-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
High Marks for The Hobbit
January 10, 2013 | 23 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
At Large
Britain Puts All Its Eggs in Two Baskets
Can a single destroyer and submarine defend the Falklands?
As tensions rise in the Middle East, the Straits of Hormuz, the Mediterranean and off the Somali pirate coast, the Royal Navy, spreading its small ration of jam thinner and thinner, is sending two ships, the new destroyer HMS Dauntless, and, reportedly, a Trafalgar-class submarine, to the Falklands.
Now there is no doubt that Dauntless, at 8,000 tons, is a very capable ship, bigger than many World War II cruisers, and with an impressive array of weapons. The reported submarine (its deployment is not confirmed) is also very modern and is reported to carry 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes. Meanwhile, an anti-British mob in Argentina has cleverly burnt the HSBC bank, which is Hong-Kong owned, and vowed to attack a new British business every day (perhaps after investing in a primer in geography).
There are, however, major problems from the British point of view: Dauntless is one of only 19 major surface combatants in the whole Royal Navy, a situation that Admiral Lord West, the former First Sea Lord and professional head of the Royal Navy, described as “horrifying.” How will the Navy cope if one of the innumerable mishaps possible at sea puts a ship out of commission?
The defense cuts under the Cameron government, Lord West says, have been both too severe and incoherent. They have included scrapping the RN’s last dedicated aircraft carrier and the Nimrod long-range aircraft (some broken up before completion), and selling the Harrier force of short takeoff jets — which at a pinch might have operated from other ships — to the U.S. Already these scrapped assets have been sorely missed in Libya.
The center of the Falklands defenses is the Mount Pleasant air base, with just four aircraft and rapier missiles. Professional opinion is that taking Mount Pleasant by invasion would be very difficult and costly, but if it were taken then there is no way Britain could now assemble a task force to retake it. And four aircraft does not sound like very many to cover a group of islands about the area of Wales plus the maritime exclusion zone
These two ships are obviously a vital card in the game: they are much more modern than anything the Argentineans can put up. However, there is a possible downside here: the design of the Dauntless is impressive-looking but is completely untested in battle. (Seventy years ago HMS Hood was an enormously impressive-looking ship, equipped with mighty 15-inch guns, and the product of hundreds of years of experience, but in its first serious battle blew up with almost all hands).
In the first modern Falklands campaign, in 1982, the destroyer HMS Sheffield, then a new ship, was lost after being hit by a missile that failed to explode but ignited high-pressure propellant. Naval history is full of stories of awe-inspiring new ships that proved inadequate — or lethal for their crews — in the event. In World War I armored cruisers, which both sides had thought the coming thing, were frequently sunk with all hands. Three British battle-cruisers blew up at Jutland with enormous loss of life.
Past history has shown that in sea vs. air combat the aircraft has the advantage unless the ship concerned has a heavy escort of fighters, which is plainly not going to be possible here. It is true that missiles may have altered the equation but seems to be asking a lot of one ship, no matter how sophisticated, to hold off wave after wave of attacking jet aircraft and missiles from relatively nearby bases.
There is another problem, which a layman cannot really assess or know if Dauntless has solved: the more sophisticated ships become, and the more packed with electronics, the more vulnerable they may become. Gone are the days when a ship might be hit with hundreds of cannon balls and repairing it was a matter of calling for the bosun and the carpenter. During Indonesian confrontation a modern British ship was put out of action for some time because an Indonesian sampan dropped a mortar bomb in the water beside it and shook up its electronics. A large modern warship almost approaches a living body in its complexity, and like a living body, the more complex it becomes, the harder it is for it to shrug off damage and carry on. The submarine might also be very useful, but it has an enormous area of sea to patrol, and has to be in the right place at the right time. A further question arises: how long can two of the Royal Navy’s best ships be kept on station with all manner of demands on the Navy’s desperately overstrained resources elsewhere?
This is not to say for a moment that disaster will overtake the two British ships in the event of war. They are a mighty powerful force. Many of the ships’ capabilities are secret, but one can hardly escape the thought that the previous conflict showed modern sea power depends on air cover, and that Britain, without naval aviation, is putting all its eggs in two baskets, and untried baskets at that.
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (58) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/08/britain-puts-all-its-eggs-in-t
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- The End of the Castros?
- The Continuing Crisis
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
c. j. acworth| 2.8.12 @ 7:24AM
There was a time when, by law, the Royal Navy was required to be as large as the next two navies combined. Sad to see her come to this pass. The wages of socialism, I suppose.
Mike D.| 2.8.12 @ 7:44AM
Britannia couldn't rule the English Channel let alone the waves!
