The man who 'started' the Falklands war

[Manchester Planner]

Originally Posted by platino

Malvinas are Argentinian, we cant allow colonialism in 21 century

There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't know where to start!

Erm, okay, let's start with the obvious: Argentina itself is a colonial country.

[Manchester Planner]

Originally Posted by Chin-Chu-Lin

yesterday the government of Barack Obama supported the Argentine claim........

Anyone got a real news/White House source with this Obama support for the Argentine claim?

Not that it would matter as Obama has 2 years left in office whilst Great Britain and her navy will be around for quite a while longer...

[madjackmcmad]

Originally Posted by platino

we cant allow colonialism in 21 century

Well said my Argie friend, the self determination of peoples to live under the government of choice is paramount in the 21st century.

Oops.

[mexico86]

Originally Posted by madjackmcmad

Well said my Argie friend, the self determination of peoples to live under the government of choice is paramount in the 21st century.

Then both sides are in agreement - and the Falklands will remain independent of Argentina. Debate closed, GB wins

[Manchester Planner]

Originally Posted by mexico86

Debate closed, GB wins

And, should that line of action fail...



GB wins.

[AdmiralAnthony]

The Astutes are damn powerful and we'd like 8 of the beauties ideally, read this:

Admiral Sir Alan West said on 24 November 2004 “When I have got the Astutes, then, with eight, I will be able to do all the things that we need to do. ... The Defence Planning Guide, ….requires actually six SSNs, five or six (operational), depending on the circumstances, available for use .The current fleet has eight of these old ageing ones… Can I actually provide that? When I have got the Astutes, then, with eight, I will be able to do all the things that I need to do, ...they are newer, they have got a different core, all of these sort of benefits…. I am convinced we need to keep them, ...I believe we need to keep building the Astutes, ...once I have got those my worry about the ageing fleet and my worry about having availability will go”. (Source: House of Commons Defence select Committee, 24 Nov. 2004)

Possible road map for RN SSN force levels based on data available mid 2008
Year Submarine Event New number in fleet
2004 Splendid Decommissioned 11 - fleet SSN's
2006 Sovereign Decommissioned 10
2006 Spartan Decommissioned 9
2008 Superb Decommissioned 8
2009 Trafalgar Decommissioned 7
2009 Astute Delivered & Commissioned* 8
2010 Sceptre Decommissioned 7
2010 Ambush Delivered 8
2011 Turbulent Decommissioned 7
2011 Artful Delivered 8
2013 Tireless Decommissioned 7
2013 Audacious Delivered 8
2015 Torbay Decommissioned 7
2015 A-05 Delivered 8
2017 Trenchant Decommissioned 7
2017 A-06 Delivered 8
2019 Talent Decommissioned 7
2019 A-07 Delivered 8
2022 Triumph Decommissioned 7 - fleet SSN's, leaving us 1 short of requirements to naval needs.
* Not equivalent to operational

[Manchester Planner]

7 SSNs seems to be the figure we're at for the coming decade and a half. I don't think we'll get that 8th Astute - and to be honest we should be very grateful if we get 7 by the early 2020s, what with the defence review and cuts and such!

My realistic timetable (for commissions of major vessels only) looks like this:

2009: Daring
2010: Dauntless + Astute
2011: Diamond + Dragon + Ambush
2012: Defender
2013: Duncan + Artful
2014: -
2015: Audacious
2016: Queen Elizabeth
2017: -
2018: Prince of Wales + Agamemnon
2019: -
2020: Type 26 #1 + Anson
2021: Type 26 #2
2022: Type 26 #3 + Ajax
2023: Type 26 #4
2024: Type 26 #5 + B SSBN #1
2025: Type 26 #6
2026: Type 26 #7 + B SSBN #2
2027: Type 26 #8
2028: Type 26 #9 + LPDH #1 + B SSBN #3
2029: Type 26 #10
2030: B SSBN #4 + LPDH #2

Could change quite dramatically of course by the end of 2010!

[AdmiralAnthony]

Yeah it's a tough balance to strike. But iv always believed very strongly in submarines. I believe the balance of a task force or war hangs in the balance based purely on the SSN's themselves, they are that cruicial, that powerful. A tinpot third world nation can hold out our task force if they have submarines. We'd have to wait until our SSN's/ASW Frigates had cleared the way before we sent the rest of the fleet in. We could easily have QE hit by a torpedo by a freakin SSK and the only way to effectively clear the path is with the SSN's. They also keep the enemies surface fleet in port due to their mere presence.
I do strongly believe in 8 fleet SSN's and i'd like 10 really.

[Manchester Planner]

I'm sure the RN "believe" in 8 SSNs too, but they're fucking expensive!!

