The Falklands should be
British
77.5% (155)
77.5% (155)
Argentine
3.5% (7)
3.5% (7)
Independent
7.5% (15)
7.5% (15)
part of the US
2.5% (5)
2.5% (5)
owned by Notch
5.5% (11)
5.5% (11)
other (post and explain!)
2.5% (5)
2.5% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Falklands

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

I say Argentina itself should be part of the UK, yea I went there. If we see another Falkland war it would be incredibly ironic and humorous if the UK just kept going and annexed Argentina.

GoaThief:

Ricky 49:
they lie!!

I smell anti-English (should be British) bigotry. I bet the Irish come out smelling of roses too, would be interesting to have your teacher answer some gently probing questions.

As for the cost, the books should balance quite nicely if the abundance of black gold is correct. Until Argentina return the land to it's indigenous population it was stolen from they have absolutely no room for talk. Many Argentinians believe proximity to landmass is a good enough reason, one wonders if they'll be ordering Puerto Ricans to bow to Dominican rule, or Haitians should surrender their land to Mexico? The fact that people of the Falklands consider themselves British rankles some, a read of the Argentine press can be very illuminating.

If we were to go that route we would end up returning Iraq to the Sumerians and after that it just gets confusing.

spectrenihlus:
If we were to go that route we would end up returning Iraq to the Sumerians and after that it just gets confusing.

Indeed.

Your annexing idea is an interesting one too (insert evil laugh here).

It's funny you don't see so much enmity on France over French Guiana. I wonder why that is?

Ok looked it up over my lunch break. The Argentine Air Force its pretty meh though they still have the Super-Entrede (almost sure I am spelling that wrong) and way too much confidence in the EXOCET missile system.

Their Navy is somewhat better but its mainstay are 4 Destroyers and a handful of Corvettes. Argentina wants an Aircraft Carrier again (I think Brazil is the only country on the continent with a carrier) but honestly it wouldnt matter if it had one. More importantly though their Marines have taken a hit on the budget block so while the Royal Navy may be less capable of defending the Falklands, Argentina is less able to invade them.

GoaThief:

Ricky 49:
they lie!!

I smell anti-English (should be British) bigotry. I bet the Irish come out smelling of roses too, would be interesting to have your teacher answer some gently probing questions.

As for the cost, the books should balance quite nicely if the abundance of black gold is correct. Until Argentina return the land to it's indigenous population it was stolen from they have absolutely no room for talk. Many Argentinians believe proximity to landmass is a good enough reason, one wonders if they'll be ordering Puerto Ricans to bow to Dominican rule, or Haitians should surrender their land to Mexico? The fact that people of the Falklands consider themselves British rankles some, a read of the Argentine press can be very illuminating.

Problem, the indigenous population is basically penguins.

Besides the oil, it is the most inhospitable rock that people live on outside of Svalbard (part of Norway, in the Artic circle, that legally requires you to carry a rifle when your away from the colony because of the large amount of polar bears).

If any people that came to the island before the first explores in the 16th century, they either A. Left B. died or C. were all killed off by the first settlers and nobody bothered to write that down. There is nobody born on the island that doesn't have European ancestors.

So I happened to read up on the Falklands a bit more than I have in the past last night and turns out the Britain did indeed receive some intelligence and material support from the likes of France, America, and even Chile (who at the time also had a territorial dispute with Argentina though that was resolved later with the intervention of the Pope acting as a mediator). It also mentions Gadahfi sending support for Argentina and Russia and China opposing a UN resolution against Argentina (they do that). Also Israel had a slight involvement since some technicians or private advisers were in Argentina helping them use some new equipment that they either had bought or were buying from Israel. I think that is more of a coincidental involvement and a very minor one at that. I daresay I doubt Israel cares very much about affairs relating to the Falkland Islands.

I think we have the islands well protected but if things start looking dicy we could always push HMS Victory back into the sea and sail her to the islands.

Worlds oldest commissioned ship (234 years) what could possibly go wrong?