Nigel Smith| 2.8.12 @ 7:59AM
I'm afraid the Royal Navy is a victim of tightening budgets as the World continues to struggle with difficult economic times. Britain has to spend the defence budget wisely, because we have a continuing commitment in Afghanistan which requires boots on the ground and the aircraft to support them. In my view, the Royal Navy made a fatal error to employ the highest technology available, rather than building 'less capable', but enough ships to do the job. It only takes one aerial bomb to put a warship out of action and many of the Royal Navy's warships suffered hits in 1982, sufficient to put them out of combat and send them off for repairs. The Royal Navy needs to adapt to build ships which guarantee a presence, without spending too much on technical supremacy. As a former Royal Navy officer, I am extremely concerned that the mistakes made by spending so much on the Daring class and the super carriers will result in many British lives being lost in another conflict, unless there are sufficient SSNs to balance the respective powers.
Cromulent| 2.8.12 @ 12:17PM
Tight economic times? No, the groaning welfare state is the chief culprit. That and a loss of cultural confidence. Cool Britannia, eh?
Eating scones as we go under| 2.9.12 @ 1:34AM
Hey now....they've given us the Spice Girls and David Beckham. Isn't that enough of a contribution?
Don't worry. Those two fag princes of their's, they'll save us.
Gag.
Melvin| 2.8.12 @ 8:07AM
"Hey England, hows that peace dividend working out for ya?"
You can thank Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Nick Clegg for chopping up perfectly good aircraft and perfectly good ships, not to mention letting thousands of perfectly trained military personnel go by letting them know by email.
Now the flatulent political gas passers over here are now standing on their podiums and saying the exact thing. "We are going to reinvest this money in programs for the poor." In other words this means, that they're going to skim off this money and send it to Zürich while leaving this Country woefully defended.
WRTolkas| 2.8.12 @ 8:54AM
And Melvin, the government disarmed the civilian population too. For England it is 1938 again.
Just remember, if you feed them, you are just encouraging them to breed.
Harry the Horrible| 2.8.12 @ 8:08AM
The HMS Dauntless is roughly equivalent to a Aegis class destroyer and could put a heck of dent in the Argentine AF all by itself. With support from a SSN, it can also stop any sea-borne invasion.
They do need more ships, more planes and another sub, for the advantage of "overwhelming force" but what they have will do the trick if they're not caught napping.
JA| 2.8.12 @ 8:54AM
One air to sea, or land to sea, or sea to sea missile and the Dauntless will be toast. These missiles can travel 1000 km (!!) or further, they are relatively cheap, and if, say, 3 or 4 or more are launched at the same time, one is sure to disable (if not sink) the Dauntless.
The Argentines will attack BEFORE Obama leaves office because they know of his contempt for the UK (and the USA) and that he will not lift a finger to help - or even warn off - the Argentine govt.
PaulyD| 2.8.12 @ 10:57AM
Not necessarily. A modern warship's anti-aircraft missile systems are designed to track and shoot multiple inbound aircraft and missile threats at the same time. It's just that this capability has never been fully tested to the max yet in combat.
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 10:24PM
Don't forget the "big ocean/small ship" problem. A cruise missile with a range of 1000 n. mi and a speed of 500 its takes two hours to reach the target area. In that time, a ship can move 40-60 n. mi in any direction, which is why long-range anti-ship missiles need midcourse guidance updates provided by airborne or space borne surveillance platforms. The Argentines lack that capability, and only have short range missiles in any case. The British have long range missiles and airborne surveillance platforms, so the odds of the Argentines getting in the first shot are slim.
JA| 2.8.12 @ 8:54AM
One air to sea, or land to sea, or sea to sea missile and the Dauntless will be toast. These missiles can travel 1000 km (!!) or further, they are relatively cheap, and if, say, 3 or 4 or more are launched at the same time, one is sure to disable (if not sink) the Dauntless.
The Argentines will attack BEFORE Obama leaves office because they know of his contempt for the UK (and the USA) and that he will not lift a finger to help - or even warn off - the Argentine govt.
anon| 2.8.12 @ 9:04AM
The HMS Hood was obsolete when it was sunk (sunk in 1941, initially comissioned in the 1910s sometime), according to a little research - so this is a misleading comparison. It does not mean that the thrust of the article is wrong, but that's not a good comparison at all.
Akaky| 2.8.12 @ 3:33PM
I agree, but the point still holds: the Bismarck was commissioned in 1940, the Yamato in 1941, and the Musashi in 1942, and they were all sunk by superior naval air power. You'd think the Royal Navy would know this. Or worse, they do know about it, but the politicians couldn't care less at the time. Now that the pols need a credible deterrent, they don't have it. The fingerpointing will commence as soon as the cow flop hits the fan.