It's my belief that if we didn't have SSBN replacements to build in the future (i.e. the UK gave up on its nuclear weapons/RN delivery of the nuclear weapons) then the UK would give up on its nuclear submarine capabilities and go for smaller, diesel/hydrogen fuel cell/whatever submarines instead of SSNs. We only have a purely SSN fleet of subs because 1) we need to maintain the construction capabilities for the SSBNs we need to build every 25 years and 2) having a mixed nuclear and non-nuclear fleet would be overly costly when having a relatively small fleet (hence why we ditched the non-nuclear subs in the early 1990s). I suspect the SDR will look at this and conclude that although expensive (and with the small budget, produces only a small fleet numerically) the SSN route is the only option because of the up-coming SSBN production in the 2020s. However, what happens after the 2020s is another matter... we may then go towards another submarine type, possibly as I've mentioned hydrogen fuel cell powered, or another new technology.

Ditto for France, though their nuclear submarine (construction) capabilities are not as good as ours.

[gothicform]

i don't think we would. that's why our SSNs have the same names as battleships, they are the battleships of today. it's no coincidence the first one was called HMS dreadnought.

[Manchester Planner]

Quite right gothic - time for a "we want eight and we won't wait" campaign?

[Chin-Chu-Lin]

It won't be necessary any subs or surface military vessels to reach a resolution on this matter folks, sorry to disappointing you all but this will be resolved by peaceful means only and by peer and global political pressure on the British to sit on the negotiation table...so forget your war delusions and put away your rubber duckies...



... and get out the pen and paper.


Wednesday June 9, 2010
The OAS reiterated call for dialogue

Link: The OAS reiterated call for dialogue
Resurgence crossings between Argentina and Britain over the Malvinas oil

.....For his part, Deputy Foreign Minister Victorio Taccetti asked to complete the "colonial attitude" of the United Kingdom and said it is "generating an increasingly global consciousness" about the attitude of occupation of the islands.

Also questioned the installation of oil platforms in inland areas of Argentina: "They are pretending to exploit a resource that is not theirs.".....

[mexico86]

I'm pretty sure the governments of most democracies outside of latin america will be snickering at the relentless delusional rhetoric of the Argentines and the OAS talking shop I know I am.

[platino]

Originally Posted by madjackmcmad

Well said my Argie friend, the self determination of peoples to live under the government of choice is paramount in the 21st century.

Oops.

ok i will go in a boat with a bunch of farmers and build a colony in the UK islands....

as i said before, LAS MALVINAS SON Y SERAN POR 100PRE ARGENTINAS

[platino]

Originally Posted by Manchester Planner

There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't know where to start!

Erm, okay, let's start with the obvious: Argentina itself is a colonial country.

Argentina is not a colony, is a free independent and peacefull nation who never stealed territory, the spanish were colonialist...they conquer latin america and killed the indigenous, like the UK another colonialist imperialist country...colonialism is not allowed anymore in southamerica, LAS MALVINAS VOLVERAN A SER ARGENTINAS MIS AMIGOS

[mexico86]

Originally Posted by platino

LAS MALVINAS VOLVERAN A SER ARGENTINAS MIS AMIGOS

entonces ya aceptas que no son argentinos gracias.

[Salif]

I like Argentina's attempts to drag as many people into this as possible and insist anyone/everyone backs them

It makes fuck all difference but it's nice.

Anyway, I find myself getting dizzy from all the circles we're going round in. It's like driving in Swindon this.

Originally Posted by platino

ok i will go in a boat with a bunch of farmers and build a colony in the UK islands....

as i said before, LAS MALVINAS SON Y SERAN POR 100PRE ARGENTINAS

Bring yer coat.

[madjackmcmad]

Originally Posted by mexico86

I'm pretty sure the governments of most democracies outside of latin america will be snickering at the relentless delusional rhetoric of the Argentines and the OAS talking shop I know I am.

Exactly, the rest of the world outside L.America sees the issue as extremely tiresome and pathetic on the part of the Argentines.

[Chin-Chu-Lin]

cough..cough..cough

Link: US calls for UK-Argentine talks over Falklands sovereignty to re-open

The US has joined Latin American countries in demanding fresh talks between Britain and Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands at a regional summit.

Telegraph.co.uk Thursday 10 June 2010
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent

[madjackmcmad]

Clinton

We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.

Where's the difference in US policy now from the last 30 years? I know you want to read that statement as 'US demands UK hands over Malvinas' but i'm afraid for you its just being diplomatic on part of the US.

"The American position is that they recognise the UK administration on the Falklands," said a Foreign Office spokesman. "There is no change in their overall approach."

The Foreign Office on Wednesday dismissed the latest blow delivered by officials appointed by President Barack Obama as a symbolic manoeuvre of little practical consequence.