Navy warships dispatched as Spain invades seas around Gibraltar

DailyMail.uk ^ | 23rd May 2009 | Daily Mail Reporter

[Skooz]

Aren’t the Spanish about 0 - 435 versus the Royal Navy?

I lost count around 1820.

[exDemMom]

When I was stationed in Spain in the early 80s, Americans were not allowed to travel directly to Gibraltar because of the ongoing feud between Spain and England. We had to go to Morocco and take a ferry to visit Gibraltar. During my stay, relations between England and Spain thawed somewhat, and Americans were then allowed to walk across the bridge to Gibraltar (Spaniards could drive).

Nice to see some things never change...

[One_who_hopes_to_know]

The French have offered a plan whereby they would oversee the area as an honest broker to both the British and Spanish. The only condition is that it be renamed as “De Gaulle Stone”

[tanknetter]

Say what you will about the Brits, they still know how to run a navy.

Hardly.

The only area where the RN has a qualitative advantage over Spain is in nuke subs. And in a littoral fight Spain's subs would have an even fight with what the RN would throw at them.

Setting aside the submarine issue (which would end up being a matter of one side or the other getting a lucky shot), the RN voluntarily abandoned organic air cover for it's Invincible-class CVLs when they retired the Sea Harrier. The RAF/RN Joint Harrier Force's GR.7s and 9s would get eaten alive by Spain's AV-8Bs, which are radar-equipped (the APG-65, which is also carried by the F/A-18C Hornet) and can bring AMRAAMs to the fight -- giving them a beyond-visual-range engagement capability that the RN couldn't counter.

Unless the RN were to throw their Vanguards into the fight and turn Madrid and some of Spain's other major population centers into smoking glass, Spain would be the odds-on favorite (favourite?) to win. Possibly in a cakewalk.

[tanknetter]

Should add, that I was only talking about Navy-on-Navy. The Brits also have an airworthy Vulcan and an airworthy Victor to tank it. Plus a Lancaster. So they’ve got the heavy-bomber category, hands-down.

[Nik Naym]

“New York State National Guard”

Careful there, buddy. The NY National Guard has much to be proud of, and could probably kick many countries ass all by themselves.

[wtc911]

Do you mean the same NYS National Guard that has seen multiple Iraq deployments, or is there some othe group whom you wish to insult?

[IbJensen]

Well, let's refer to the Vermont National Guard then if that makes you happier.

My Army days were concluded after I fought in the Korean War and received a serious injury that still remains. I did get a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for my experience.

Now, since you're ready to jump my ass, what has been your experience and why would you take offense when I was trying out a metaphorical example?

[IbJensen]

Read my #48, then fire away!

[river rat]

I agree...completely...

Though there are still some fine men - and lots of them in Britain, not as many as there should be and not as many as they need.

We in the U.S. are in no position to gloat.
To paraphrase Michelle — for the first time in my adult life, I no longer regard the majority of Americans as being worthy of the sacrifices of the many fine men whose losses we remember this week who have been lost while defending the Republic or the freedom of others

We are clearly overrun by assholes, perverts, Leftists, lazy, corrupt, dishonest, drug addled and inept clowns in America. The election of Obama confirmed my low opinion of most of today’s “Americans”...

This generation will be cursed by our grandchilden and their children...

[wtc911]

Thanks for your service and glad you got to come home....but, what does that have to do with anything?

[IbJensen]

If you look at my innocuous comment #23, then #46 & 47 to me you could see why I was waving my service record.

[Landru]

>Say what you will about the Brits, they still know how to run a navy.
"Hardly."

HA!!!!!
Wellllll kinda sorta? :o)

Lookit.
The Brits used to know how to be the best navy in the world!! {~that work? {g} }
Plus they weren't too shabby in the Falklands War, that has to count for something.