Martin Owens| 2.8.12 @ 5:59PM
Not all that obsolete- what doomed the HOOD is what killed all the other British battlecruisers- lack of heavy armor protection. HOOD was launched after Jutland, when the problem was known, and the RN had been meaning to re-armor her and get serious about AA guns and a list of other things. But as so often, there was this delay, that budget shortfall... and always the poor fighting men to pay the difference.
Mike D.| 2.8.12 @ 10:36PM
She(Hood) was built for speed and punch but with a glass jaw. Most people don't seem to know the fact that she was NOT a battleship. She was built to scout in force for the battle line and chase down enemy surface raiders and armored cruisers. She was not built to slug it out in the battle line with battleships. Jackie Fishers "greyhounds of the sea", a noble concept but really had no purpose after Jutland's lessons.
Her speed was a trade off for less armor protection in critical areas.
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 7:09AM
Not so. Armor accounted for 33% of Hood's displacement, making her very much a "fast battleship" as opposed to a "battle cruiser". The "large light cruisers" ordered in 1916 were supposed to lead the Scouting Force and protect it from German battlecruisers with their heavy armament of 15- or 18- inch guns. However, the lessons of Jutland rendered the large light cruiser obsolete, so they were converted to aircraft carriers in the 1920s.
Hood's armor was adequate for its day, but during the 1920s and 30s, most navies modernized their existing battleships and battlecruisers to elevate their main batteries to 45 degrees, allowing much longer range. This meant that plunging fire became a much more serious threat, which, together with the emergence of dive bombers, led to the need to increase deck armor in existing ships, and the thicker deck armor of the last generation of battleships (Bismarck, Yamato, KGV, North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa classes).
The effectiveness of battleship armor was measured by a concept known as "Zone of Immunity", which was the difference between the shortest range at which the side armor belt could not be penetrated, and the longest range at which deck armor could not be penetrated. Theoretically, battleships should engage the enemy from within their own zone of immunity, and this is what Holland was trying to do by charging Bismarck head-on: close the range rapidly and get inside his own smaller zone of immunity. Had he led the charge with Prince of Wales, a newer ship with more deck armor, and the Germans had concentrated their fire on her, then he might have succeeded in bringing both his capital ships to bear on Bismarck simultaneously. He might also have waited for the shadowing cruiser force to come up to engage Prinz Eugen, but he was afraid of losing Bismarck in the fog, and decided to engage immediately. Best tradition of the Service, just not well thought out or executed.
Mike D.| 2.9.12 @ 12:10PM
She was never designated as a "fast battleship" by the British admiralty and they knew full well her armor protection was not in line with the later more modern ships she might have had to face.
From the HMS Hood website:
Battle Cruiser or Fast Battleship?
The completed ship was quite impressive- very fast, very large and very beautiful. She was not without her problems however: Due to the many increases in her armour/protective plating, she was much heavier than originally planned. The extra weight forced her to sit substantially low in the water and increased her draught. As a result, in heavy seas, or even at high speed in relatively calm seas, her quarterdeck was frequently awash. Because of this, she had a well-deserved reputation as being one of the wettest ships in the Royal Navy. The situation only worsened over the years as Hood's displacement steadily increased.It was at its worse in her final years due to the significantly increased wartime loads she was forced to carry.
Due to her extreme size, superb speed, large calibre armament and somewhat "larger than life" legend, she is often referred to (by modern day historians amd enthusiasts) as being not necessarily the last British battle cruiser, but the world's first true modern "fast battleship." This view is understandable when one compares Hood's protective armour and weaponry to contemporary battleships such as the Queen Elizabeth class, Hood was indeed a better armed and better protected ship. Of course, when one compares her armour/protective arrangement to those of the true fast/modern battleships that appeared in her latter days, it is clear that she was not quite up to par. At best, she was just a "super battle cruiser." Indeed, she always held an official designation of battle cruiser- the Admiralty knew full-well of her potential armour deficiencies.
So why, if she wasn't really a battleship, did the Admiralty employ her as one during the Second World War? Largely because of a lack of big gun resources. Her reputation was also a key factor...due to her somewhat inflated legend, she was widely feared the world over. Of course, that very same legend may have impaired the Admiralty's judgment as well– she had been the "Mighty Hood" for so long that despite her known deficiencies, many may have actually thought her invincible. Sadly, she was "invincible", but not in definition or the true sense of the word. She, the final British battle cruiser, was "invincible" in that the manner of her loss was very similar to the loss of the first battle cruiser, H.M.S. Invincible.
