LOL @ the UK

BAN HAMMER said:
Yeah, 4 fighter jets and about 2,000 persons isn't a very intimidating force Tom. If they want the islands, they can take them.
Click to expand...

I think the UK probably does have enough of a blue water (IE long range) Navy to take out the Argentines. However, it would of course be difficult, because a small airbase and helicopters is not much in the way of air cover. Do their planes have enough range to make missions from the mainland?
 
Waterfart said:
I seriously doubt that the UK is going to use nuclear weapons. Pretty much the only acceptable use of nuclear weapons is 1) In reaction to the use of nuclear weapons and 2) By precedent, to end a total war. It's never be established that it's OK to use them to solve a minor territorial squabble that your conventional forces are too weak to solve alone.
Click to expand...

He means a sub with nuclear propulsion. A SSN.
 
Waterfart said:
I think the UK probably does have enough of a blue water (IE long range) Navy to take out the Argentines. However, it would of course be difficult, because a small airbase and helicopters is not much in the way of air cover. Do their planes have enough range to make missions from the mainland?
Click to expand...

The Argies? I'll have to double check, but I think they do. I know the Brits don't have anything that can travel that far. I think we're the only ones that have true world wide flight ability.
 
Waterfart said:
I seriously doubt that the UK is going to use nuclear weapons. Pretty much the only acceptable use of nuclear weapons is 1) In reaction to the use of nuclear weapons and 2) By precedent, to end a total war. It's never be established that it's OK to use them to solve a minor territorial squabble that your conventional forces are too weak to solve alone.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, what I meant was a nuclear powered submarine on standby.
 
Waterfart said:
I think the UK probably does have enough of a blue water (IE long range) Navy to take out the Argentines. However, it would of course be difficult, because a small airbase and helicopters is not much in the way of air cover. Do their planes have enough range to make missions from the mainland?
Click to expand...

Do you mean to the mainland? The answer is yes, Typhoons have a range of 1800 miles. There is no plane flying, apart from possibly an F-22, which can give it the time of day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373
 
Last edited:
Waterfart said:
The ramp is something that small aircraft carriers use to make up for their size. It's still a STOVL carrier, and can't launch conventional aircraft.

The Queen Elizabeth AC's, though, are pretty sweet, and will put the UK second to the US again when it comes to capital ships. They do lack nuclear propulsion, but they have a range of 10,000 miles anyway (nuclear is basically unlimited, but a nuclear reactor costs much more than several decades of fuel). And they will use CATOBAR, so the UK has actually decided to order the F-35C's instead of the STOVL F-35B's. Hopefully, if the Conservatives (and their lackeys, who will go unnamed) lose in 2015, the UK will even keep the second one.

Carriers aren't everything when it comes to a navy either, and it's not like the Spanish, Italian, or Brazillian navies come close the UK. On wikipedia, it mentions that the UK spent a long time during the cold war specializing as an anti-submarine force against the Soviet Union, so it's likely they just decided to devote resources there instead of the flashy carriers. The United States had enough carriers anyway, and the Soviet Union largely ignored them (they didn't build any until the 80's), so the UK likely simply had different practical strategic concerns. Now tha the Cold War is over, they're turning back to more traditional blue water naval concerns.

Here's what the Queen Elizabeth's will look like:

QE_class_carrier.jpg


Also, the previous picture of the Charles de Gaulle was very flattering, and I posted it mainly to troll. Here's it next to a Nimitz-class carrier:

PA-CdG_Eisenhower-s.jpg




successful-troll-is-successful.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't know where you are getting your info but it is out of date. It has now been decided to not go for cats and traps as it is deemed too expensive so we are back to the F-35B STVOL.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/05/the-f35-decision/
 
Yeah, I just checked the Argentinian air force roster and holy fuck does it suck. I mean, 4 Typhoons isn't exactly a big deterant, but it could probably down all the actual fighting capacity of the Argentinian AF.

Not that it would be significant to their navy or ground forces. At best it'd be an annoyance if they were dedicated to talking the Falklands.
 
The CVN-68 Nimitz class displaces over 100,000 long tons... The Queen Elizabeth class will displace 64,000 long tons (or 65,000 Metric tons)...

Sweet carriers both of them. But the US still will have the best air force on water... :D
 
Waterfart said:
800px-USS_John_C._Stennis_%28CVN-74%29_%26_HMS_Illustrious_%28R_06%29.jpg


On the left is the USS Nimitz. We have about 11 aircraft carriers of this size. On the right is an HMS "Invincible" class carrier. This is the largest ship the UK Navy, and the only ship of its size. It is the only aircraft carrier in the Navy, although as of now they've decommissioned the specialized Harriet II aircraft which were the only fixed wing aircraft capable of launching from such a tiny ship, so it's currently actually operating as a helicopter carrier.
Click to expand...

'murricah, fuck yeah!
 
FN FS2000 said:
Yeah, I just checked the Argentinian air force roster and holy fuck does it suck. I mean, 4 Typhoons isn't exactly a big deterant, but it could probably down all the actual fighting capacity of the Argentinian AF.

Not that it would be significant to their navy or ground forces. At best it'd be an annoyance if they were dedicated to talking the Falklands.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that there is constant satellite surveillance of Argentina as well. I would also suggest that four Typhoons armed with sea skimming missiles could destroy the whole Argentine navy and still have some spare.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Don't forget that there is constant satellite surveillance of Argentina as well. I would also suggest that four Typhoons armed with sea skimming missiles could destroy the whole Argentine navy and still have some spare.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know about that. Last I checked the Argies have CWIS. I wouldn't fuck around with that shit for money.
 
Damocles said:
The CVN-68 Nimitz class displaces over 100,000 long tons... The Queen Elizabeth class will displace 64,000 long tons (or 65,000 Metric tons)...

Sweet carriers both of them. But the US still will have the best air force on water... :D
Click to expand...

I think the realistic goal is #2, with the US being way out of reach. Countries such as the UK, France, Russia, and China are looking to be #2, or at least have the second best carriers. In the future, China and Russia will ease into #2 and #3, so it's all kind pointless for the UK and France anyway...
 
HERE IS GLORIOUS PRIDE OF RUSSIAN FLEET, ADMIRAL KUZNETSOV!
300px-Kusnzov2.jpg


IS NOT AS GLORIOUS AS AMERICAN NIMITZ YOU SAY? IVAN SAY YOU ARE WRONG.

264kepu.jpg

xap895.jpg

1077zaa.jpg
 
Harvey Specter said:
I think the realistic goal is #2, with the US being way out of reach. Countries such as the UK, France, Russia, and China are looking to be #2, or at least have the second best carriers. In the future, China and Russia will ease into #2 and #3, so it's all kind pointless for the UK and France anyway...
Click to expand...

Is this the new form of willy waving?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top