Anglo-Argentine relations futher deteriorate

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mplacency.html

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...81_468x334.jpg

Quote:

---

Argentina has warned Britain it 'shouldn't be complacent' and that it would defend its sovereignty in the territorial dispute off the Falkland Islands. However, Buenos Aires insisted it did did not mean a repeat of the 1982 Falklands war. The South American country has said it will take its dispute over plans by UK firms to explore oil off the islands to the United Nations. It has announced new controls on ships heading to the islands as a result of the plans to drill for oil. The Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague this morning said Britain should be 'very firm' and raise its profile off the islands.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Hague called for 'some sort of increased naval presence - it may just be one more ship visiting more regularly' in the region. He added: 'That kind of thing would show very clearly to Argentina - with whom, again, we want friendly relations - that we will be very firm about this. It would send a signal not to misunderstand British intentions. 'One of the things that went wrong in the 1980s is that the Argentines thought we weren't really committed to the Falkland Islands. So, we mustn't make that mistake again. Our commitment should be very clear.' However, Gordon Brown, speaking on a phone-in today, said: 'I think you will find we have made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure the Falkland Islanders are properly protected.' But he did not expect a need to send a task force to the area, saying: 'This is oil drilling that is exploration for the future.

It is perfectly within our rights to do this.' He believed the Argentinian government understood this and that 'sensible discussions' will prevail. Two days ago, Argentina said that boats sailing from its ports to the Falklands would need a government permit, deepening a long-running row over exploration in the disputed archipelago. This comes as a British rig nears the islands and is due to start drilling next week.

---

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...51_468x392.jpg

Our islands, our people, our resources so no Argentina, they are not yours. I think if they dare attack again we should immediately fire back and maybe even use air power to damage Argentine ports. The Argentines always use the Falklands issue to drum up support at home when their government is in trouble/unpopular just as the regime in the 1980s did of which our war helped collapse - anyway, Thoughts?

We got spoken to about this in my navy drugs test and interview today. Very interesting, the ship they are saying that has been sent out there has been out there for last 11 months patrolling, so dont know why people are saying its just been sent out there. Also some other stuff but cant speak about that though, he did say if it all kicked off big time the navy could get most of the army troops removed from afgan and over to the area within 72 (not including equipment) which was intresting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titch

We got spoken to about this in my navy drugs test and interview today. Very interesting, the ship they are saying that has been sent out there has been out there for last 11 months patrolling, so dont know why people are saying its just been sent out there. Also some other stuff but cant speak about that though, he did say if it all kicked off big time the navy could get most of the army troops removed from afgan and over to the area within 72 (not including equipment) which was intresting.

---

I'm guessing you meant 72 hours at the end? If so that's not bad. I know it wouldn't take that long to get people over there. I wish Argentina give up they will not win and they will never get the islands. So really what they are trying to do with this "Oli" stuff is a bit crazy IMO.

@Undertaker, I agree that if they even attack and try and get the islands or stop anything related to it. We should attack back, it's our land and has been for god knows how long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattGarner

I'm guessing you meant 72 hours at the end? If so that's not bad. I know it wouldn't take that long to get people over there. I wish Argentina give up they will not win and they will never get the islands. So really what they are trying to do with this "Oli" stuff is a bit crazy IMO.

---

They think this could be one of biggest oil reserves in world.

EDIT: @second bit: Hopefully we do, seeing as i will be in the navy then fighting over there :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattGarner

I'm guessing you meant 72 hours at the end? If so that's not bad. I know it wouldn't take that long to get people over there. I wish Argentina give up they will not win and they will never get the islands. So really what they are trying to do with this "Oli" stuff is a bit crazy IMO.

@Undertaker, I agree that if they even attack and try and get the islands or stop anything related to it. We should attack back, it's our land and has been for god knows how long.

---

Do you mean Oil instead of Oli?? Or am I missing something?