Regardless of the situation with the Prince of Wales, the Hood was in a fight with a superior ship with a superior targeting and fire control system and a more stable firing platform. She was an obselete up armored battle cruiser with serious limitations against later generation battleships. She was never classified as any kind of Battleship.
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 10:27PM
On the other hand, I refer you to Norman Friedman, the eminent historian of naval architecture and weapons systems, and his book "Battleship Design and Development, 1905-1945", in which he compares the weight budget of Hood, the World War I battlecruisers, and World War II fast battleships. Hood was a fast battleship--the proportion of armor to displacement proves it.
I really hate when people try to argue with me over military history.
Stuart Koehl| 2.8.12 @ 9:17AM
Given the capabilities of the Argentine navy and air force, it's pretty clear that a guided missile destroyer and a nuclear attack submarine can defend the Falkland Islands from invasion, but it's not clear whether such a deployment can deter an attack in the first place.
The backbone of the Argentine fleet consists of four 3360-ton MEKO 360 frigates armed with Exocet anti-ship missiles and Aspide short-range air defense missiles. All four together are no match for HMS Dauntless, and none of them is really capable of dealing with a nuclear attack submarine.
Argentina also has two TR-1700 and one Type 209 diesel-electric submarines. These German-designed boats can be formidable in coastal waters, but in open ocean they would be easily detected and outmaneuvered by an SSN.
Argentina also has nine corvettes, which are suitable only for inshore operations. More significantly, Argentina has only one amphibious assault ships, with a combined troop capacity of only about 500 men. Beyond that, the Argentine Navy has not demonstrated any real competence at large scale naval maneuvers for many years, and its ability to actually execute an invasion is doubtful.
The Argentine air force's strike capability is not much different today than it was during the Falklands War, consisting of eight ancient Mirage III and 14 slightly more modern Nesher fighters, seven Mirage 5 and 34 A-4AR Skyhawk attack aircraft. Since all of these must be based on the mainland, their radius of action extends only barely to Port Stanley. Again, the competence of the Argentine air force leaves much to be desired.
If Britain wishes to signal its resolution to defend the Falklands and deter any potential Argentine attack, all it really needs do is deploy a battalion of Royal Marine Commandos to the islands, together with a detachment of some six Tornado GR.4 strike aircraft and an equal number of Eurofighter Typhoon multi-role fighters. The Commandos would suffice to defend all of the important settlements and potential landing grounds, while the Tornados, armed with Sea Eagle anti-ship missiles could destroy any invasion force far to the west of the Islands. The Typhoons would provide local air defense and deal with any Argentine force than somehow manages to get ashore.
In short, the British deployments are adequate to defeat any potential Argentine invasion, but are inadequate to deter an Argentine regime driven to undertake a risky, low-probability of success operation by domestic political considerations--i.e., the kind of situation that led to the first Falklands War.
tdiinva| 2.8.12 @ 4:18PM
The area between the Falklands and Argentina is made for diesel submarines and while it is true that the SSN can out maneuver these modern U-boats it can't detect them at tactically advantageous ranges. (I have done the sonar equation calculations based on real acoustic and system parameters). By the time the SSN can detect a diesel it will be down to "gunfight" ranges. The first rule of a gunfight is “don't get into a gunfight.”
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 7:11AM
But there is no need to go there. West Falklands is empty, and with its Tomahawk cruise missiles, the British force can engage the Argentines before they get within range, or even land troops.
Also, diesel boats have to snorkel, during which time they are both noisy and blind.
tdiinva| 2.9.12 @ 3:53PM
The SSN is armed with Land attack missiles and have no capability to attack naval targets at sea. The article claims that the sub carries up to 30 TLAMs -- the equivalent of 30 Mk 82 bombs, a number too small to have a major impact on aserious Argentine operation.
Modern diesels on snorkel are not very loud at all and while the tonals are more detectable than a diesel running on battery you won't get long range or convergent zone detection. I have run those calculations when I was an OA analyst at OP-96/71 and when I was the senior warfare analyst for the air ASW community. The SSN will still not have an expolitable advantage over a TR1700 on snorkel.
Forrester novels guy| 2.9.12 @ 6:16PM
Hey good fella, keep posting here. More, more! You're like Jonesy of the Tom Clancy books.
Okay, don't give away any info that rogue rubes might use to advantage, but your obvious knowledge of the subject makes for good reading.
