Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
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).
|
Thanks for your in depth response Chris. However I still think that a sustained attack from a country that is just 250 miles away, will be extremely difficult to repel without aircraft carriers.
My personal feeling is that Argentina would take the islands again, and then we would have to fight to win them back again...history repeating itself again.
A couple of aircraft carriers, as well as the supporting fleet in the area, would be enough to put most countries off even trying. And could save many lives.