"The only area where the RN has a qualitative advantage over Spain is in nuke subs. And in a littoral fight Spain's subs would have an even fight with what the RN would throw at them...Setting aside the submarine issue (which would end up being a matter of one side or the other getting a lucky shot), the RN voluntarily abandoned organic air cover for it's Invincible-class CVLs when they retired the Sea Harrier. The RAF/RN Joint Harrier Force's GR.7s and 9s would get eaten alive by Spain's AV-8Bs, which are radar-equipped (the APG-65, which is also carried by the F/A-18C Hornet) and can bring AMRAAMs to the fight -- giving them a beyond-visual-range engagement capability that the RN couldn't counter...Unless the RN were to throw their Vanguards into the fight and turn Madrid and some of Spain's other major population centers into smoking glass, Spain would be the odds-on favorite --(favourite?)<-- I'm a Yank -- to win. Possibly in a cakewalk."

Ahhhhh you don't happen to *write* for Jane's by any chance, do you? If not, you should. Sound like you know your naval stuff inside and out & then some. ;^)

Explains why you had to correct an Army guy. :o)

Thanks for taking the time to relate up to date, accurate information concerning the topic at hand, my friend. :^)

[J Aguilar]

Just trying to build things up for Wednesday's Champions League final between Manchester United and Barcelona.

I agree. I haven't seen anything in the Spanish media.

Clashes between Civil Guard, a paramilitary police force, (those heavily armed ships...) and smugglers are dayly life in Algeciras bay.

In the end, any terrorist coming from Northern Africa may prefer attack Gibraltar rather than Spanish territory, so this British enclave is quite useful right now for all the Spaniards (not only the ones that allegedly wash money in its banks).

[J Aguilar]

Well, the Jenkin's ear war has been censored from British history:

Blas de Lezo and the invincible British navy in Cartagena

It was indeed a humilliating defeat: 2,500 Spaniards, three ships, against 25,000 British (among them, George Washington's brother) and 186 ships.

You may also explore the maritime side of the One Hundred Year's war, and how the Castillians' victory imposed free trade in the English chanel.

[tanknetter]

Thanks - appreciate the comments and compliments! I don’t write for Janes, but I am an avid reader (Aviation Leak too!)

One thing to add, there never should have been a fight in the Falklands to begin with. Argentina was emboldened by major cuts in the RN in the late 70s an early 80s. Specifically the retirement and scrapping, without replacement, of the HMS Ark Royal - which was the last “conventional” (catapults and arrester gear) carrier in the RN, as well as the sale of HMS Invincible (later rescinded) to Australia and the retirement of HMS Intrepid (assault ship, which was quickly returned to service and took part in the retaking of the Islands).

It’s believed that if the RN still had the Ark, with her Phantoms (fighter/bombers with BVR capability), Buccaneers (medium attack jets) and Gannetts (airborne early warning and control), there’s no way that the Argentinians would have made a play for the Falklands.

[Landru]

"One thing to add, there never should have been a fight in the Falklands to begin with. Argentina was emboldened by major cuts in the RN in the late 70s an early 80s. Specifically the retirement and scrapping, without replacement, of the HMS Ark Royal - which was the last 'conventional' (catapults and arrester gear) carrier in the RN, as well as the sale of HMS Invincible (later rescinded) to Australia and the retirement of HMS Intrepid (assault ship, which was quickly returned to service and took part in the retaking of the Islands)."

Fascinating insight, my friend.
I recall Reagan catching unholy hell from the miserably rotten-to-the-core Liberal-Socialists *and* their quisling mediots for lending aid to Maggy T.
Some things never change, eh?

IIRC there was [some] serious doubt concerning the RN's Harrier jump-jet. Whether it could perform the entire job, was too slow for certain missions?

Now the Harrier-carrier {hey, a RAP? :o) } was/is an odd looking thing. However when compared to a conventional carrier, money-wise, a bargain considering the state of GB. Isn't that correct?

"It’s believed that if the RN still had the Ark, with her Phantoms (fighter/bombers with BVR capability), Buccaneers (medium attack jets) and Gannetts (airborne early warning and control), there’s no way that the Argentinians would have made a play for the Falklands."

I might've previously heard that theory, can't remember anymore. Age, it ain't for sissies. ;^)

I can clearly recall the chaos the French Exocet surface-to-surface missile caused, though. One even sunk a RN warship. Of course *that* sinking was avenged 10x over by the time everything was said and done.
The Argentinians had plenty to regret when the war ended, that's for sure.

In any event the Falklands were the last time the Brits had to do anything militarily and I thought their army, marines and the RN didn't do too bad.