I am curious. Were you tested often to establish your hearing capabilities? And to make sure they were not or did not deteriorate. Are your hearing capabilities (your ears) superior to most others?
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 10:50PM
TLAMs could be replaced by TSAMs on a 1-for-1 basis. The Royal Navy also has the Harpoon UGM-84 Harpoon, a dedicated medium-range anti-ship missile. Of course, a flight of Tornado GR.4s with Sea Eagle missiles could probably destroy the entire Argentine surface fleet in an afternoon, which means all the Argy subs can pound sand.
By the way, it's by no means a sure thing that a diesel electric boat--even one as good as a TR-1700, can take an SSN in shallow water. The passive sonar conditions are just as bad for the diesel boat as for the SSN, and at slow speed, a Trafalgar or Astute boat has a very, very low acoustic signature. And the Spearfish is a much better torp than the old Mk.37s used by the Argentines.
tdiinva| 2.10.12 @ 5:24PM
The TSAM is gone from all navies. We no longer carry submarine launched Harpoons and I doubt the RN does either.
Meister | 2.11.12 @ 7:50PM
The article is wrong. Trafalgar class submarines are primarily designed to attack enemy submarines and surface ships - the land attack capability is a secondary role. For this they are equipped with at least 18 spearfish heavyweight wire-guided torpedoes, the fastest and quietest heavy torpedo in the world. These were designed to sink powerful Soviet SSNs and cruisers/destroyers, and they would be nothing short of lethal for poorly equipped Argentinian ships.
Christopher C| 2.9.12 @ 5:59AM
Um. Those Skyhawks - admittedly obsolescent, even obsolete by now, but back in 1982 it wasn't that they weren't flown with skill and formidable resolve. It was the armourers who perhaps weren't up to speed. When you read the account of the Falklands War, what's reported again and again is the number of dumb bombs that struck ships but which did not explode. The Argentine pilots knew that they had to get low and close to be effective. The armourers set the bombs to arm after longer drops than the pilots were providing. That, at least, is what I understand happened. If it hadn't, the Falklands would be the Malvinas now.
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 7:14AM
First, the Argentine air force in 1982 knew exactly where the British naval forces were, because they were tied to the amphibious landing sites. Today, the Dauntless is free to maneuver, which makes finding her very difficult for an aircraft without an effective surface search radar. You are right about Argentine ordnance, but only two ships were hit by unexploded bombs, so I doubt the outcome would have changed much.
P.Smith| 2.8.12 @ 9:32AM
Britain made a choice to keep a large majority of its population on the dole rather than have a properly functioning military. Inadvertently, I guess, England decided long ago that they would rely on the United States to do the heavy lifting and they would just sort of work around the edges. So in a sense the US has actually helped to subsidize Britain’s welfare system by allowing her to feel secure enough to not properly fund those things which a state should make its top priority.
Old Soldier| 2.9.12 @ 8:29AM
The only thing that will keep the Falklands a British territory is the fact the Argentina made the same decisions - only more so.
Electing Peronists who have gutted their economy and destroyed their national credit has ensured that Argentina hasn't rearmed since the 80's. If it was Chile across those straits, the Brits would be in big trouble.
Meister | 2.8.12 @ 10:13AM
I'm heartily sick of former senior officers crawling out of the woodwork to give their questionable opinions. They need to fight the forces' corner when they are in post intead of protecting their personal interests and fuelling inter-service bickering.
Lord West is partly responsible for the current situation. He is a Labour peer and cosied up to Blair and Brown and managed to get them to sign up for two new aircraft carriers (+F35s) which the UK doesn't actually need and can't afford. In order to pay for these, the surface fleet was slashed by 1/3, the Sea Harriers scrapped (much more useful than the Harrier GR9s, with some of the aircraft only 9 years old) and the future procurement programme reduced to a comedy script. West & Co. duly accepted the cuts on the promise of "jam tomorrow" and effectively colluded in their own blackmail.
The current government is at least trying to put defence on a sustainable footing. They probably won't succeed, but to their credit they have some notion of the necessity of bringing resources and commitments back into line. Otherwise, their might only be one basket next time.
Petronius| 2.8.12 @ 10:24AM
If it can be found, get a copy of Don't Cry For Me Sergeant Major. Written by a couple Fleet St. embeds, it chronicles the campaign cockups on both sides 30 years ago. But there's just one consistency the Argies can't discount or ignore; the Gurkha Rifles. The announcement of their deployment to the Falklands was enough to make the average Argentine recruit line his britches with the nearest white flag.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 11:49AM
Well, if the Gurkha are going to the Falklands, then case closed. THE best hand to hand fighters in the world.
