LindermyerMakes you wonder though if there would have been any landings or exocet attacks or any need to sink the Belgrano if Vinc and Hermes had been closely escorted by Nimitz and a sister ship and 3 CDO reinforced by a US Marine division.
The otherside might just have decided discretion is the better part of valour
Lindermyerim in full agreement NATO does not cover all of our commitments.
My pointing out youre error and citing article six was not to prove you wrong, but to demonstrate why you were correct in youre assesment that we may have to go it alone. -The correction was only regarding 82.
LindermyerI disagree with that.
Falklands are “British Oversea Territory” and as such they are british territory and inhabited by britons. I don’t see with what kind of conscience Falklands inhabitants can be considered so evidenly second-rank citizens.
NATO’s agreement, i believe, talks of “aggression on any member”. The invasion of the Falklands was most definitely an aggression on a NATO member.If we have to accept, however, exceptions so serious about the rule, the result is still the same of my earlier reasoning: we should be doubt of NATO’s effective relevance very seriously. And retain a serious indipendent capability.
Yesterday was the Falklands, today is Afghanistan, tomorrow what will it be? Gibraltar? Akrotiri? Or the channel islands? Because those are formally “indipendent” as well.
Too many exceptions. Too many ways for allies to say “sorry, it is your own problem”.
Its less that there are exceptions, its more that the Treaty was carefully crafted.
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer
As you can see from the above Falklands and other colonial/ex colonial posessions are not covered.
This was probably carefully written to prevent nato becoming embroiled in wars over colonies or wars of independence.
LindermyerAlso, the myth of “generate capabilities” in case of need is largely an illusion.
A ship of any kind can’t be rapidly “regenerated”.
Crews for mothballed tanks, provided there’s at least a brigade still active, can be readied, but it would still take MONTHS. The “RAPIDLY” we are talking about is still measured in months we may not have.Second myth: “we can buy things cheaply and rapidly with UORs”
This is also a myth, and two UORs explain it better than anything else: the Light Patrol Protected Vehicle is universally accepted as very urgent UOR. We heard of it the first time perhaps two years ago by now (in some way, actually, the need was pointed out already as far back as 2006) and despite it being “urgent” it is still NOT in sight.
Again, the vaunted TALISMAN anti-IED system. First time it was announced was early 2008. It came on front line this month in afghanistan.2 years is not what i call “rapidly”. And it was not cheap either.
I find the “regeneration” tactic is very risky, and should be used with massive prudence, and in many sectors it is not viable at all.
There’s no way to regenerate Aircraft Carriers, SSNs, anphibious capabilities.
There’s not even way to EXPAND them, if not in years, if the assets have to be built, or at the very least MONTHS if it is about crews.That would still be of arguable value since they’d have only basic training, no experience and wouldn’t even have faced a major exercise.
Crisis normally don’t give you time to prepare much more than you have: the Sea King AEW came when the Falklands war was practically over. Yet, the RN was working on it from BEFORE the crisis started, and the urgency was incredible as ships started being sunk. Yet, it was impossible to bring it in line fast enough.And i’d like to be told honestly what’s so abundant in the UK armed forces to be considered a surplus.
Most capabilities are already coming in numbers that are far smaller than those required:
7 (5?) SSNs against a stated minimum needed of 8 and a planned target of 10
6 Type 45 against a need for 12
Not enough men to be able to properly rotate units deployed in Afghanistan without stretching the ranks thin
and so along…So, let’s be rational in our thinking.
And seen that all armed forces in NATO are shrinking and everyone says “we’ve allies who can do that work”, we may have to all start thinking about what allies we are talking about, and be careful not to lose capabilities entirely as many nations end up cutting the same arms.Either way, NATO isn’t the answer to everything: Falklands were british territory. NATO was forced to intervene in support, in theory. Did it move…?
NO.
You sure next time will be any different?Afghanistan is also a NATO operation. How many times France, Germany, Italy and all the others have been asked to step up their contribution, employ more helos, engage more actively in the fighting…
Did they do that? NO.These are facts no one points out, but are facts.
