

There were RAF pilots training American pilots at Wittering but to suggest that they flew against Argentinian aircraft is IMHO ludicrous.

That's like saying the Phantom pilots serving in the RAF during the Viet Nam War, flew combat missions off US carriers.

Oh! I almost forgot.

It seems that we aren't all past our prime. I imageine the US Marines in Afghanistan welcome the SAS squadron that is attached to them to look after them like............................

Oh yeah! Funny how you yanks can never fight a war on your own any more. Always have to get the Brits on side............if only to hold yer hand!

tête bouton

[edit on 7-5-2010 by fritz]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 


Whilst I agree with everything you have posted I would just like to point out that theposter is not representative of all Americans, the vast majority of them I know, both here and elsewhere, have nothing but the utmost respect and appreciation for British forces.
Unfortunately the one's that don't also tend to be the most vocal.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


Hi Retseh. Try to keep it civil. If you cannot back up your claims with reliable sources then you should not post them and rely upon them as fact. You cite an unsourced article from Time as if it fact.

If you have any concrete evidence that the US supplied radar equipment for the Seawolf missile systems to the UK during the Falklands then I'd love to see it.

Regards



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
May I come to Retseh's defence ? Not that he needs any help ...

I've read his posts keenly for a while. He's fairly blunt with his criticism of British military procurement ... but his contributions invariably cut through so much verbiage and lay bare many deficiencies in UK kit. And that's valuable in my book, it helps us see things more clearly.

Although he's no loss to the Diplomatic Service



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Hi Retseh. Try to keep it civil. If you cannot back up your claims with reliable sources then you should not post them and rely upon them as fact. You cite an unsourced article from Time as if it fact.

If you have any concrete evidence that the US supplied radar equipment for the Seawolf missile systems to the UK during the Falklands then I'd love to see it.

Regards


I'm sure you'd like to see a lot of things, maybe you could even contribute something to the discussion every once in a while.

If you regard being called a time waster as being somehow un-civil, your expectations of internet based discourse are as unreasonable as your other demands.

By the way - DO you have anything useful to add to this thread?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ulala
Although he's no loss to the Diplomatic Service


What !! Me not dimplomatic !!!

Compared to most of my fellow countrymen I'm shy and retiring


By the way, nice to see the Finns in here, we need to see a lot more of the refined europeans



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


Hi Retseh. I have contributed to this thread, but I am just after you to back up what you are stating as fact. Nothing wrong with that. If you cannot back up your assertions then just say so, but do so in a civil way.

Regards



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 




Although he's no loss to the Diplomatic Service


LOL LOL LOL Retseh,

I have a picture of you in my mind... so "diplomatically correct" State Department Material....trying to solve disputes between the Israelis and Palestinians....both of them are likely to be shooting at you.....before continuing to shoot at each other.

You are so diplomatic...delicate of sensibilities.....PC.

LOL LOL..Retseh. Hang in there dude!!

Orangetom



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
 
If you have any concrete evidence that the US supplied radar equipment for the Seawolf missile systems to the UK during the Falklands then I'd love to see it. Regards


The reason Retseh has not provided any proof as you requested is because he can't.

The radar system on Seawolf during the Falkland Island Campaign is a tracking unit only! It is not a detection system.

The original detection system on the Type 22 Leander Frigate used in the war against Argentina were the Type 967 [LRTA] and Type 968 [SRTI] radars operating ln Band D.

Once the tgt was acquired and the ships radars were tracking the inbound missile [or shell
] control was passed to the radar system on the firing point although guidance was via the ae on the fins mounted to the rear of the Seawolf missile and controlled by the ships CIC and this was the Type I Band for acquisition and K Band for missile lock.

As far as I can remember, these radar were made by Marconi/Plessey in Malvern, Worcestershire which Retseh, is in England!

By the time of the Falklands Conflict, these radars were probably of the Blindfire type which were used on the original Dusty Bin towed radar posts of the Rapier missile system deployed by the RAF Regiment.

These radars were manufactured by BAe which back then. was wholly British.

So Retseh, not an American in sight - unless of course it was an ex-Marine sniper caught by a General.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by fritz]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Retseh,
Maybe you want to take a shot at the English arm-twisting the French into only selling 'two-and-a-half' Exocets (~metaphor~) to the Argies at the onset of the war?

Nothing to do with American assistance but IMHO a critical act (ironically of diplomacy might I add!) by the British in securing technological superiority (quantitative and qualitative) in this war.
Any number of sidewinders (American or British), would have been undermined if the Argies had gotten their hands on a few dozen Exocets with assistance on arming their Etendards.
Would've prompted Thatcher to wield her nuclear Vulcans as RN losses would have been unacceptable IMHO.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
There was also a British mission to buy up every available Exocet on the black market after securing a French guarantee that they wouldn't supply any to the Argentines, ensuring there was no source available to them


[edit on 12-5-2010 by waynos]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
So what is the latest and greatest on this?
Where is the Swifsture and are we missing out on some nice hide n seek fun in the South Atlantic?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Ladies and Gentlemen.

Have we managed the impossible?

Have we finally silenced Retseh and stopped his incessent ramblings?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
More Etendards with upgrades?

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I understand the silence now.

The gentleman concerned is a Brit ex-pat IT consultant married with an American wife.

Perhaps she has managed to brainwash him with Hollywood's version of the Falklands Campaign.

Rumour has it, he's trying to get back home. Perhaps the Yanks are just as fed up with his bull#, as we are!

Time will tell, won't it Mike?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
The UK is broke and can't even deal with Afghanistan.

How exactly do you expect them to deal with Argentina?


Thats easy mate we just nuke them just like iserail thinks it has the world by the balls because they have nukes.

Now join me in a little song if you please

Nuke em, Nuke em, Nuke em , Nuke em and we will all be happy again


You see at least we have oil rights so long as we keep the island that is in someone elses back yard and they are christians and speak english plus it's clear those argentines can talk untill the cows come home we are not giving it back because .... well ...... because we have nukes so end of debate.

Don't go asking americans why they want to protect Iserail because they don't have oil or anything in common with the iserail population but they do have nukes so once again

Nuke em, Nuke em, Nuke em , Nuke em and we will all be happy again


I would guess this is just a cover story to send the submerian somewhere else now america has said it would not back the UK against a war with argentina so it seems the USA loves iserail more than us brits.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Well, HMS Sceptre returned to Devonport, England on 26th May. The last Swiftsure class submarine in service, 32 years old, she's now laid up and waiting to be de-commissioned.

Her detour from South Africa to the South Atlantic served its purpose ; it signalled to the Argentinians that the United Kingdom was still prepared to use force to defend its colonial outpost (and its newly discovered oilfield).






top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join