JimH| 2.8.12 @ 11:41AM
The aphorism of ‘git thar fustest with the mostest’ is attributed, incorrectly to General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Modern warfare sometimes requires instead that one ‘git thar fustest with the bestest’. The trick, if one is going to have less than one’s enemy is to have a sufficient number of bestest along with superior tactics to overcome his superiority in numbers. This was our hope in Europe against the USSR and it was successful in both Gulf wars. It did not work for the Nazis. The trick is to combine technical superiority with sufficient numbers to be effective: A delicate balance. Britain is on the edge of the tipping point. We, in some areas such as aircraft (see the F22 and F35) are heading there.
Kingofthenet| 2.8.12 @ 3:48PM
There is nothing 'New' on that ship that could blow up, the most hi tech thing is the radar and stealth the missile systems are standard stuff.
Simon| 2.8.12 @ 5:28PM
Interesting article, but last time I checked HSBC was still a British bank. You might wanna correct that. (Hong Kong is in the name because it was founded there when Honk Kong was a British colony).
Tim the Enchanter| 2.14.12 @ 8:46AM
Here in WNY, we always thought the acronym stood for "hot sauce/bleu cheese" (the recipe for chicken wings), or "Holy Sh!t Buffalo Cold!" Enjoy!
e pearse| 2.8.12 @ 7:14PM
A lot of "if's" and "maybe's" in this piece. The author forgot one thing, the enemy.
The Argentinians can be good at 'futbol' but they are not exactly warriors of the lost empire.
They would be defeated just by raising the Union Jack where they can see it.
turboline| 2.9.12 @ 1:46AM
e pearce:
Okay. You are right Leonel Messi, C. Tevez, J. Pastore, and the futbol gauchos can be a sight to see on the football, pitch, but let's not assume that the Argies would necessarily go into this fight alone.
At some point, there will be a serious attempt by Latin and South American nations to strike some sort of seminal blow against the Old World order. Don't think that this has not always been simmering under the skin as Latin leaders meet in OAS conferences. Whose to say the Argies wouldn't be getting real aid and material from say Cuba, Venezluela, Bolivia, Peru, and....
China.
Don't think it impossible.
Everyone here seems to think it would just be the modern day junta of Buenos Aires versus the defenders of the Falklands.
No, no. Think again.
Times change.
You need to go see the Red China presence in SA. They're there. And they're there with an agenda.
John| 2.8.12 @ 8:43PM
The South Atlantic Task Force normally operates with a single major surface combatant and a single attack submarine, along with another patrol vessel and sometimes a Royal Fleet Auxillary ship. It's not as if Britain is sending vessels for the first time in recent history and this is all they could manage - it's merely rotation in a permanent patrol.
Secondly, in the event of rising tensions, Britain could quickly reinforce the islands via air. The already capable Eurofighter Typhoons could quickly be supplemented by more aircraft along with ground forces and additional Rapier units.
Thirdly, the Type-45 is an air-defense destroyer. It is designed exactly to prevent enemy air superiority. The Sea Viper missile system may be untested in battle, but that doesn't mean it's untested. Sea Viper is said to be capable of launching 8 missiles in 10 seconds. But I think this misses the point - HMS Dauntless is replacing a far less capable Type-23 frigate which demonstrates that the ship alone is not expected to defend the islands against a full-scale invasion. RAF Mount Pleasant air base is a far larger deterrent.
To the commenters claiming that Britains welfare state has left it a crippled power: the world average for military spending in 2010 (according to SIPRI) was 2.6% of GDP. Britain spent 2.7% on defense. The United States spent 4.7%.
Disclaimer: I'm British.
turboline| 2.9.12 @ 1:15AM
John, what you add here is valuable. Thanks for jumping in and doing some commenting.
I think the issue that grabs all of us, though, is that 2.7% or 4.7% of GDP spending isn't going to deter or ultimately beat foes that are not constrained by the niceties and frivolities of our core NATO nations (add Australia).
In our societies, we now pay a pretty penny to those in uniform, reservists, legions of contractors, and very decent retirement packages that last til these old codgers kick the bucket.
A lot of our military spending is "wasted" (understand why I use this term) on people. Enemies like Abu Sayeef who align with miscreants all across Asia, Africa, and the Near East don't have to worry about the niceties of fixed salaries with adjusted for inflation annual raises, pensions, payments to the bereaved, and veterans' hospitals. And the Chinese and Russians aren't too worried about these plush expensive items on their military spending budgets either.