On a more serious note I'd just like to say when Argentinians start crying Imperialism they would do well to remember the annexing of the territory they now occupy which wasn't exactly all flowers and cuddles for the natives.

coolicus:
I think we have the islands well protected but if things start looking dicy we could always push HMS Victory back into the sea and sail her to the islands.

Worlds oldest commissioned ship (234 years) what could possibly go wrong?

Seekster:
So I happened to read up on the Falklands a bit more than I have in the past last night and turns out the Britain did indeed receive some intelligence and material support from the likes of France, America, and even Chile (who at the time also had a territorial dispute with Argentina though that was resolved later with the intervention of the Pope acting as a mediator). It also mentions Gadahfi sending support for Argentina and Russia and China opposing a UN resolution against Argentina (they do that). Also Israel had a slight involvement since some technicians or private advisers were in Argentina helping them use some new equipment that they either had bought or were buying from Israel. I think that is more of a coincidental involvement and a very minor one at that. I daresay I doubt Israel cares very much about affairs relating to the Falkland Islands.

In war, it is a good idea to get your allies to help as quickly as possible. As Sun Zu said, those that try to make war more fair make it worse for all involved, since it will prolong it. You should note the war was over VERY quickly (April to June of 1982). Why they didn't at least try to get NATO involved is anyones guess.

IIRC, there was a treaty amongst (at least some of) the American nations that they'd come to each others aid in the face of an external enemy.

The Falklands war was the first time it was put to the test, and the US abandoned it straight away, for obvious reasons.

Seekster:
Also Israel had a slight involvement since some technicians or private advisers were in Argentina helping them use some new equipment that they either had bought or were buying from Israel. I think that is more of a coincidental involvement and a very minor one at that. I daresay I doubt Israel cares very much about affairs relating to the Falkland Islands.

Well, given your circumstances you might indeed find it difficult to accept Israel assisted Argentina in the Falklands conflict. However, what you like isn't the same as what is.

Whilst the two certainly had pre-existing contracts, there's decent evidence Israel agreed to plenty more after the Argentinian invasion, and not at all coincidentally. We don't know for sure because Israel did it secretly (although not secretly enough - it's claimed British intelligence knew), and governments don't air such dirty linen in public until long after it's happened.

Not G. Ivingname:

coolicus:
I think we have the islands well protected but if things start looking dicy we could always push HMS Victory back into the sea and sail her to the islands.

Worlds oldest commissioned ship (234 years) what could possibly go wrong?

Seekster:
So I happened to read up on the Falklands a bit more than I have in the past last night and turns out the Britain did indeed receive some intelligence and material support from the likes of France, America, and even Chile (who at the time also had a territorial dispute with Argentina though that was resolved later with the intervention of the Pope acting as a mediator). It also mentions Gadahfi sending support for Argentina and Russia and China opposing a UN resolution against Argentina (they do that). Also Israel had a slight involvement since some technicians or private advisers were in Argentina helping them use some new equipment that they either had bought or were buying from Israel. I think that is more of a coincidental involvement and a very minor one at that. I daresay I doubt Israel cares very much about affairs relating to the Falkland Islands.

In war, it is a good idea to get your allies to help as quickly as possible. As Sun Zu said, those that try to make war more fair make it worse for all involved, since it will prolong it. You should note the war was over VERY quickly (April to June of 1982). Why they didn't at least try to get NATO involved is anyones guess.

War is hell, make it fast, make it decisive, and make it over and done with. Yes I read up on the Falklands War again recently like I said and the laughable part is that Britain actually got some criticism for being too hard on Argentina. Its a flipping war, if you go easy on them then it lasts longer and more people die as a result. Also what was up with that GOTCHA! Headline I read about in The Sun? People got angry about that?

The Falklands War was over too quickly that getting NATO involved would have taken more time and been more trouble than its worth.

thaluikhain:
IIRC, there was a treaty amongst (at least some of) the American nations that they'd come to each others aid in the face of an external enemy.

