HMS Dauntless to set sail for the Falklands as tensions build with Argentina
ON HER WAY HMS Dauntless
THE Royal Navy is to send one of its most powerful warships to the Falkland Islands as tensions rise with Argentina over the disputed territory.
The News understands HMS Dauntless will deploy to the South Atlantic in late March – almost 30 years to the day that a naval task force left Portsmouth to reclaim the Falklands after Argentina invaded in 1982.
The South Atlantic patrol is one of the navy’s global commitments and a warship is sent there every year.
But Portsmouth-based Dauntless will be the first of the navy’s new £1bn Type 45 destroyers to go to the area.
The deployment comes after a period of increased rhetoric between London and Buenos Aires about who has the right to rule the islands.
Dauntless would be a valuable asset if Argentina attempted to restage its 1982 invasion. She is armed with supersonic Sea Viper missiles and an air defence system which can take out targets the size of a cricket ball moving at three times the speed of sound.
A Royal Navy spokesman said: ‘The Royal Navy has had a continuous presence in the South Atlantic for many years. The deployment of HMS Dauntless to the South Atlantic has been long planned, is entirely routine and replaces another ship on station.’
A navy source told The News: ‘HMS Dauntless is an elite warship. She is one of six Type 45s built for the navy as the most advanced fighting ships in the world.
‘She is going to the Falklands on a routine deployment, but the fact the navy is sending her there and not one of the older warships is significant.’
The Falklands patrol will be Dauntless’s first operational deployment.
It comes after her sister ship HMS Daring left for her first mission to the Gulf at a time of worsening relations with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.
Admiral Lord West, a former First Sea Lord and Falklands veteran who was in command of HMS Ardent when she was sunk by Argentina with the loss of 22 men, said: ‘The Type 45s are becoming a key part of our modern force.
‘The thing that is fascinating about them is they’ve got the most amazing anti-air warfare capability.
‘Should there be any foolish nonsense from Argentina, Dauntless can sit just off the airfield and take down any aircraft coming in. It’s a game-changing capability.’
The deployment of HMS Dauntless to the Falklands follows criticism of the government’s decision to axe the navy’s Harrier jump jets and HMS Ark Royal – leaving Britain without an aircraft carrier until at least 2020.
Military strategy expert, Commodore Steve Jermy, who served in the Falklands War, said: ‘We have a critical lack of carriers so the Falklands is much more vulnerable than it’s been for many years. Sending Dauntless down there, while it doesn’t make up for the carrier gap, shows resolve.
‘It’s a very prudent deployment.’
At the weekend, former Army chief General Sir Michael Jackson warned it would be ‘impossible’ to reclaim the Falklands if it was invaded today.
Brigadier Bill Aldridge, commander of British forces in the South Atlantic, responded by saying: ‘I am not expecting to hand the islands over to anybody and therefore put us in a position to have to retake the islands.’
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Portsmouth
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 25 C
Wind Speed: 22 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 24 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 23 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 01:50 PMWhoever can establish air superioty over the Falklands will win any future conflict. Given the strenght of our air defences and land based Typhoons, it is a forgone conclusion who will win the battle for air superioty. We know that and the Argies with their clapped out second hand jets from the sixities know it too.
nmichael
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 01:40 PMInvading the falklands won't be the walk along tea party it was in 82 the argentine government and military will first have to steal themselves for losses on day 1, 2, 3 and so on and so on.
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 01:37 PMSo was I Argie, as I said the right side won. The British side won. At the time I dont remember many Argentinians opposing the war, in fact quite the opposite all gung ho and kill the Brits. War isnt football, its until someone is defeated or gives in . Thankfully in 1982, the Argentine armed forces gave in quite easily because they were not up for the fight against a modern porfessional Western army. Maybe it taught tin pot dicators they should think twice about military adventures on someone elses territory, but given events since then maybe not.
Argie
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 12:56 PMI served in 1982: i wasnt old enough to legally drink nor vote (not that this last bit mattered much back then). In 1999 I participated in a joint forces SAR exercise, after which we met, in a pub in BA, with some of the brit chaps with whom we spoke over the radio. We shared our personal stories (lost friends, relatives, body parts... and it is from them that I know about the 1981 and 1983 Acts) and we were surprised to realize how similar our opinions on the subject were. -- Im sure we share too, today, the disbelief (and a tad of contempt) over the shallow warmonging of "armchair generals" who find it so easy to demand armed responses from the safety of their TV, fish and chips.