We either deliberately decide to ALWAYS be tenuously defending and FUNDING peace through strength until Jesus returns or we lay ourselves open for consequences that will make you and I sitting in our track suits with a cuppa and commenting here -- an obsolete activity.
We all seem to think some powerful group of swift galloping Lone Rangers and Tontos will come rescue us at the 11th hour (as in the spaghetti Westerns). No. Our robust defense is ours to do and ours alone. Doesn't matter if one is in Belgium or Portugal, Scotland, or New Zealand.
Watching Great Britain whither away as your baby boys are all named now Mohammed and the Pakistanis and Indians take over, well, it is painful. And we know they aren't going to be aiding any "peace through strength" efforts.
Hey, John, we're just all tired of our lousy political leaders lame excuses for doing the right thing with a vision for the next 40-50 years clearly as the target. I mean, hey, there's lots of money over there in GB. It can be spent on what matters. After all, what you all were paying Fabio Capello these past four years could have outfitted four full-up battalions, no?
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 7:40AM
On world average defense spending, understand that the average is being distorted by extraordinarily low defense spending by Western European countries. At 2.7%, the UK is at the high end of European NATO countries (and still below the NATO target of 3%). Germany, with Europe's largest economy, spends a paltry 1.5%, and most of the rest of European NATO falls between that and 2.2%, with the average a paltry 2.1%.
Even there, Europe gets very little bang for what bucks it does commit. Only about 30% of the U.S. defense budget is devoted to personnel costs, despite our professional military. In Europe, the average is 50%, and in some cases as much as 65-70% of total defense expenditures. That leaves precious little left over R&D or procurement. European R&D spending is only about 1/6 their total budget, and much of that is wasted in duplicative national programs. And, finally, European procurement programs are marred by inefficient management of bloated multinational programs (of which Eurofighter Typhoon is a perfect example) in which requirements are compromised to please all the participants, and workshare is allocated on the principle of juste retour (each country gets work share proportional to its investment in the program), rather than best value.
So, if you wanted a true apples-to-apples comparison of U.S. and European defense spending, you would have to apply a discount to European budgets, making them even smaller in comparison to the U.S. budget.
Dom Colangelo Jr.| 2.9.12 @ 12:32AM
HMS Hood did not "blow up" as the author says, implying some faulty untried design. Hood was patrolling the Atlantic searching for the Nazi's biggest battleship the Bismark. Bismark was on patrol looking to wreak havoc on Allied shipping bound for Britain and was accompanied by the cruiser Prince Eugen (sp?) HMS Hood was sunk by Bismark within a few minutes of the ship engaging each other. Only 3 out of crew of about 1400 survived.
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 7:19AM
To be specific, a 15-inch armor piercing round from Bismarck penetrated the deck armor on Hood's quarterdeck and penetrated to the aft 4-inch magazine, the explosion of which commutated to the aft 15-inch powder room. The resulting cordite explosion broke the ship in two, the aft portion largely disintegrating (as its wreckage indicates), while the explosion, moving into the forward half of the ship, seems also to have caused an explosion of one of the forward 15-inch magazines before the bow section actually sank. All-in-all, a titanic blast and a truly catastrophic failure of the protective system.
Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.9.12 @ 12:33AM
Wasn't the Monroe doctrine intended to keep European powers out of the Western Hemisphere. Apparently this isn't about the Falklands in particular or the British towns and colonists there. What this is about is oil and it doesn't belong to England it belongs to Argentina.
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 7:19AM
Wasn't the Monroe Doctrine actually enforced by British seapower?
Akaky| 2.9.12 @ 12:11PM
Officially, no; the British proposed a joint statement of the doctrine, but the United States demurred and announced the doctrine unilaterally. Unofficially, yes; despite the fine record that the United States Navy had made for itself in the Barbary Wars and the War of 1812, everyone knew the Royal Navy was the big stick behind the high sounding words.
Richard Baker| 2.9.12 @ 1:09AM
Like the idea of stationing the Gurkhas there. The kukri is well used and in their hands has a fearsome reputation. The Argentinian conscripts would be shaking in their boots if they were to see a platoon of them in the attack.
turboline| 2.9.12 @ 1:27AM
Mr. Baker and others, it is nice to see praises here for the Gurkhas, but might we be making a mistake to link the attributes of today's 19 - 27 year old Gurkahs with his Gurkha fighting forefather of 2 or 3 generations previous?
The soldiers I see today (not Gurkhas) are often hardly very soldierly. They don't much like physical fitness training, let alone ARDUOUS, bone-numbing physical fitness grit and hardship.