Tbf I think it would be quite a laugh to send troops over just to wind up Argentina but that's just me xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demala

Do you mean Oil instead of Oli?? Or am I missing something?

Tbf I think it would be quite a laugh to send troops over just to wind up Argentina but that's just me xD

---

wouldn't really be troops, the battle would be fort at see by the navy mainly. Unless it got big and had to fight on land :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titch

wouldn't really be troops, the battle would be fort at see by the navy mainly. Unless it got big and had to fight on land :P

---

Sorry me being 'non-army' :P By troops I mean the navy/anyone in the army xD

Not trying to be ignorant, but another falklands war would make a great call of duty :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demala

Do you mean Oil instead of Oli?? Or am I missing something?

Tbf I think it would be quite a laugh to send troops over just to wind up Argentina but that's just me xD

---

I meant Oil. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titch

wouldn't really be troops, the battle would be fort at see by the navy mainly. Unless it got big and had to fight on land :P

---

Sure would be, the sea and the air <3 They will probably think they can win but they just don't know how good we really are. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demala

Sorry me being 'non-army' :P By troops I mean the navy/anyone in the army xD

Not trying to be ignorant, but another falklands war would make a great call of duty :P

---

lol haha, our navy is very much seprate from the army now when not on missions. We are Still regarded as the best navy in the world and most navys in the world are based on ours ;)

Haha would make a great COD, they actually use xbox 360 controllers in army and navy for handling mini aircraft for salavlence over war zone.

I find it quite funny that you despise any soldiers being in place in Iraq/Afghanistan yet you feel its necessary to instigate a war with another country over a much smaller problem.

Seems rather pointless, when if people actually communicated with each other instead of bigging themselves up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshimitsui

I find it quite funny that you despise any soldiers being in place in Iraq/Afghanistan yet you feel its necessary to instigate a war with another country over a much smaller problem.

Seems rather pointless, when if people actually communicated with each other instead of bigging themselves up.

---

Do you, well I never said we should start a war with Argentina and we should only be on the defensive at all times and attack only when we have to come to the defence of the islands - but let me put the difference between these three situations clearly to you because as i'll show; they are very differing from eachother by a mile;

Iraq - had no WMD, did not pose a threat and did not occupy British territory.
Afghanistan - history shows unwinnable war, and the enemy are within and in Pakistan.
Falklands - our territory with our people on it, not to mention the vast oil reserves that lay there.

So theres really (as I pointed out) quite a big difference between them. As for talking, its all very well talking and chatting but when they are actively making claims and bids to take control over our territory then theres no other option but to diplomatically defend the islands. If military action is ever taken again by the Argentina government we should make it clear within a small deadline that if they do not withdraw from the islands then they will face military action. If they want to war-monger then let them, but I don't see why our people and our resources should be put through another occupation by a country which uses the Falklands issue to save its unpopular and failing regime/government.

If Yorkshire and Humber (in which your home city of Leeds is located) was occupied would you be calling for discussion or swift military action in the event of a French occupation? - I think I am pretty sure what the answer would be, and just because the Falklands are down in the South Atlantic doesnt make the people on them any less important than the people living in Liverpool, London, Edinburgh or anywhere else located in the United Kingdom or its oversea colonies.

The Argentine government are once again out of line. They also need to realise that if there is vast amounts of oil around the falklands, when it comes to pumping it out, it will have to go through the Argentine mainland most likely so chances are they'll end up getting about 50% of the oil anyway, they're just being greedy if anything.

While I would encourage more discussions, I think sending a task force to the Falklands would do no harm. And if it did ever escalate to war, it would work as a good argument for increased military spending on the armed forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Do you, well I never said we should start a war with Argentina and we should only be on the defensive at all times and attack only when we have to come to the defence of the islands - but let me put the difference between these three situations clearly to you because as i'll show; they are very differing from eachother by a mile;

Iraq - had no WMD, did not pose a threat and did not occupy British territory.
Afghanistan - history shows unwinnable war, and the enemy are within and in Pakistan.
Falklands - our territory with our people on it, not to mention the vast oil reserves that lay there.