Just a small correction NATO was not required to become involved in the falklands.
(first and Obvious – its not the North Atlantic – it lies well outside the area covered within the treaty)
Secondly it wasnt soverign territory, so no obligation
The falklands do not belong to Britain they are tied to and a protectorate of the UK but effectivly they are independent (as far as is possible). wether they were a colony or not in 82 i dont recall.
It is a common misconception that NATO should have been involved – like wise if diego garcia or any French posession in the pacific were taken NATO would not be obliged to become involved. (as written algeria was included but that was bcause france saw Algeria as Southern france not a colony in terms of politics)
just thinking im not sure what the score is with gibralter, i suspect that it would be covered because of its strategic importance.
EDIT
As regards the reluctance of certain members to contribute to Afghanistan -well thts another topic for discussion, but be aware some nations who contribute little there – have significant forces deployed on other NATO Ops ie peace keeping
LindermyerMassive mistakes to cut the Js, they are the best tactical transports out there, and we may not have enough A400s. This would hurt units like the PARAs.
As for 107 planes in one base, the USAF and USN have been basing more then 100 of one type of fighter at single bases for years. This really is no big deal as long as the infrasrtucure is built for them.
I think the point is the US has 100 at a base but has several bases. the uk will have 1 base with 100 aircraft.
all it takes is one accident and the airfield is closed and the typhoon force grounded.
LindermyerI start to think that this government is OBSESSED by cuts.
Many economists believe that cutting at this stage (so severely at least) will HARM the economy, and not help it. And i totally believe they are right, because creating thousands and thousands of new jobless people will only make the recession harder and worse.Again, here we are talking of the DEFENCE of the nation and its INTERNATIONAL RELEVANCE. Something that should be ringfenced as much as possible. These follish cuts AREN’T needed, nor are they going to cause any real uplift in the UK economy, and believe differently would be childish.
And to conclude: you are really so sure that the UK budget is such a doomsday threat?
Italy is burdened by a public debt of immense proportions from well before the 2009 crisis. Just the municipalities have debts for over 67 billions euros. The state has a debt of enormous relevance, from well before UK ended up having its debt.
I don’t like how peaceful Italy is with its debt, and i think that reducing the debts is always the right thing to do…
But seriously. Without this “CUT CUT CUT CUT” obsession, Italy is still alive and going, and possibly, if you’ll allow me to say so, it is in better conditions than the UK.Italy is not giving up its own Marines and anphibious ships to pursue “savings” that grant no other certain result than to weaken the nation’s relevance.
If you think that making the nation weak and vulnerable will help the economy, then go on this path. But you are only going to make things worse.
Not even Greece is cutting its defences, and we all know how broke Greece’s economy is. You truly think UK NEEDS to?No. UK politicians WANT to. It is different.
Labour themselves knew and stated that they would have to implement draconian cuts – The only difference is the Tories believe we have to do it now, Labour believed it should wait another year. Dont be fooled by all the cuts are madness shouting from the oposition because what they are shouting is really cuts are madness now.
Being cynical I dont believe labours plans to postpone the cuts had anything to do with the budget and everything to do with the election, as sadly most people seem to believe no cuts this year meant tories = cuts labour = services.
now I would ring fence defence – reconsider trident , and reassign the NHS to emergency/obestrics only for the next 5 years.
As for social care (which even excluding the nhs is the lions share of our economy) well thats where we would see real changes,
I for one would stop paying people to breed – bring in the american system –
you are out of work society should help, if you have children again it should help, but it should not be paying you to have another 5 or 6.
Individual responsibility should be paramount and that means If i cannot afford more children I will not have children.
Not the more i have the more money i get.
(that sound is the lorry reversing with my soap box)
rant off
Lindermyer107 planes in a single base? And it makes sense…? No, definitely it makes not.
ALL C130 are going to be scrapped, so to have only two kind of planes to support. The K was going to go in any case within 2012, the J is going to go out of service, hopefully in time with the arrival of A400, but possibly, seen how smart this SDR is, in one go.
