Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35376064)

It is unlikely that your brother has spent much, if any, time with anyone who has genuine experience of the Type 45 seeing as the first deployment was a matter of months ago and the first deployed crew is therefore still aboard.

The Type 45 destroyer can engage more targets simultaneously than five Type 42s working together. Its radar is also infinitely better and can detect aircraft take-offs from 250 miles away, a feature the Type 42 destroyers deployed to the Falklands in 1982 lacked.

History is the reason the new Type 45s are designed and specified the way they are. It is a faulty analysis to conclude that in the event of a conflict, things would unfold as they did before. The aircraft that successfully hit our ships in 1982 would have been detected well outside of Exocet range had the Type 45's capabilities been available. They would also in all likelihood have been destroyed. And had they managed to get close enough to fire, the incoming missiles would have had an entirely new defensive system to cope with.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35376069)

I thought type 45's had been around for a few years now

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35376083)

The first one was only commisioned in mid 2009.. Along with training on the new type they've only been fully operational and deployed since mid 2010.. Daring (the first ship) has just been allocated her first mission in the gulf at the same time as Dauntless got her Falklands mission

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35375958)

HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry were type 42s, also the Argentine Navy has a type 42 .. and of course we still have a few of them... It was shown with the sinking of our type 42's that they seriously lacked in air defenses and was one of the main reasons for the type 45 air defence systems development.. We're talking about something that could knock individual birds with jet packs attached out of the sky at the distances that exocets were launched at.. Including even an Anti-ballistic capability..

Type 42's had Phlanx capability same as the new 45's but not a decent fire control.. otherwise the exocets would never have got close

Originally Posted by DocDutch (Post 35376136)

Kymmy the 42s only had phalanx or the dutch goalkeeper systems installed after the falklands war.

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35375958)

HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry were type 42s, also the Argentine Navy has a type 42 .. and of course we still have a few of them... It was shown with the sinking of our type 42's that they seriously lacked in air defenses and was one of the main reasons for the type 45 air defence systems development.. We're talking about something that could knock individual birds with jet packs attached out of the sky at the distances that exocets were launched at.. Including even an Anti-ballistic capability..

Type 42's had Phlanx capability same as the new 45's but not a decent fire control.. otherwise the exocets would never have got close

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35376064)

It is unlikely that your brother has spent much, if any, time with anyone who has genuine experience of the Type 45 seeing as the first deployment was a matter of months ago and the first deployed crew is therefore still aboard.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35376351)

I think you missed my point. I wasn't just talking about attacks on British ships. I was talking about Argentina landing troops and equipment on the islands by air.

The Falkland Islands consist of 778 islands that cover 4700 square miles. Now although the type 45's weapons have a range of up to 70 miles. They simply can't cover the whole of the Falklands at once, to prevent troop landings.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35376389)

HMS Dauntless isn't the only aspect of the islands' defence. There are four Typhoons permanently based there and the RAF has the capability to rapidly reinforce that number should the need arise.

Troops attempting to establish a beach head are incredibly vulnerable and under constant bombardment large numbers are required (because a lot of them are going to get killed). The UK sent a very large naval force to the Falklands in 1982 but suffered greatly from being vulnerable to Argentine fighter jets - the famous Simon Weston was injured (and many of his colleagues killed) while on board RFA Sir Galahad awaiting landing.

The defensive arrangements are supposed to make the Argentine government consider a military assault too costly (hence the further unprecedented leaking of information about a nuclear submarine deployment this weekend). In 1982 the British military posture (or rather, the lack of it) gave Argentina reason to think the UK would not defend the islands if it came to a fight. The policy aim now is to let the Argentine government see exactly what they would face were they to decide to have a go.

Hence my reference to him spending time with anyone who has served on a Type 45, rather than spending time on one himself (as you already corrected that point when I posted).

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35375734)

But they will have air superiority, which is all they need to fly troops and equipment in, and to launch air attacks on our ships.

Without the carriers we wouldn't have won last time.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35376441)

No they won't because far too many of their planes will be shot down and it'd be impossible for their supply lines to be sufficiently maintained by air given their exisiting capability.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35376351)

The Falkland Islands consist of 778 islands that cover 4700 square miles. Now although the type 45's weapons have a range of up to 70 miles. They simply can't cover the whole of the Falklands at once, to prevent troop landings.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35376441)

Last time was very different.

I think we're all agreed that the current situation re the UK's aircraft carrier capability is shocking and that if we had a couple available it'd be a great deterrent.

I dare say provision has been made to destroy the airfield by hook or by crook should that be deemed necessary as a last resort - doing so would require the Argentinians to parachute in everything whilst dodging a whole lot of state of the art missiles. It's also possible that submarine lauched missiles could target Argentinian airbases but that would be upping the stakes somewhat.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35376474)

I still think that we are underestimating them, just as Maggie did in the 80's.

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35376473)

You have to remember that during the '82 war the naval aircraft during the conflict were limited and semi-scarce.. So they didn't do any night defence or much ground attack.. This time we wouldn't be relying on these with the current typhoons probably the equivelant to all the harriers in the task force. Also Argentine are still relying on the older Mirages which failed so miserably last time.