Cuckoo in the nest... you're right, it was the Atlantic Conveyor. I believe she was carrying 6-8 Harriers.
Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy?
by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics
-
-
cuckoo in the nest
I remember seeing the then defence secretary, John Nott, speaking on TV about the defence spending cuts they wanted to impose dressed up as the "Strategic Defence Review". This would have decimated the Royal Navy including the scrapping of the only naval presence we had in the area, the survey ship HMS Endurance. (Does anyone remember him storming out of an interview with Sir Robin Day in a hissy fit when questioned about it?)
The Argentinians could have interpreted this as a lack of interest in the Falklands, and precipitated their invasion.
-
cuckoo in the nest
Hello Hotspur, just remembered a bit more. At the time of sailing it was carrying a mix of Wessex and Chinook helicopters and some RAF Harrier GR3s and FAA Sea Harriers. When it was hit by two Exocets, all the harriers had been flown off to the aircraft Carriers HMS Hermes & HMS Invincible, but all the helicopters except for one Chinook were still aboad and were lost.
-
GromitSK
Isn't the purpose of NATO to support members in this position - unless there is some opt-out?
-
cuckoo in the nest
I think it rather depends on what's in it for them. Our chinless wonder of a Prime Minister has alienated half of Europe, and those who might still be speaking to us haven't got a pot to piss in, so I can't see much help coming from there. America? Call me a cynic, but there's an election coming up, and I doubt there are any votes in another war. Particularly one supporting a "colonial power", you can kiss the hispanic vote goodbye.
-
GromitSK
Good point lol
-
leavingwt
I cannot see the U.S. refusing to assist, if needed.
-
cuckoo in the nest
It's a sorry fact to face but Botchtowersociety is right, we no longer have the capacity to project force around the Atlantic the way we did in the Eighties. We've scrapped our aircraft carriers, the same ones we were using thirty years ago, and our seaborne aircraft, the same Harriers we were using thirty years ago, all in the name of a savage spending review which doesn't just trim the fat from the defence budget but scrapes the marrow from out the bones too.
The monumental stupidity of David Cameron and his ilk never ceases to appall me. Has he learnt nothing from history? Do they not teach history at Eton (or nothing later than Caesar's campaign in Gaul). Our forces are spread thinner than the butter on an easyjet sandwich, but the tory government still denude them even more.
-
cuckoo in the nest
I would like to think the US would help, but sadly the relationship between Cameron and Obama is nothing like Thatcher and Reagan. Last time around we had some US help, use of the base on Ascension Island, more advanced AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles, but our main ally was Chile. Probably why we were never very opposed to the Pinochet regime. We had a unit of SAS troops operating out of Chile, and I think we flew Canberra photo-reconnaissance aircraft out of one of their bases. In return we let Chile keep the Canberras, and some obsolete Hawker Hunter fighter jets.
These days I think the US is more concerned with improving relations with South America, especially if it means countering the influence of Hugo Chavez, and with the European Union as a whole.
-
Razziel
Looking at wikipedia, the Argentine air force does not look all that impressive. 22 fighters and 41 ground attack aircraft that aren't exactly the best money can buy. I bet 2 or 3 of the advanced guided missle destroyers would be enough to repel most of their airforce.