But after all, with the armed forces being slaughtered, what do you need air mobility for…? To bring aid to Haiti, a couple of planes would already be enough. Because that’s what UK is going to do in the future, and nothing more, if this folly is allowed to continue.
And i hated Labour! GIVE ME BROWN BACK!
Its thanks to the previous incumbant that there is no money – you think that next year labour wouldnt have had to make cuts equally if not more savage –
LindermyerThe Argentine Torpedo claims themselves are also suspect.
On one hand all the evidence (including ships logs IIRC) has there submarines operating close inshore, on the other hand they report 3 or 4 attempts on invincible – which was closer to Durbans beaches than Stanleys.
However It is not unfeasable that they did have a couple of goes at frigates etc inshore.
As to Jonesys claim about the different requirements of Littoral Vs Blue water ops, All the information I have ever read also suggests this to be the case so hes probably right on this one .
Certainly all the air defence systems performance was hampered by being in a coastal enviroment.
Although not a submariner myself I have no problem with the concept that firing at maximum range is unlikely to hit its intended target.
Did the Belgrano have any ASW capabilities??, her escorts supposedly did but must have been asleep. They were not aware of what had happened to the belgrano for quite a while.
Im not sure how much credence to put to the claim but allegedly the worked out what had happened when a connection was made between Belgranos disaperance and a heavy thud heard on one of the escorts (the 3rd torpedo)
any one who can prove or disprove this.
LindermyerUhm, why would a NK vessel fire a torpedo at something it hadn’t even detected?
Sorry To Clarify It was just an outside possible explanation
Pinging is a bit like radar in that it can be detected further away than you will receive a usable return
The NK sub may have fired down a bearing obtained from the Cheonans ping (perhaps assuming he was being tracked and targeted) Therefore he hadnt actually detected the ship (a sudden loud ping may have put the frightners on him, in which case perhaps thewhole incident is a tragic mistake).
Hence my statement that in those confused waters neither vessel had detected the other,
In hind sight i knew what i meant, perhaps it could have been phrased better
regards Lynstyne
LindermyerAre you saying you’d feel better if there were more engines? IMO more is better even if you’re likely to run into failures more often. It’s not much different than any other hardware with a MTBF rating. Never build everything from one bin and be disappointed when everything fails about the same time.
Yes i personally dont want to fly accross the pond in a twin, Howver my cooments on why ETOPS and against the 3rd engine where from an industry standpoint rather than my own preference.
On that note i would really rather be in a P3 or a shackledon than the P8 if i was to be lumbering along at 50ft over the north atlantic.
I do think Americas got that one wrong -Long Range Maritime Recce=4 engines.
LindermyerA french airbus had a catastrophic electrical failure not too long ago and lost everyone on board over the south Atlantic. It’s very tough to knock the aircraft industry and their standards. I’m merely saying every industry has tightened up their standards considerably over the past thirty years. But the airline industry as a whole never had low standards by any measure. When your standards are bulletproof as they are why not argue for one engine to save yet more weight?
That incidents an odd one – the only info so far is what the aircraft data linked back – if that was working then the electrical system was – the data back points to a problem with the avionic systems – sadly aircraft have been lost to major instrument failures as a result of poor maintenance and or procedures – not an aircraft fault as such.
Re the engines
The 3rd engine is additional weight, purchase.rental , fuel and maintenance costs, and ironically can result in the airline meeting less performance targets.
if you have 3 engines you are 50% more likely to suffer an engine problem.
the other killer is perceived safety 3 engines is safer (no argument – youre talking to the man who wants the pilot when told number 6 is running hot to say which side) however a 3 engined aircraft is more likely to suffer a failure and therefore turn back than a twin, and to the media a turn back due to a mechanical fault = a near crash, so now your airline is percieved by the public as less safe.
Ive no doubt the media would be reporting how near death the crew were if a b52 shut down an engine.