So theres really (as I pointed out) quite a big difference between them. As for talking, its all very well talking and chatting but when they are actively making claims and bids to take control over our territory then theres no other option but to diplomatically defend the islands. If military action is ever taken again by the Argentina government we should make it clear within a small deadline that if they do not withdraw from the islands then they will face military action. If they want to war-monger then let them, but I don't see why our people and our resources should be put through another occupation by a country which uses the Falklands issue to save its unpopular and failing regime/government.

If Yorkshire and Humber (in which your home city of Leeds is located) was occupied would you be calling for discussion or swift military action in the event of a French occupation? - I think I am pretty sure what the answer would be, and just because the Falklands are down in the South Atlantic doesnt make the people on them any less important than the people living in Liverpool, London, Edinburgh or anywhere else located in the United Kingdom or its oversea colonies.

---

As i will always point out the circumstances are different and when you look at the bigger picture and lives at risk and those who have died the middle east is a much greater problem and despite your references to what some man/woman with fancy title has said it all has a connection, we didn't go there for nothing they didn't instigate in the past, even instigate being an understatement.

You said in your post that an offensive measure should be taken if they make any move by attacking their ports, that's instigating a war regardless of whatever threat they have made.

I don't condone leaving our people/land be left to any form of harm from those who intend it but there is a line before you start going and taking action having just listened to a few words.

I also don't see how you are trying to compare Yorkshire and Humber into a realistic comparison, i would have the same view for anywhere in the United Kingdom or it's lands. It's what is said/done not the location.

Quote:

---

As i will always point out the circumstances are different and when you look at the bigger picture and lives at risk and those who have died the middle east is a much greater problem and despite your references to what some man/woman with fancy title has said it all has a connection, we didn't go there for nothing they didn't instigate in the past, even instigate being an understatement.

---

How are the circumstances different and what exactly is this 'bigger picture' you refer to so vaguely? - please do point them out. You keep bringing up the fact people have died in the Middle East - and? - so does that mean I should automatically support the war/s in the Middle East because soliders have died even if they are totally unwinnable and morally wrong?. If anything it turns me against it even more, this war in Afghanistan is totally unwinnable and what on earth did we go to Iraq for?

I have pointed out how the issue of the potential invasion of the Falklands is a totally differing game from those in Iraq and Afghanistan because the truth is exactly what I said in them short lines. The Falklands are sovereign territory of the United Kingdom of which if Argentina did invade would be trampling on that sovereignty along with our people and our resources. Iraq meanwhile did not threaten the sovereignty of the United Kingdom or any of its oversea colonies and the same goes for Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

You said in your post that an offensive measure should be taken if they make any move by attacking their ports, that's instigating a war regardless of whatever threat they have made.

---

I did not say that, I said very clearly; "I think if they dare attack again we should immediately fire back and maybe even use air power to damage Argentine ports." - that is not me saying we should make the first move, I am saying very clearly that if Argentina were to dare attack the Falklands again then swift military action should be swiftly taken by the RAF on Argentine ports.

Quote:

---

I don't condone leaving our people/land be left to any form of harm from those who intend it but there is a line before you start going and taking action having just listened to a few words.

---

Again, I have not once said we should make the first move and theres no scenario I can think of in which I would support making the first move against Argentina.

Quote:

---

I also don't see how you are trying to compare Yorkshire and Humber into a realistic comparison, i would have the same view for anywhere in the United Kingdom or it's lands. It's what is said/done not the location.

---

So if the Falkands were attacked and occupied by Argentinian forces then you would support military action? - if yes then good, because we agree.