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 06:52 AMWhy is the Falklands War a touchy subject? Politics failed, a naked act of agression was confronted and the right side won. The Argentine fascist junta collapsed and the Falkland Islanders have their freedom and live in peace, they can even become Argentine citizens if they want. As long as the residents of the Falklands wish to remain under the protection of the UK government then so be it, as I understand they pay for that priviledge with good honest cash. Sometimes in life appeasement doesnt work, sometimes you have to stand up to aggressors and bullys. If we had stood up to Hitler at the 1938 Munich Crisis , the German Army would mounted a coup against Hitler and the Second World War need never have happened, therefore no state of Israel and therefore no war in the Middle East. If we had not undertaken military action against Argentina in 1982, this may have encouraged the USSR to take military action in Central Europe in the mid 80's to prevent the collapse of the Communist bloc. Who knows, but sitting on your backside waving the flag of peace only encourages others to go to war.
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 06:45 AMAs the Romans said the best way to preserve the peace is to prepare for war.
Argie
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 10:45 PMI could be a bit touchy, mate, indeed it is a touchy subject; i'm sorry if i offended you, maybe i cannot handle it so lightly? Maybe language is a constraint on my communication, too, in a way. I tried to keep it simple and yes, that single line of mine was merely "Disbelief", put in a few words. -- Maybe as simple as it is i may have gone wrong in just expressing disbelief, that after so many lives were lost andor altered, governments (and simple individuals, considering a few of the posts above my first one) could be so frivolously shaking war fists in response to this news piece. -- Peace out o
wizard of oz
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 08:07 PMBit touchy are we Argie, unable to communicate with others? Your first sentence "Can't believe some of the comments posted here" Is that the point of your arguement? Anyway the 1983 act was a political exercise to clarify the status of citizens of the Falklands Islands. The events of 1982 showed that we took our responsibilities to the Islanders very seriously, its a shame Argentina didnt try to clarify that matter before they invaded. The 2002 Act covered all British Dependencies including the Falklands. The lslanders are not second class they are citizens but they not residents of the UK. So your cheap jibes mean nothing, so if you wish to engage in sensible debate then say something of value.,
Argie
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 07:24 PMwizard, my point was quite clear. I assume you have some trouble reading English (quite a safe assumption, since you have some trouble writing it), so to make things a bit easier for you, you can just read the first sentence and stop there. Do not mind the rest of the post, if it confuses you. The kelpers got their full citizenship with the British Nationality Act 1983, which was passed precisely in response to the 1982 conflict. It seemed that before that (1981 Act) UK governments didn't seem to keen on holding the islands.
wizard of oz
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 07:15 PMConDem In, the point I was trying to make is that the lead up to Falklands War of 1982 several different factors came into play and cannot be solely laid at the feet of the Thatcher Government (like in the run up to WW2, we should have stopped Hitler when he entered the Rhineland in 1935). If we had used military force to remove the Argies from the South Sandwich Islands when they set up a base in 1978, then it would have been highly unlikely the 1982 war would have occured. The Thatcher Government could have used force in 1979 when she came to office, but then she would have been accused as a war monger - morality in war is often about timing. So blame can be attributted to this that and the other, but in the final analysis the fascist junta of Argentina who must take full responsibility for the deaths that occured in 1982.
ConDems Out!
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 06:16 PM@wizard of oz... It took three years then before the 'leaderine' made sure that the Argentinians base on the South Sandwich Islands was closed down?? Plus, of course, it had to be explained to her that it would take three weeks to sail to the South Atlantic...
wizard of oz
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 05:34 PMPost 10, The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 covers the residents of the Falklands. This has allowed residents of British Overseas Territories to apply for a passport describing them as a citizen, to join the British armed and police forces, and to exercise rights under the Human Rights Act. They are not a resident of the UK and for example dont pay UK tax, again what point are you trying to make
wizard of oz
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 05:28 PMPost 8, question on citizenship of a British Dependent Territory whats your point? Limited number of Hong Kong residents given UK full citizenship prior to the handover to Communist China, whats your point?
Argie
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 02:24 PMCan't believe some of the comments posted here. Do you really believe we want to go to war? No one actually wants an armed conflict, no one wanted one back in 1982. Had the government been a democratic one instead of a (desperate, agonizing) Junta, neither of both countries would have to regret death and losses, M. Thatcher would have been a tad less popular than she became, and most probably the citizens of the islands would still not be full British citizens and be generally considered 2nd class members of the "kingdom".
farehamscareham
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 02:13 PM@14 err... I mean @7... The stress of remembering the 80's.
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.