The Falklands war was the first time it was put to the test, and the US abandoned it straight away, for obvious reasons.

Thats because the treaty which I think you are referring to only applies if a nation in the New World is attacked. Argentina was the aggressor so America has no obligations to assist Argentina in a war it started.

Agema:

Seekster:
Also Israel had a slight involvement since some technicians or private advisers were in Argentina helping them use some new equipment that they either had bought or were buying from Israel. I think that is more of a coincidental involvement and a very minor one at that. I daresay I doubt Israel cares very much about affairs relating to the Falkland Islands.

Well, given your circumstances you might indeed find it difficult to accept Israel assisted Argentina in the Falklands conflict. However, what you like isn't the same as what is.

Whilst the two certainly had pre-existing contracts, there's decent evidence Israel agreed to plenty more after the Argentinian invasion, and not at all coincidentally. We don't know for sure because Israel did it secretly (although not secretly enough - it's claimed British intelligence knew), and governments don't air such dirty linen in public until long after it's happened.

Really? What possible interest could Israel have over who owns the Falkland Islands? Its not like they dont have more pressing concerns closer to home and even at home. As far as I can see the Israeli government wasnt involved much if at all in the Falklands War. The only involvement by Israelis at all was by advisers who were in Argentina on business to teach them how to use weapons they had bought recently. Seriously what could Israel POSSIBLY hope to gain from taking sides with Argentina or any country in that affair for that matter?

In the last couple of days, the posturing has continued. Firstly, Argentina turned away two cruise liners because they had visited the Falkland Islands en route. So these cruise ships went off to Chile, where their passengers presumably disembarked and happily spent all their tourist $$$'s that would otherwise have been spent in Argentina. Real smart move, lady...

Now the Argentine government are urging businesses and companies not to do business with British companies and end imports from the UK. Fair enough, but if we respond in kind it will hurt them far more than it will hurt us. And maybe we should stop paying the foreign aid we pay to Argentina as well?

Never mind, it's keeping attention away from internal political problems that the Argentine government are not able or not willing to deal with. A bit like General Galtieri back in '82. Only without the unswerving loyalty of the military or the means to take any kind of effective military action to back up the rhetoric.

Yes and there is also some hubub about Airlines flying to the Falklands from Chile. I don't know Argentina is just bored and its leaders want to keep the people distracted from domestic problems by pointing towards the UK as an enemy...in a way its essentially the same thing Iran does with the USA and Israel. I swear "Death to America" is almost the national motto of that country.

On an off topic note, anyone find it funny that Iran and Russia are having elections on the same weekend? So yeah Putin gets to be President or Prime Minister or whatever he isnt currently.

Seekster:

Really? What possible interest could Israel have over who owns the Falkland Islands? Its not like they dont have more pressing concerns closer to home and even at home. As far as I can see the Israeli government wasnt involved much if at all in the Falklands War. The only involvement by Israelis at all was by advisers who were in Argentina on business to teach them how to use weapons they had bought recently. Seriously what could Israel POSSIBLY hope to gain from taking sides with Argentina or any country in that affair for that matter?

Isreal as a whole generally doesn't care about the Falklands at all. It's claimed the PM of the time wanted dead Britons in the name of Jewish terrorists that the British killed whilst maintaining order during the Palentinian mandate period. But, you know, he dictated Israel's policy of the time, so it sticks on Israel too.

Agema:

Seekster:

Really? What possible interest could Israel have over who owns the Falkland Islands? Its not like they dont have more pressing concerns closer to home and even at home. As far as I can see the Israeli government wasnt involved much if at all in the Falklands War. The only involvement by Israelis at all was by advisers who were in Argentina on business to teach them how to use weapons they had bought recently. Seriously what could Israel POSSIBLY hope to gain from taking sides with Argentina or any country in that affair for that matter?

Isreal as a whole generally doesn't care about the Falklands at all. It's claimed the PM of the time wanted dead Britons in the name of Jewish terrorists that the British killed whilst maintaining order during the Palentinian mandate period. But, you know, he dictated Israel's policy of the time, so it sticks on Israel too.