The soldiers I see love their ipods, their portable DVD players, their cell phones, uploading queer stuff to YouTube, and don't go anywhere without pricey earbuds, thumb drives loaded with a millennium's supply of MP3 files, XBox games, and all the latest R and X-rated movies.
They're rather busy keeping current on all that paraphernalia as well as the logistics of schlepping it all around, not so much focused at all with rifle drills, bayonets, cleaning, keeping equipment serviceable, entrenching techniques, laying mines, etc.
I'm asking: Is today's 19 - 27 Gurkha somehow a more focused young guy? They are immune to today's overbearing pop culture and all its accouterments?
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 7:21AM
British forces, including Gurkhas, have proven in Afghanistan and Iraq to be just as brave, just as tenacious, and just as tactically proficient as their forefathers. Americans should appreciate more both their contribution and their sacrifices.
So, for that matter, should the British public, which has reverted to treating Tommy Atkins with the kind of peacetime contempt for which they formerly were famous.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.9.12 @ 9:36AM
I read a lot of that in the British press. It galls me to no end.
nathan| 2.9.12 @ 8:28AM
All this really shows is that everyone, ourselves included, are broke. During the 60's when I was growing up, we and Europe had huge domestic savings which we all could draw from. We frittered a lot of ours away on things like Vietnam for the neocons, and the great society for the liberals. Europe spent most of it on social welfare programs where people found they got more money if they didn't work and all the nationalized health care nonsense. All the "good intentions" programs on both sides, liberal and conservative, here and in Europe, proved to be ghastly failures. Now as we see here, the domestic savings, the "piggy bank" as it is, has been raided far too many times and no one Europe or ourselves has any cash any more and everyone is going to have to make tough choices. For liberals here and in Europe it means cherished social programs are going to have to be scaled back substantially. For conservatives it means no more world's policeman, no more "white man's burden" no more democracy jihads. And that's not necessarily bad.
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 11:11PM
We're hardly broke--we just have warped priorities. A country that once devoted 10% of its GDP to defense on a regular basis (and in time of peace) now finds spending less than half that amount onerous. What has changed? Whereas once we considered the principal purpose of the Federal government to defend the country, today we consider its principal purpose to insulate all citizens from any need to work hard and make responsible choices.
Paul| 2.9.12 @ 12:02PM
There are some dodgy linkages in this article. The 3 British battle cruisers that blew up at Jutland were all lost by flash reaching the magazine. The ships had anti-flash doors fitted in the ammo hoists but these were left open to improve rate of fire. In fact HMS Lion recieved similer hits to the other ships but did not blow up because the Gunnery Officer insisted the flash doors were used in accordance with the training manual, preventing flash reaching the magazines. So training and user error, not ship design was to blame.
As for the two modern assets being untested, the UK is the only nation to have fired in anger from a Nuclear submarine and in that respect is the most prepared and practiced navy in the world. The Dauntless is new bit it's been in commission for 2 years which is plenty of time to shake down. Modern military electronics system also undergo much more rigorous testing than before and the pool of knowledge of electronics under combat conditions is mush better understood.
The general consensus is that it would be much harder if not impossible to retake the islands with the current armed forces, but the ability to prevent invasion is far greater than before. A T class by herself can attack the airfields, shipping and conduct signals reconnaissance and the Argentine navy has no counter to a modern nuclear submarine.
Nemo| 2.10.12 @ 2:09AM
Surwly this article is no more than makinmg the point that the invulnerability of even state-of-the-art ships cannot be taken for granted.
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 11:15PM
Quite right--though Indefatigable was hit hard by at least four German 11-inch shells and was sinking by the stern when she blew up (some very clear pictures of the event exist). Of course, she was one of the first battlecruisers, of the same generation as HMS Dreadnaught, and while the first battleship had been relegated to training duties by 1916, the first battlecruisers were still valuable because of their speed. All-in-all, the battlecruiser fleet fulfilled its strategic purpose at Jutland and proved themselves to be useful fleet units. If proper flash precautions had been observed, only one of them would have been lost. Note that Beatty's flagship, HMS Lion (which did observe anti-flash regulations), took a direct hit on Q-turret (amidships) and did NOT explode, because the flash from the hit on the turret did not commutate past the working chamber. Flooding the magazine was a useful precaution but was not essential to saving the ship.
Stuart Koehl| 2.9.12 @ 11:17PM
I would also point out that the British submarine service spends far more time in realistic tactical training than any other navy's submarine force--including the U.S. Navy. We have nothing like the RN's "Perisher" course, and tend to promote officers to command based on their mastery of nuclear engineering (one of Rickover's more pernicious legacies). From a tactical standpoint, British submarine commanders stand second to none.