Myself and Mattgarner have investigated the Argentinian's Navy and Air Force, and it's pathetic to say the least. Their Air Force has not changed since the Falklands war, they haven't added anything to it, just removed stuff, they still have planes from the 50s in it. The quantity of the planes is also very small. To summarise it's an incredibly weak air force and could be taken down by just a few of the RAFs state of the art Eurofighter Typhoons easily.

Their navy is slightly better, pretty much all of it is from the 70s-early 80s era so it's in better shape than it was in the Falklands war. The Royal Navy however is mostly late-80s and 90s atm and has the likes of a new State of the art Type 45 destroyer.

To conclude, a task force sent from Britain could quite easily wipe out whatever Argentina throws at it, it would almost be a suicide mission for the Argentinians.

I would increase the Eurofighter presence on the Falklands from like four to ten and if it continues like this, use cold war deterrents such as flying at Buernos Airs with fleets of Harriers/Tornados and then turning back before they reach their airspace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

Myself and Mattgarner have investigated the Argentinian's Navy and Air Force, and it's pathetic to say the least. Their Air Force has not changed since the Falklands war, they haven't added anything to it, just removed stuff, they still have planes from the 50s in it. The quantity of the planes is also very small. To summarise it's an incredibly weak air force and could be taken down by just a few of the RAFs state of the art Eurofighter Typhoons easily.

Their navy is slightly better, pretty much all of it is from the 70s-early 80s era so it's in better shape than it was in the Falklands war. The Royal Navy however is mostly late-80s and 90s atm and has the likes of a new State of the art Type 45 destroyer.

To conclude, a task force sent from Britain could quite easily wipe out whatever Argentina throws at it, it would almost be a suicide mission for the Argentinians.

I would increase the Eurofighter presence on the Falklands from like four to ten and if it continues like this, use cold war deterrents such as flying at Buernos Airs with fleets of Harriers/Tornados and then turning back before they reach their airspace.

---

From what i was told today they recon they will only ever need 1 battleship protecting the area and dont see this a threat at all At the moment lol

EDIT:

Also to add, England has 6 new battleships coming in next 8 months which will be the most state of art ones in the world :)

I remember reading this sometime this afternoon, was very interesting. It is a bit stupid putting the Argentine waters surrounding the Falklands, so technically they can take out ships heading to Falklands because they're entering their waters so they can do what they want, we would do the same if an Argentine ship was heading into North Sea waters heading to Holland, or sailing near Gibraltar (we sort of do that at the moment with the Spainish, though we're lenient and use common sense).

The Argentines have nothing to do with the Falklands, like Undertaker said, it's probably to divert attention :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

How are the circumstances different and what exactly is this 'bigger picture' you refer to so vaguely? - please do point them out. You keep bringing up the fact people have died in the Middle East - and? - so does that mean I should automatically support the war/s in the Middle East because soliders have died even if they are totally unwinnable and morally wrong?. If anything it turns me against it even more, this war in Afghanistan is totally unwinnable and what on earth did we go to Iraq for?

I have pointed out how the issue of the potential invasion of the Falklands is a totally differing game from those in Iraq and Afghanistan because the truth is exactly what I said in them short lines. The Falklands are sovereign territory of the United Kingdom of which if Argentina did invade would be trampling on that sovereignty along with our people and our resources. Iraq meanwhile did not threaten the sovereignty of the United Kingdom or any of its oversea colonies and the same goes for Afghanistan.

I did not say that, I said very clearly; "I think if they dare attack again we should immediately fire back and maybe even use air power to damage Argentine ports." - that is not me saying we should make the first move, I am saying very clearly that if Argentina were to dare attack the Falklands again then swift military action should be swiftly taken by the RAF on Argentine ports.

Again, I have not once said we should make the first move and theres no scenario I can think of in which I would support making the first move against Argentina.

So if the Falkands were attacked and occupied by Argentinian forces then you would support military action? - if yes then good, because we agree.

---

Correct, if they attacked i would happily say fight back. I just don't think any form of offensive initially from us would solve anything.