Hmm well Israel does have a tendency towards rather bitter PMs so yeah that idea would make sense. For now though I highly doubt Israel has any interest in the Falklands dispute and any bitterness felt towards the British (by those still alive who are old enough to remember the mandate period) are not enough to risk doing anything to piss off the only country that is closer to America diplomatically than they are.

Just on a more general point I'd like to clear my chest of what annoys me about the Falklands issue. I'm quite comfortably left of centre economically and socially but what gets me irate are these knee jerk left wingers who decry the Falklands as an antiquated relic of our colonial past - Morrissey and Roger Waters for example - and whilst I've often enjoyed their music I think they should really resist the urge to get involved in issues they seem to have no idea about. Although I suspect Waters remarks were inspired by the financial prospects of his South American tour. I hate the right wing brain-dead nationalists cry of YEAH LETS BOMB THEM DAMN ARGIES1!!111 jingoism too but it really is so frustrating to see many 'informed' people getting up on their soap box.

Just a few points.

1. The islands were not inhabited prior to their discovery by Europeans, or at least they had not been occupied for a very long time. It was hardly a case of any of the European powers displacing huge numbers of natives.

2. The Argentinian claim to the Islands is about as strong as the claim of us Brits to the Faroe islands. It essentially boils down to an issue of distance. Every time it was offered to go to International Court the Argentine government refused because they themselves know that there is no way in hell they could possibly hope to succeed. Every time there was some kind of concessionary agreement looked for it was turned away. The whole issue is essentially a way for the government(s?)to distract attention away from domestic issues.

3. Most who want to islands to be handed over seem to be totally ignoring the will of the Islanders. Many of whom have roots that go back 170 years or more.

4. Argentina itself can trace its roots to the Spanish Empire who grew rich based on the abject decimation of the indigenous population. For them to band around the world colonialism when their whole claim to the islands is related to what is essentially "colonialism" on the part of their forebears it does strike me as a tad funny. Not to mention the large amounts of Paraguay that were carved up in the War of the Triple Alliance.

coolicus:

2. The Argentinian claim to the Islands is about as strong as the claim of us Brits to the Faroe islands. It essentially boils down to an issue of distance. Every time it was offered to go to International Court the Argentine government refused because they themselves know that there is no way in hell they could possibly hope to succeed. Every time the

Would you like to finish that thought? I am pretty sure "The" didn't do anything wrong. :P

Not G. Ivingname:

coolicus:

2. The Argentinian claim to the Islands is about as strong as the claim of us Brits to the Faroe islands. It essentially boils down to an issue of distance. Every time it was offered to go to International Court the Argentine government refused because they themselves know that there is no way in hell they could possibly hope to succeed. Every time the

Would you like to finish that thought? I am pretty sure "The" didn't do anything wrong. :P

haha

Oh dear you can tell I need to go to bed!

Seekster:

Isreal as a whole generally doesn't care about the Falklands at all. It's claimed the PM of the time wanted dead Britons in the name of Jewish terrorists that the British killed whilst maintaining order during the Palentinian mandate period. But, you know, he dictated Israel's policy of the time, so it sticks on Israel too.

It took 3 years for my mate Stinker to die from his wounds. His poor mother.

An eye for an eye is what's due to them.

We should arm the Palestinians.
Israel is no friend of this country.

Seekster:
Ok looked it up over my lunch break. The Argentine Air Force its pretty meh though they still have the Super-Entrede (almost sure I am spelling that wrong) and way too much confidence in the EXOCET missile system.

They're called Super Étendard's, built by Dassault-Breguet in France, circa 1974. And they're pretty much the most advanced jets in the Argentine Air Force, circa 2012! Those jets are equipped to fire Exocet missiles (also French built), but they fired their entire stockpile of 6 during the 1982 conflict, disabling and irreparably damaging HMS Sheffield, sinking Atlantic Conveyor with two hits, and damaging HMS Glamorgan. A total of 4 hits from 6 launches demonstrated its potency.

coolicus:
YEAH LETS BOMB THEM DAMN ARGIES1!!111

Don't worry, we couldn't even if we wanted to. Pity really - a handful of air raids kept the entire Argentine Air Force at arms' length last time.