LindermyerThe statistics that make that argument are valid if you accept safety standards from the 80’s. If they upped the ante like every other industry then they’d argue against twins. IMHO it would be prudent even today for a third engine under the fin and an auxillary power grid within the jet, independent of the main, for transoceanic travel. We still see catastrophic failure of electrical systems on jets in this day and age.
The safety standards have gone up within the industry –
Aircraft do have an auxillary power system for electrical/hydraulic power independent of the engines, additionally for ETOPS aircraft will have an independant ram air turbine for electrical power.
Tristars only had 3 engines because they wouldnt let them perform ETOPS back then.
Given the reliability of modern engines the 3rd engine is a lot of unecassery weight.
i am struggling to think of any catastrophic electrical failures, on a large multi engined aircraft at all. (excluding swiss air but as that was an electrical fire not quite the same thing and possibly if that 747 really exploded because a wire arced in the tank – again a wiring fault number of generators and engines irrelevant)
I can off the top of my head think of only one incident where an aircraft electrical system has suffered a massive failure – the aircraft involved landed safely.
In fact i cant think of hand of a commercial aircraft lost to engine failure (I will discount BAs 777 as that was fuel starvation not mechanical failure and again it wouldnt have mattered if they had 20 engines.
not wishing to get on my horse but the implication that the aircraft industry accepts lower standards than elswhere is i feel unjust.
LindermyerBeen out of touch on that one for a little while….hadn’t seen that report thanks Pinko. If thats the case then the ‘mystery’ of that vessels end is all spin then. They knew exactly what happened to that ship from the first debrief of the sonar operators….if any that were on duty when it was hit survived?.
.
The reports state that (many of) the crew were off watch – not a condition id expect if they knew they had a hostile submarine.
Its posssible they had so many returns from the bottom etc they couldnt see anything.
If they were using active sonar its possible that they were trying to confirm what an operator thought he had heard.
it may be that the NK vessel fired down a back bearing and that neither vessel had actually detected the other.
Or perhaps somebody screwed the pooch and didnt realise what they had detected.
It is equally possible that the tapes revealed what happened, but nothing was said until all the evidence was collated -as pointing the finger to early would be seen as planted evidence.
The trouble with this incident is that yet again the tin foil hat brigade do not want to hear anything that doesnt blame the US.
Hence claims such as
It hit a US sub -in those waters i think not
It ran aground – Ok that was the initial report from a confused crew, theres no way that damage was caused by collision.
The US group exercising nearby shot it by mistake – name one wepon they had that could achieve that.
a US sub sank it to provoke (insert faction/person) again you would have to be close in and risk counter detection.
No I believe what were told happened is nera as dammit the truth , has the news been managed of course it has (partially to stop riots in SK to) have some facts not been released to the general public probably.
LindermyerAs stated in a previous thread, the MN version of the Jaguar exhibited very poor takeoff and landing characteristics. Considering the high costs involved, the cancellation was inevitable.
It also should be obvious that the Jaguar would make a terrible fighter, due to limited maneuverability and a relative lack of power.
The RN briefly toyed with the Jaguar after the cancellation of CVA-01, but just as quickly discarded it since it wasn’t going to be all that cheaper than the Phantom, despite having a much poorer performance in just about every imaginable way. Given the poor carrier characteristics of the Jaguar and the fact that the RN had plenty of Phantoms on the way, it isn’t hard to see why interest in the type died so quickly.
From the standpoint of the MN, the Super Etendard might have been more expensive than the A-4, but it was a low risk design, affordable choice that was politically viable. Looking at the subsequent decades of successful service, it appears that the MN made the right decision in canceling the Jaguar.
That allways made me chuckle, A major MN complaint was that in the event of a single engine failure the jag had poor performance and would struggle to remain airborne. They then selected the Etendard – which i have no doubt proved superiour in many ways, but one cant help but wonder if its flight charecteristics in the event of a single engine failure would really have been any better.
LindermyerIt doesnt matter if that stories true or false its always going to be a pile of bull.
ill get me coat
Sign In