It's just my reasons in regards to the happenings in the middle east are different considering we invaded, i think it was necessary after so long.

Beat them once, beat them again. Plus i think the argentines are forgetting about the permanent taskforce the MoD keeps there now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Technologic

Beat them once, beat them again. Plus i think the argentines are forgetting about the permanent taskforce the MoD keeps there now

---

we have a permanent nuclear war ship based there with over 1,000 men on it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titch

we have a permanent nuclear war ship based there with over 1,000 men on it ;)

---

Nah we don't, we only have four nuclear submarines under trident. One is under maintenance, two others are based in Scotland or undergoing training and the other could be anywhere in the world, there's only about 10 people who know where it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

Nah we don't, we only have four nuclear submarines under trident. One is under maintenance, two others are based in Scotland or undergoing training and the other could be anywhere in the world, there's only about 10 people who know where it is.

---

1 submarine will always be under maintenance, they have a 4 month maintance every 2 years (this is when crews will take there 6 weeks leave on a rotation basis) and all subs are undergoing training atm hence why i am having to wait 6 months before i cn get a place on one :( . And yeah only people who r on the sub will know or only a few high up people on land, which will hopefully be me in around 6 months time ;) and we have several warships equipment with neclear actually (well thats what i was told during my fitness training) and we have 4 new warships coming late 2010 and 2 new submarines also being lauched into the fleet in late 2010.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titch

1 submarine will always be under maintenance, they have a 4 month maintance every 2 years (this is when crews will take there 6 weeks leave on a rotation basis) and all subs are undergoing training atm hence why i am having to wait 6 months before i cn get a place on one :( . And yeah only people who r on the sub will know or only a few high up people on land, which will hopefully be me in around 6 months time ;) and we have several warships equipment with neclear actually (well thats what i was told during my fitness training) and we have 4 new warships coming late 2010 and 2 new submarines also being lauched into the fleet in late 2010.

---

I can't argue with that if you've heard it from the Navy :P

Good luck with your career in the navy, must be very difficult spending 3 months in a submarine without seeing anything else or contacting the outside world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

I can't argue with that if you've heard it from the Navy :P

Good luck with your career in the navy, must be very difficult spending 3 months in a submarine without seeing anything else or contacting the outside world.

---

More than 3 months :( 6-9 months they stay under, and yeah, i even have to sign a contract saying if a relative dies or something happens on the outside they reserve the right to not tell me until 1 day before returning to base.

Going in tuesday, will try and see if i can ask bit more information about this (if they will tell me).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titch

1 submarine will always be under maintenance, they have a 4 month maintance every 2 years (this is when crews will take there 6 weeks leave on a rotation basis) and all subs are undergoing training atm hence why i am having to wait 6 months before i cn get a place on one :( . And yeah only people who r on the sub will know or only a few high up people on land, which will hopefully be me in around 6 months time ;) and we have several warships equipment with neclear actually (well thats what i was told during my fitness training) and we have 4 new warships coming late 2010 and 2 new submarines also being lauched into the fleet in late 2010.

---

The UK, historically, in the last 60 years has had no other means of nuclear deterrent other than submarine nuclear capabilities that we have. The French chose to have a warship (the Charles de Gaule aircraft carrier) with Nuclear capability (i.e. Aircraft with nuclear weapons) and its been a pain ever since they built it, its been the biggest fail of all time, its been in maintenance more than its been on water. The UK has NO warships with Nuclear capability, as we do not need them as our nuclear-submarines are enough of a deterrent.

The 8 ships that I think you are talking about (I actually think its 7, 2 of which have already been built and are being used); are the rest of the Type 45 destroyer (one of which is called HMS Daring - Google it, amazing) slated as the best warships in the world, which are replacing the old depleted fleet of Type 43 Destroyer.

After that within the next 5-10 years our current 3 Air Craft Carriers are being replaced with the two new huge CVF class aircraft carriers which are going to be the 2nd and 3rd biggest aircraft carriers in the world, only just behind the US aircraft carrier which I can't think of its name ATM (I'm pretty sure its the CVN though).

Then after that we are getting the 3 new trident submarines (was 4 until Gordon Brown decided to abolish one to save money) which will be replacing our current class of nuclear submarines.

The UK doesn't have the biggest Navy, tbh it has been reducing in numbers for the past 20 years, we used to have the BIGGEST and the BEST. But quantity isn't everything, the quality of our Navy, coming with the new additions in years to come, will put us rite up their.

Anyway, on the case of them trying to take the Falklands, yeah, let them try, they'll just get blown out of the water again. They won't go back... that's if they have any sense anyway.

they won't even try, and well if they do, gl lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StefanWolves

The UK, historically, in the last 60 years has had no other means of nuclear deterrent other than submarine nuclear capabilities that we have. The French chose to have a warship (the Charles de Gaule aircraft carrier) with Nuclear capability (i.e. Aircraft with nuclear weapons) and its been a pain ever since they built it, its been the biggest fail of all time, its been in maintenance more than its been on water. The UK has NO warships with Nuclear capability, as we do not need them as our nuclear-submarines are enough of a deterrent.

The 8 ships that I think you are talking about (I actually think its 7, 2 of which have already been built and are being used); are the rest of the Type 45 destroyer (one of which is called HMS Daring - Google it, amazing) slated as the best warships in the world, which are replacing the old depleted fleet of Type 43 Destroyer.

After that within the next 5-10 years our current 3 Air Craft Carriers are being replaced with the two new huge CVF class aircraft carriers which are going to be the 2nd and 3rd biggest aircraft carriers in the world, only just behind the US aircraft carrier which I can't think of its name ATM (I'm pretty sure its the CVN though).

Then after that we are getting the 3 new trident submarines (was 4 until Gordon Brown decided to abolish one to save money) which will be replacing our current class of nuclear submarines.

The UK doesn't have the biggest Navy, tbh it has been reducing in numbers for the past 20 years, we used to have the BIGGEST and the BEST. But quantity isn't everything, the quality of our Navy, coming with the new additions in years to come, will put us rite up their.

Anyway, on the case of them trying to take the Falklands, yeah, let them try, they'll just get blown out of the water again. They won't go back... that's if they have any sense anyway.

---

Lol nice, yeh they were going on about how they would be best ships in world thursday. There navy is 1/16th size of ours....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StefanWolves

The UK, historically, in the last 60 years has had no other means of nuclear deterrent other than submarine nuclear capabilities that we have. The French chose to have a warship (the Charles de Gaule aircraft carrier) with Nuclear capability (i.e. Aircraft with nuclear weapons) and its been a pain ever since they built it, its been the biggest fail of all time, its been in maintenance more than its been on water. The UK has NO warships with Nuclear capability, as we do not need them as our nuclear-submarines are enough of a deterrent.

The 8 ships that I think you are talking about (I actually think its 7, 2 of which have already been built and are being used); are the rest of the Type 45 destroyer (one of which is called HMS Daring - Google it, amazing) slated as the best warships in the world, which are replacing the old depleted fleet of Type 43 Destroyer.

After that within the next 5-10 years our current 3 Air Craft Carriers are being replaced with the two new huge CVF class aircraft carriers which are going to be the 2nd and 3rd biggest aircraft carriers in the world, only just behind the US aircraft carrier which I can't think of its name ATM (I'm pretty sure its the CVN though).

Then after that we are getting the 3 new trident submarines (was 4 until Gordon Brown decided to abolish one to save money) which will be replacing our current class of nuclear submarines.

The UK doesn't have the biggest Navy, tbh it has been reducing in numbers for the past 20 years, we used to have the BIGGEST and the BEST. But quantity isn't everything, the quality of our Navy, coming with the new additions in years to come, will put us rite up their.

Anyway, on the case of them trying to take the Falklands, yeah, let them try, they'll just get blown out of the water again. They won't go back... that's if they have any sense anyway.

---

Mostly right there, however the RAF had nuclear weapons first until 1998 when they got rid of them, just leaving us with the trident capable submarines.

We have five Type 42 Destroyers now seeing as HMS Nottingham was decommissioned last week. When it comes to Type 45 Destroyers, the Navy operates two of them, HMS Daring which has been commissioned and HMS Dauntless which will be commissioned shortly. Both are still undergoing tests however and aren't in full service yet.

Yeah they're undergoing sea-trials or something. I thought it was Type '43', not '42'? I'll take your word for it. :P

Do you know what will be happening to all these ships we are decommissioning? what's going to happen to all these aircraft carriers/submarines/warships when they are replaced? will they still be used? or sold off? or dismantled?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StefanWolves

Yeah they're undergoing sea-trials or something. I thought it was Type '43', not '42'? I'll take your word for it. :P

Do you know what will be happening to all these ships we are decommissioning? what's going to happen to all these aircraft carriers/submarines/warships when they are replaced? will they still be used? or sold off? or dismantled?

---

Will ask them questions Tuesday when i have ma drugs test :) Cant see any reason why wont not give the answers. However i know the navy is recruiting an extra 5,000 people this year so i assume keep some?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StefanWolves

Yeah they're undergoing sea-trials or something. I thought it was Type '43', not '42'? I'll take your word for it. :P

Do you know what will be happening to all these ships we are decommissioning? what's going to happen to all these aircraft carriers/submarines/warships when they are replaced? will they still be used? or sold off? or dismantled?

---

I know some ships are kept in reverse such as HMS Invincible was announced in 2005 to be inactive and in reverse until 2010. It seems other ships just wait for disposal such as HMS Southampton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

Mostly right there, however the RAF had nuclear weapons first until 1998 when they got rid of them, just leaving us with the trident capable submarines.

We have five Type 42 Destroyers now seeing as HMS Nottingham was decommissioned last week. When it comes to Type 45 Destroyers, the Navy operates two of them, HMS Daring which has been commissioned and HMS Dauntless which will be commissioned shortly. Both are still undergoing tests however and aren't in full service yet.

---

HMS Daring should be in full service later this year while HMS Dauntless should be fully in service in 2011.

What exactly is a reverse ship? Or do you mean reserve!

Reserve :P

Kept for training new troops, etc... (I presume)

It looks as though Venesuala are backing up Argentina on this one. It's quite pathetic really, they only ever seem to care when oil is mentioned. Hopefully the UN have the common sense to just shun them away saying they're chucking their toys of their pram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshimitsui

What exactly is a reverse ship? Or do you mean reserve!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StefanWolves

Reserve :P

Kept for training new troops, etc... (I presume)

---

That's what I meant and yeah it's kept for such things like training and if an outbreak ever kicks off around the world and the extra ship is needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

It looks as though Venesuala are backing up Argentina on this one. It's quite pathetic really, they only ever seem to care when oil is mentioned. Hopefully the UN have the common sense to just shun them away saying they're chucking their toys of their pram.

---

Yeah I believe Venesuala has a good air force (forgot what Jordy said about the navy, if they have one) so could always be a problem if it ever did kick off. I'm sure it will never reach that stage, I don't think they understand that the islands are ours and the people who live on their are British and want to be British.

Argentina are just trying to distract the general public from the fact their country is in financial ruin

We'd take both of them at the same time if I'm honest, with ease.

Bk now im unbanned.

Reserve ships are used as the navys supply ships, taking supplys to ships on tours, dutys, operations ect, and are useally kept untill deemed not sea worthly anymore when they are sold off. Thats what i was told today. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Technologic

Argentina are just trying to distract the general public from the fact their country is in financial ruin

---

Hence why they want the oil ;)