Baff:

Seekster:

Isreal as a whole generally doesn't care about the Falklands at all. It's claimed the PM of the time wanted dead Britons in the name of Jewish terrorists that the British killed whilst maintaining order during the Palentinian mandate period. But, you know, he dictated Israel's policy of the time, so it sticks on Israel too.

It took 3 years for my mate Stinker to die from his wounds. His poor mother.

An eye for an eye is what's due to them.

We should arm the Palestinians.
Israel is no friend of this country.

The Palestinians are already armed. Besides what would provoking Israel accomplish? I am sorry about your friend.

It would let them know that there are consequences to their actions.
Retaliation is not the same as provocation.

Israel has continued to act hostily towards us over the years. As long as they face no response to their actions they will continue with them.

The Palestinains are not armed well enough to defend themselves against Israel. Military parity for them would curb Israel.
Aside from an entirely justifiable act of revenge/punishment, it would serve a lot of good in it's own right to contain their expansion.

What goes around needs to come around once in a while. There is a human need for justice.

Did you know that New Zealand is closer to Australia than the Falklands are to Argentina.
I Argentina can claim the Falklands simply because of its proximity to their country then Australia could claim New Zealand as it's own and then evict all the New Zealanders and turn the entire country into Jurassic Park (or something).

Anyway, if Argentina attacked the Falklands there isn't much the UK could do. They'd never get support from anyone else (yup, despite running off into dumbass wars with the US it is unlikely the US would ever directly support the UK on this matter other than having fatass Clinton throw around rhetoric like she usually does).

The UK's military currently consists of 3 ducks and a ferret, so there's nothing they could do against even the most backward military.

Based on the claims of the Argentinians (that Spain told them that they could have the Falklands 200 years ago) it would mean that Mexico should be allowed to reclaim Texas.

Or that Cuba belongs to the US.

Or that Turkey owns Cyprus (don't tell any Greeks that I said that!)

Also, Canada or Russia has more claim to Alaska than the US.

Alas, this isn't going to turn out well for the Brits.
I explained the whole situation to my German girlfriend and she summed up the situation pretty well, "It doesn't matter whether or not the UK has legitimate claim to the Falklands, the fact is that the UK was the biggest empire for hundreds of years and the rest of the world simply wants to see it lose everything it has"

Li Mu:
Did you know that New Zealand is closer to Australia than the Falklands are to Argentina.
I Argentina can claim the Falklands simply because of its proximity to their country then Australia could claim New Zealand as it's own and then evict all the New Zealanders and turn the entire country into Jurassic Park (or something).

Well, except for New Zealand being about 5 times as far away from Australia as the Falklands are from Argentina. Mind you, there was moves to incorporate New Zealand (and Fiji) into what became the Commonwealth of Australia when it was first formed, but it didn't happen.

Li Mu:
Anyway, if Argentina attacked the Falklands there isn't much the UK could do. They'd never get support from anyone else (yup, despite running off into dumbass wars with the US it is unlikely the US would ever directly support the UK on this matter other than having fatass Clinton throw around rhetoric like she usually does).

The US is not the only ally the UK has.

Li Mu:
The UK's military currently consists of 3 ducks and a ferret, so there's nothing they could do against even the most backward military.

...

...

No. This is what is known as "totally incorrect". Ok, it's also totally incorrect to say that the Argentina-Falklands distance is more than the New Zealand-Australia distance, but this, IMHO, is a more extreme total incorrectness.

Li Mu:
The UK's military currently consists of 3 ducks and a ferret, so there's nothing they could do against even the most backward military.

