Royal Navy sends nuclear sub with cruise missiles to Falkland Islands

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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