You're implying the British military would LOSE against Argentina? If we have three ducks and a ferret then the Argentinians have a pair of penguins with "army" and "navy" stencilled across them.

Batou667:

Li Mu:
The UK's military currently consists of 3 ducks and a ferret, so there's nothing they could do against even the most backward military.

You're implying the British military would LOSE against Argentina? If we have three ducks and a ferret then the Argentinians have a pair of penguins with "army" and "navy" stencilled across them.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the Daring (or is the Dauntless?) could hold the islands pretty much by itself at the moment. Admittedly, that class of ship doesn't have much in the way of offensive anti-ship firepower, but all it's got to do is sit off of West Flakland and shoot down any plane that comes near. The Eurofighters can deal with Argentine naval assets.
The Argentinians have not modernised at all since the last war. The Brits have, and the impact of exocets last time meant that we developed the best Air Defense Destroyers in the world. (I admit that last point is open to some debate, but who doesn't like a bit of swelled headedness?)

It's true what they say about armies always planning new wars like the last one they fought, but in this case it would benefit the Brits perfectly, because we WOULD be fighting exactly the same war!

Needless to say, I'm sure (I really hope anyway) that the Argentinian Govt is fully aware of this, and is simply increasing tensions to shore up approval ratings. They aren't going to do anything stupid.

EDIT: just noticed that I'd called West "Falkland", "West Flakland". Appropriate, given I was talking about air defence, don't you think? In fact, I'm just gonna leave it right there!

Batou667:

Li Mu:
The UK's military currently consists of 3 ducks and a ferret, so there's nothing they could do against even the most backward military.

You're implying the British military would LOSE against Argentina? If we have three ducks and a ferret then the Argentinians have a pair of penguins with "army" and "navy" stencilled across them.

Now hold on, ducks can be pretty mean. If the British wanted to save money they could recall the Dauntless and send a duck to replace it. Sure the Argentinias would freak out saying the British are "militarizing" the Falklands but too bad, they dont have anything that can match the awesome power of a duck.

The people of the Falkland Islanders are of British descent, speak English, are British citizens and most importantly, want to remain British. That trumps everything else.

Nuclear submarine trumps everything.

OneCatch :
The Argentinians have not modernised at all since the last war. The Brits have, and the impact of exocets last time meant that we developed the best Air Defense Destroyers in the world. (I admit that last point is open to some debate, but who doesn't like a bit of swelled headedness?)

Well, it's a little worrying the American Phalanx systems installed on those type 45 frigates, have been known to fire at the wrong targets. Like for instance friendly ships when they use their radar decoys. The US almost lost or damaged one of their ships to an Iraqi missile attack in the second gulf war because those systems malfunctioned.
And althought typically American to go looking for the nearest civilians to shoot at instead of the target, it's not something you can have happen with a missile flying your way. It's precisely the kind of mistakes made with the Sea Wolf system that lead to the loss of the Coventry. The Dutch government decided to build their own (The Goalkeeper CIWS) because they thought the Phalanx uncapable of bringing down missiles due to it's small calibre and relatively slow radar.
I mean, when even the Dutch military shakes the head and asks "Got any bigger guns than this?", something is seriously seriously wrong. ;-)

Assuming it all works though, firing missiles at frigates based off the Nato-90 frigate design is a pointless waste of time though. However, Argentinian ships use the Italian version of that system, of which I could find no mention of the quality of the radar controlling it.

Blablahb:

OneCatch :
The Argentinians have not modernised at all since the last war. The Brits have, and the impact of exocets last time meant that we developed the best Air Defense Destroyers in the world. (I admit that last point is open to some debate, but who doesn't like a bit of swelled headedness?)

Well, it's a little worrying the American Phalanx systems installed on those type 45 frigates, have been known to fire at the wrong targets. Like for instance friendly ships when they use their radar decoys. The US almost lost or damaged one of their ships to an Iraqi missile attack in the second gulf war because those systems malfunctioned.
And althought typically American to go looking for the nearest civilians to shoot at instead of the target, it's not something you can have happen with a missile flying your way. It's precisely the kind of mistakes made with the Sea Wolf system that lead to the loss of the Coventry. The Dutch government decided to build their own (The Goalkeeper CIWS) because they thought the Phalanx uncapable of bringing down missiles due to it's small calibre and relatively slow radar.
I mean, when even the Dutch military shakes the head and asks "Got any bigger guns than this?", something is seriously seriously wrong. ;-)

Assuming it all works though, firing missiles at frigates based off the Nato-90 frigate design is a pointless waste of time though. However, Argentinian ships use the Italian version of that system, of which I could find no mention of the quality of the radar controlling it.

Finding no statement on a weapon system means it is going to have the accuracy and reliability somewhere between "smooth bore musket" and "Ork with minigun."

I feel sorry for the people that are caught in between this. All they want to do is live their lives but they're being constantly bullied by Argentina.

The Argentinian attitude is to be expected though; they're taught a revisionist history of the islands since birth.

I generally disagree with my government but I agree 100% with them on this point.

The Falklands are British.

Not G. Ivingname:

Blablahb:

OneCatch :
The Argentinians have not modernised at all since the last war. The Brits have, and the impact of exocets last time meant that we developed the best Air Defense Destroyers in the world. (I admit that last point is open to some debate, but who doesn't like a bit of swelled headedness?)

Well, it's a little worrying the American Phalanx systems installed on those type 45 frigates, have been known to fire at the wrong targets. Like for instance friendly ships when they use their radar decoys. The US almost lost or damaged one of their ships to an Iraqi missile attack in the second gulf war because those systems malfunctioned.
And althought typically American to go looking for the nearest civilians to shoot at instead of the target, it's not something you can have happen with a missile flying your way. It's precisely the kind of mistakes made with the Sea Wolf system that lead to the loss of the Coventry. The Dutch government decided to build their own (The Goalkeeper CIWS) because they thought the Phalanx uncapable of bringing down missiles due to it's small calibre and relatively slow radar.
I mean, when even the Dutch military shakes the head and asks "Got any bigger guns than this?", something is seriously seriously wrong. ;-)

Assuming it all works though, firing missiles at frigates based off the Nato-90 frigate design is a pointless waste of time though. However, Argentinian ships use the Italian version of that system, of which I could find no mention of the quality of the radar controlling it.

Finding no statement on a weapon system means it is going to have the accuracy and reliability somewhere between "smooth bore musket" and "Ork with minigun."

I now have a mental image of said ork with minigun standing on the prow of Daring, roaring while firing thousands of rounds at IAI Daggers, so thanks for that!

Blahblah: Yeah, the Phalanx isn't perfect, but there's nothing else near the Falklands for it to engage blue on blue! :D

But seriously, the Phalanx has had a few problems, but it still massively increases the chances of intercepting an exocet (which does travel pretty slow). I agree that the goalkeeper is a way better system, but the Phalanx is hardly a slouch either, and even the knowledge that it might work would probably dissuade the Argentines from wasting planes and missles.

Also, and I'm not sure about this, but I suspect that the Aster missiles would be able to target exocets too, which, if true, would massively decrease the chances of an exocet hitting target. And lets be honest, in the 80's, the Type-42 had almost no anti-ship missile protection at all.
Nowadays they've all been refitted with CIWS and the Type-45s have a multi-layered defense. I can't see an exocet having much of a chance, and frankly no current Argentine planes are good enough to get close enough to use any other weapon. The only way of making a hit probable would be to volley exocets from both planes and ships to overwhelm the Point defence of the Type-45. Even then, it'd still be by no means certain.

"However, Argentinian ships use the Italian version of that system, of which I could find no mention of the quality of the radar controlling it."
I'm not quite sure what you meant by this. Were you talking about exocets or the defenses of Argentine destroyers? I get the feeling I'm being dense, but there you go!

A nice war for Britain to rally around would probably suit a lot of political parties at the moment.

Wonder if Ladbrokes have odds?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked