The Falklands / The Malvinas - (again?)

[Grabbers]

Is this just sabre rattling or do the Argentine government spot a significant weakness here?

Argentina to blockade Falkland waters in dispute over oil rights - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7029609.ece)

[parabellum]

A couple of British Royal Navy submarines in the area should be enough to keep the Argentinians in port.

[Wiley]

Just a little nudge from Argentina to see how a very distracted elsewhere (and broke) Brit gummit (and military) will react?

The same topic/scenario was posited quite recently here on another thread and some said "it'll never happen".

It would be VERY interesting to see (and, IMHO, very, very unlikely) if Mr Braun had the balls to "do a Belgrano" on a blockading warship to prove he's willing to do more than prevaricate and pontificate.

[BEagle]

Perhaps the RAF could send a Nimrod or 2 to patrol the waters - and carrier-based naval Sea Harriers could protect them from any Argentine air threat....

Then there's always the RAF's long range bombing force if things get hot!


And then I woke up.....:ugh:

[glad rag]

According to the BBC (YES I KNOW) the foreign office are playing this down and making overtures that Argentina and Britain were "important partners" and pledged to "co-operate" on issues in the South Atlantic, where the Falklands are located.

Hmm I seem to remember it was this sort of back scuttling that set the scene for the war in the first place.

[cyclops16]

It may be just sabre rattling but the threat is there. As we have a past with the Argies it should be taken seriously.I see this from a civvie point as I have been out of uniform for 20 years.But they will be well aware you guys and girls are over stretched.They know that major cutbacks are going to be made who ever gets in power.We no longer have the fleet we did to send South and the majority of heavy Helo support is in the Sandpit.The world economic situation is a basket case and those that have Oil could dictate to those that have not as this commodity gets less and less, especially as the largest resources are in the Middle East and in a constant potential war zone now that Iran has declared itself a Nuclear Power with all the problems that will entail such as sanctions (yet again)and the on-going threat of an Israeli strike.
But the essential points are we are under equipped,over stretched,under manned to fight on at least 2 fronts,don't have anything like the Naval power we did,have no long-range strike capability as the Vulcans have gone and MPA would be in range of the Argies and the tankers are tied up in other theatres. Gordy wouldn't do what Mrs. T did and may string it out until after the election in the near future(May 6) He hasn't got the bottle and then he can blame the new Government for doing nothing.Makes me think why he did a deal with the Libyans a few months ago for their Oil after we released the PanAm bomber.If the Argies did go the military route would there be really anything we could do? The cupboard is well and truly bare and any potential enemy is going to exploit that especially when it is so far from these shores.

[Metman]

How bare (or otherwise) is the Argentine cupboard, and do THEY have the capability or the forces to pull anything off? Bearing in mind how much worse their economic situation has been, for a significantly longer time.

[barnstormer1968]

BEagle.
Now you are awake, let me re assure you that we have plenty of assets to deal with this.
The government will tell you that the MOD has 1100 fixed wing and rotary aircraft. Now, as there are only a small fraction of those being used for Afghanistan, then there must be loads left for the Falklands!

Surely no government would be so devious to come up with a large figure such as this, to make the public believe we are stronger in the air than we actually are!
I mean, this figure cannot be mostly types like ATC gliders, UAS aircraft and trainers (with the BBMF and C130K's thrown in) can it?:E

On second thoughts, maybe you might need some hot coco before retiring tonight......To stop you having any more of your fanciful dreams

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Perhaps we will shortly hear from Gen Richards on how he plans to thwart this threat. Regrettably, Cyclops01 hasn’t places us in a good position for this; mainly when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I think you have all worked out that this isn’t a threat of a reinvasion but one of harassment of shipping. That could tip the balance between oil extraction being safe and profitable and it not. We are not overly well off for submarines just now and they are not particularly useful for this sort of operation. Think more ‘70s “cod war” and “OFFSHORE TAPESTRY” than Op CORPORATE.. Suitable uncommitted and manned surface ships are also not that abundant at the moment. Johnny Gaucho needs to do very little with very little to severely sod us about.

Interesting times.

[alisoncc]

I always knew there was reason to keep XH 558 flying. Do you think the MoD might consider being be it's new sponsor?

[ORAC]

I will point out in passing that, politically, Kirchner is in a bad position due to the state of the economy, taxes, etc and, as with the Falklands War, it will be a vote winner. Militarily, Chavez has been pushing for robust regional action against UK/USA interests in the area and has previously volunteered military support (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2368707.ece) if requested.

[BEagle]

Think more ‘70s “Cod War”

Yes, I think there are still a few Hastings around - but I doubt whether any are still serviceable.

Good job the RAF has got lots of Nimrods still, isn't it.....:hmm:??

[Jackonicko]

I hope the answer is "Lot's of Chinooks" some time after 2015, cos otherwise we're stuffed.....

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Ah, Sir Fred’s wonderliner. Regrettably, the only Hastings with reach we have now is called Max.

Indeed, Nimrods would be ideal for spotting and marking the bad buggers but fall rather into the “submarine” category with regard to projecting effect that’s not lethal. Also, could MPA support a couple (would 2 do it?) of Nimrods, the very important Tanker, the Herc and the Typhoons?

[cosmiccomet]

A guys, stop your nightmares about Argentine and Malvinas.

After the Malvinas war, the UK goberment and its American causins has blocked any weaponry sale to my country.

Our army forces are very, very weak at this moment. Nobody is thinking about going to war with UK.

First of all we don't have any landing ship for an invation (ARA San Antonio was scraped many years ago, the ARA Bahia Paraiso was sunk in the Antartic and the Icebreaker ARA Almirante Irizar was burned two years ago and it is in extensive repairs).

From our two Type 42 destroyers, ARA Santisima Trinidad was face out and use as spares for the other. The ARA Hercules was modified as command ship and its Sea Dart lunching capability was withdraw from her.

We have 4 Meko 360 Frigattes but without a credible antisubmarine detection and fighting capability. We have learned the ARA Belgrano leasson...

About your subs...don't be so confident...because we have two TR1700 and one 209...the last time all your fleet specialiaze in antisubmarine warefare couldn't catch a single 209...

But guys if you want to feed your bad dreams just take a look to these pictures...

Please resize the picture that was here before you post it again. Way too big.


http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5556/am39sue.jpg


http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3254/terrordelatlnticosur1.jpg

SWEET DREAMS...

[barnstormer1968]

Although using RAF aircraft is probably the easiest way to keep an eye on the Argentinians, it is not the only way*. Britain already has forces dedicated to
protecting assets in seaways, and they have a variety of ways to do this
(I'm not going very far on this, so no shouts of beadwindow please).
The above forces can make good use of our subs, and tend to be robust in their
attitude (probably no i-pods on board lol).
That said, I feel that Gordon Browne would not even consider using them, and
would just about let the Argies have or do anything they want.
If Margaret Thatcher's attitude was described as 'over my dead body' then Mr
Browne's may be more akin to 'chuck me a few quid and it's yours'.

*Luckily, as all the good stuff for this is being scrapped/sold as quick as possible:(

Edited to add: I typed this before seeing cosmiccomet's post, which seems to possibly be celebrating the sinking of civilian shipping.

[aviate1138]

If the Royal Navy can't stop a few East African pirates in wooden boats what chance do they have of protecting our interests around the Falklands/malvinas? :rolleyes:

[knowitall]

"SWEET DREAMS... "

amusing caption for a picture claiming you hit HMS Invincible!


The Argentine Government isn't interested in reclaiming the islands, this is yet more tubthumping for domestic consumption nothing more!

[NutLoose]

amusing caption for a picture claiming you hit HMS Invincible!

Noo thats not a hit, its the proposed budget cuts..... :p

[cosmiccomet]

Dear Barnstormer,
I have to correct you about your comments about the Atlantic Conveyor sinking.
That was a civil merchant ship commissioned by the British Government to transport
Supplies to help the landing campaign during the war.
It was loaded with military supplies. You can see many pictures of the ship sailing to the South Atlantic
with its deck full of Chinooks, Wessex and even Sea Harriers. So it was a military target.
The SHR were ferried shortly before the attack that’s why she was sailing very close to the
HMS Hermes.
You cannot blame the Argentine Navy Pilots for attacking her. They couldn’t distinguished between
war ships and supply ships in their screens.
The AM39 Exocet were lunch against the biggest target and they were deviated by the UK electronic countermeasures. But the missiles reacquired another target which was the Atlantic Conveyor.
We can talk about other civil merchant ships commissioned by one of the belligerent governments.
The Narwal was a fishing ship used by the Argentine Navy for electronic warfare and she was strafed run and sunk by two Sea Harriers.
The ARA Isla de los Estados was a merchant transport ship used by the navy to transport supplies for the Argentinean troops in Port Howard and Darwin.
She was catched by the HMS Alacrity and sunk using her cannon. Only two sailors survived to the sinking.
Moreover, the HMS UGANDA was targeted by five Skyhawk A4B on the 28th but the formation commander ordered to abort the attack after seeing the red crosses.
About the HMS Invincible attack, you have your story and we have our.
We have to wait until the British government discloses the secret information about that matter.
Until that happens I will believe what my pilots tell about that attack.
I would like to express my deeply sorry and respect for all your loses.

But I would like also to stress that my government and all the Argentinian Republic is not going to stop claiming its rights over those islands.

It is a state policy written with the blood of our people.

[Ken Scott]

At current oil prices there are, possibly, up to $4 trillion in oil reserves under the water about the Falkland Islands. That has to be tempting for anybody, not least a country that continues to trumpet its claim to sovereignty despite getting a bloody nose last time they tried. But they tried because they perceived (rightly) that the UK Government wasn't interested and with planned cutbacks wouldn't be able to do anything about it. With the upcoming SDR and our boots on the ground/ COIN emphasis who knows.....?

Perhaps Gordon B/ Dave might like to consider their 'share' of that $4 trillion (in taxation) & keep just a bit of the deep water Navy & a few fixed wing aircraft, just in case.

As we have built a nice long runway at MPA, the one thing the Argies lacked in '82, it's not an option to recapture the islands, we have to deter them from attempting anything (a couple of C130s & some SF troops would be enough to capture the airfield Entebbe style).

[dakkg651]

cosmiccomet.

Sorry but your pilots got this one wrong.

The Germans awarded themselves a lot of medals in WW11 for sinking the Ark Royal five times in total!

Take heart though. la Muerta Negra suffered an early death at the hands of la Numpty Brown.

[barnstormer1968]

cosmiccomet.
No need to correct anything at all thanks:)
I know the circumstances about the Atlantic Conveyor (even having family members working on her to get her ready for the voyage). Your account is correct, but the ship was still a civilian ship.
As for:
You cannot blame the Argentine Navy Pilots for attacking her. They couldn’t distinguished between
war ships and supply ships in their screens.
I suppose its just as well they did not sink the hospital ship too then:E

I do not celebrate the death of either side, and know full well that many of your countries soldiers felt utterly forgotten by the public, and that many in Argentina were much more interested in the world cup, than the conflict.

[Jackonicko]

"my government and all the Argentinian Republic is not going to stop claiming its rights over those islands.

It is a state policy written with the blood of our people."

Nice rhetoric, but unjustifiable, offensive and empty posturing.

Argentina has NO legitimate claim over the Falklands, whose population are:

61.3% Falkland Islander
29.0% British
2.6% Spaniard
0.6% Japanese
6.5% Chilean & Other

Have you heard of self determination?

Or is it on some other basis?

Occupation/control
France 1764-66
Britain 1775-1770, 1771-1776, 1833-date
Spain 1766-1811
Argentina 1828-1833

Sovereignty
Spain 1811-1820
Argentina 1820-1833
Britain 1833-date

Proximity
The Falklands are 300 miles from mainland Argentina – almost the whole of Uruguay lies closer to Buenos Aires than the Falklands are to Argentina. Do you claim Uruguay on the same basis? And Chile perhaps?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Chaps, it’s rather pointless having a personal go at cosmiccomet. Perhaps commendably on a predominantly British forum, he is simply expressing the views of an Argentinean. His Government, whether he supports it or not has stated its belief on every occasion that the Islands are theirs. That is something we will have to agree to disagree on, like gentlemen.

There is also no point in quibbling about what were civilian ships and what weren’t. Our merchant ships taken from trade were “militarised”, albeit unarmed. I had a busy Summer destoring and materially demilitarising the Portsmouth/Southampton ones. I had a busy Spring doing the opposite for some of them.

[Whenurhappy]

Perhaps there might be someone with a bit of International Constitutional Law background lurking on this thread who could give an opinion, but I have a feeling that the Argentine Government may be breaching the intent of the 'right of innocent passage' (Art 16(4) Convention on the Territorial Sea 1958, et seq); and Art 27(1) of UNCLOS III 1982 which circumscribes the criminal jursidiction of the coastal state in respect of foreign vessels passing through their waters.

There are several famous IL cases which have almost led to fisticuffs over the right of innocent passage - Argentina should be extremely careful in placing arbitrary restrictions on vessels transiting through their waters; if the matter were to go to arbitration at the ICJ (The Hague) it could prove to be very, very expensive for the defending State.

WP

[D O Guerrero]

I've met and worked with many Argentineans and the fact is that they have never got over getting a smacked arse in '82. Best not to feed them on here... they have an answer (usually shouted or typed in caps) to everything.

[Tankertrashnav]

How bare (or otherwise) is the Argentine cupboard,


Metman , my niece, who lives in Buenos Aires is home in the UK at the moment. She tells me there are food shortages, including, horror of horror, a beef shortage, which is not going down well among the enthusiastically carnivorous population. One of the reasons for the invasion last time was to distract attention from a worsening domestic situation under the Galtieri regime. If things really are getting bad, maybe the present authorities may think its worth trying again.

[Metman]

I guess the difference in 1982 was a large conscripted and funded military, with a military junta in charge. Now they have a democratic government, but I'm not sure whether they still have a conscripted military (I thought it was professional now?), and I'm guessing its nowhere near as well funded as it was in the early 80s, and not a lot of money to play with either? There might be a will, but not a way for them.

Whereas with the UK government, you wonder whether there is a will OR a way to do anything about it!

[barnstormer1968]

D O Geurrero
(and sorry for thread drift again)
IMHO the memory of the war splits the nation for two different reasons.
There is the political ambition over the islands, which can be laid in the lap of the politicos, rather than the general public. Then there is the very deep sore of the way officers/NCO's treated some of their men during the war. This cuts deep all these years after, with two opposing camps: Those who wish to forget and move on; and those pushing for justice for their family members (or former members).
The latter group seem to crop up on radio 4 occasionally, and I must admit it is a rare thing for modern countries to be pushing for a witch hunt against their own military.

[MarkD]

Does anyone think there is anything to stop the RN testing a TLAM (on telly, obviously) any time soon?

Also, there was a T42 retired recently - another opportunity for a televised bang?

After all, Iran and NK do it all the time...

[Widger]

This is of course a very good prelude to the SDR, which will need to consider where the UK goes over the next 10-20 years. This is a clear example of what future conflicts will be about...resources! It is not only the Falklands but South Georgia, South Sandwich, Ascension, Diego Garcia, Tristan da Cunha and most importantly, British Antarctic Territory. Whislt the former are all recognised in international law as British Dependencies, Antarctica is not and BAT is also claimed by at least 3 other nations. The country with a closely located deep water port, airfield, maritime and air capability will control these areas. We have seen already the posturing of Russia in the Arctic and it will be even worse dahn sarf! If we are to retain the rights to the fish, minerals and oil of all these little bits of the world, fought so hard for, over the last few centuries, then we must have a strong, global military or someone else will take them. We must not sell off the crown jewels. To cut now would be the very worst thing to do, because the economy of this country (UK) will very much depend on these outposts in decades to come.

We must have carriers with the aircraft to operate off them, we must have strategic transport including heavy lift, we must have world class aircraft able to exercise air supremacy and the ability to put boots on the ground with the capability to hold that territory.

[Saintsman]

To cut now would be the very worst thing to do, because the economy of this country (UK) will very much depend on these outposts in decades to come.


True, but unfortunately our politicians are only interested in the now.

[Squirrel 41]

Hmm, looks like an RN CVF mafia wind-up.... :E

Widger - yes, it is important for SDR to deal with these things; but given the scale of the likely budget squeeze and the cost of the RN's latest warships - T45 may be able to intercept cricket balls at M3.0, which, whilst useful against the Aussie pace attack next winter, is too expensive at £1bn / pop to be bought in sufficient numbers to actually do the job.

The real issues for the SDR is national ambition and actual capability requirements (as opposed to capability aspirations). I can't think of many line RN N3 types who'd prefer 6 x T45 vs 9 x Horizon for the same cash. Less capable, but quantity does have a quality all it's own.

S41

PS. So bets on how much BAES / NAMA / Eurofighter will charge for a quick and dirty integration of surplus Harpoon onto 1435 Flt's jets then? :cool:

[cosmiccomet]

My dear British friends,

It is not fair to blame my people of being interested in the Football world cup in 82.
The british people was also very interested and I don't thing that if your IRON Lady didn't take the decision of retaken the island nobody was gonna go to the street to bother about it.

Talking about the self determination. Your government also didn't take the self determination of the Argentine governor and its people who were living in the islands up to 1833. They were ship back to the Argentine continent...

My government has always respected the self determination of any inmigrant whichever country came from.
You can not find any complain about british citizens living in Argentina.
Moreover, during the 2WW many of the british sons who were born in my country went to Europe to fight for the Allies.
And the ones who survived returned to Argentina to continue their lifes.

So guys, don't look so badly to my country, we are not the best but neither you.

[Roadster280]

Well, if it did all kick off again, at least we haven't let the capability go.

The carriers are still about:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/Hermes.jpg

Hmm, OK, so it's in India.

Well, there's always Vince:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/Vince.jpg

Although she looks a lot like a museum ship these days.

I suppose the troops could use Canberra again:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/canberra-imo-5059953-gbvc.jpg

And the equipment could go on Fearless:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/Fearless.jpg

Or Intrepid:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/2HMSintrepidarrival.jpg

Still, the Navy have kept up with their fixed wing aircraft:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/Sea-Harrier_Charlwood.jpg

Helicopters not looking so great though:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/Wasp.jpg

It's not like they needed quite so many RNAS's:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/Portland.jpg

Even so, the Navy used some nuclear subs last time, they still have those!

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/Subs.jpg

Vulcans are a bit thin on the ground these days:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/IMG_1702.jpg

That's OK though, no tankers to support them:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/xh673-marham-060405.jpg

All of which is a good thing, because if there were any casualties, they've done this to the Military Hospitals:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/CMH.jpg

It wasn't even 30 years ago.

[minigundiplomat]

Roadster,

a long time since I have seen such a thought provoking thread on here.

MGD

[Fat Chris]

A wicked case of history repeating. We don't learn very much from previous mistakes and experiences.

Very thought provoking indeed, Roadster, I have to agree with MGD. Fingers crossed the corned-beef monkeys will not do anything daft.

[Lima Juliet]

Thought provoking, yes, but capability lost?

Nope, we've got a lot of better kit these days:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/no1group/rafcms/mediafiles/6EDB2AEC_5056_A318_A8A1CEDFF71FA0F5.jpg
Typhoon at MPA

A decent amphib warfare ship:

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/189/medium/HMS_Ocean_L12_02.jpg
HMS Ocean

A small amount of Naval Air GR9s

http://www.warshipsifr.com/media/ark.jpg

A few Type 45s

http://www.frimleycc.co.uk/HMS%20Daring%20-%20Type%2045_medium.jpg
HMS Daring

Sub launched TLAM - better than 21 dumb bombs from medium level and a gazillion tankers!

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img/Tomahawk2.jpg

The Queen Elizabeth and load of other gin palaces (it's big business for Cunard et al at present!):

http://news.holidayhypermarket.co.uk/Images/18312286/Cunard_Will_Build_Queen_Elizabeth_Vessel_large.jpg

All right - you got me on the Hospitals! :(

Don't forget that the Argies have a lot less now than they had then.

Of course, there would need to be a pause in the sand-pit for a bit though!

LJ

[minigundiplomat]

What was the Typhoon doing in Ascension? Transit South?

[Lima Juliet]

Yes mate, I found the picture on here:

Royal Air Force No 1 Group - News (http://www.raf.mod.uk/no1group/news/index.cfm?storyid=6ECC2A45-5056-A318-A89447B37F78758A)

[Squirrel 41]

Cosmic Comet

Welcome, and good for you for putting your point of view on here - you'll not get much agreement (except perhaps on the point that both of our countries could do with improvement).

On the serious strategic point, the reality is that the UK wants to retain the Falklands / Malvinas, then we need to defend them with something credible. This means air defence and anti-shipping strike, as far as I can see.

S41

[Donkey497]

Can't really see much chance of the cruise boats being used as auxiliary transport should the need arise, seeing as how Cunard is now US owned. I don't think that there's a UK based cruise fleet with the fashion for flags of convenience in the late '80s and '90s to cut costs & allow for cheap crews.

Can't honestly see the need for all this posturing and sabre rattling in any case, but then again, that would need politicians to stop squabbling, act like adults and admit that there might be some problems that their particular policies either can't fix or are the root cause.:(:(:(

[cosmiccomet]

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1234/mor1.jpghttp://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6623/suebace1.jpg


http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/4350/mike001j.jpg

[Misformonkey]

BZ Roadster, anybody else think a pre-emptive Naval task force would fit the bill. If they don't land you won't be needing to drag the kitchen sink all the way down there, we're not after the cure, just not the cold in the first place!

[Lima Juliet]

Anti-ship? Take your pick...

http://www.blacksuntechnology.co.uk/images/Aircraft/eurofighter-typhoon-2%5B1%5D.jpg

A bit of UOR paperwork needed for some of them, though!!!

[DADDY-OH!]

Cosmic Comet

Nice photos! Are they drones?

There's a lot of 'Cold War Warriors' & vets' of Operation Corporate on here.

As a schoolboy during the 1982 ruck & avid follower of the history of the Islands plus fortunate enough to have operated on the AirBridge until recently, I'd like to know what the 'Old School' & 'Newbies' think there should be guarding the Islands, realistically what the Argies could do & I just thought I'd toss an unpinned grenade into the room- Is it likely Hugo Chavez could 'fan the flames'?

Discuss.
:ok:

[Squirrel 41]

Leon,

Exactly my point - don't see too much there that I'd fancy shooting at ships that can shoot back....

S41

[Hoots]

Seems to me that we have a perfect platform for patrolling the area to keep an eye on shipping in the area. Could there be a reprieve for the MR2, just like the Vulcan? Or is it a case the Nimrod is a bad word for the politicians and they wont use common sense to keep an eye on UK interests down south.

[knowitall]

cosmiccomet

Nice photo's

both 1950's vintage designs with limited upgrades, and no BVR capability wouldn't fancy my chances vs typhoon

if your government coughed up for a few dozen flankers an the other hand......

and what would you land the troops from, the nearest thing you have to an LPH is a T42 with a widened hanger so it can take a 2nd sea king



like i said tub-thumping if for no other reason than the kircheners are even less willing to give their countries armed forces the kit they need to do the job than gordon brown!

[Lima Juliet]

Anti-ship capability - get the gun out :ok: (only kidding)

http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/ae230/yesboss/highres_eft-hmsdaring.jpg

I miss-ID'd the ALARM for a HARPOON/EXOCET - so you are quite right. However, there is a plan to integrate the PENGUIN ASM onto Eurofighter.

http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/typhoon-maritime.gif

[maddog37]

Hi guys!
I was born in Argentina, so I am closer to cosmiccomet than to you...:} but I want to point you some "special" things. First of all, we grew up with the idea that Malvinas(Falklands) belongs to Argentina but are eventually occupated by UK, and that´s very difficult for being change. I know that, these islands(and others near them) were forgotten by the UK for many many years, and the 82 war give a place on the map to the people who live there(said by them). On the other hand we have that Argentina hasn´t got an excellent economic situation, and that means that if a selfdetermination proccess takes place the Falkland population will always vote UK! but what about if the situation were the opposite? Do you think that people who were named as "kelpers" will have any problem for changing their goverment?
Talking about the attacking forces, please realized that Argentina will never be at the same level as UK. We will never have Typhoon´s, we buy second-hand airplanes! But one thing must be said, with that oldfashioned technology our pilots did their job. Obviusly noone here cheers blood bleeding, but a war is about that, and our two countries did what they have to.
And for those guys that are talking about if the Atlantic Conveyor were a civilian ship or not, if it was legal or not it´s strike, just remember where an UK submarine(sorry, I don´t remember the name) sunk the Belgrano. A war zone was dicted by UK(200Nm from Port Standley I think) and this ship was out from there...
And, as somebody wrote, let´s talk like gentlemen!
P.S.: Sorry about my english, I did as good as I could.
P.S.2: I wrote everything without shouting or using CAPS!!!! Cheers for me!!! Jaja:}

[Lima Juliet]

In fact, I take it all back...

http://www.blacksuntechnology.co.uk/images/Aircraft/eurofighter-typhoon-2%5B1%5D.jpg

The black missile 5th from the right hand side is a Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM). Read all about it here:

Kongsberg test fires Naval Strike Missiles - Jane's Defence News (http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jni/jni060808_1_n.shtml)

[Lima Juliet]

P.S.: Sorry about my english, I did as good as I could

Sir, your English is very good and far better than my Spanish!

By the way, having flown "A4 Alley" at 500kts+ towards Falklands Sound, I for one do not doubt the bravery of your fast jet pilots of 1982. In fact I had the pleasure of drinking with one of your Commodores, who used to fly A4s, last year. Just like most aviators, we had much in common.

By the way, it was HMS CONQUERER in May 1982 against the Belgrano. You are quite right, my friend, that "blood bleeding" wars are a bad thing and we would not have spilt a drop of Argentinian blood had it not been for General Galtieri's earlier invasion.

Let's hope that madness does not prevail again in the South Atlantic.

LJ

[Squirrel 41]

:\ Shameful mis-Id by me...

But

<<Banter Mode: ON>>

Which Typhoons carry them at the moment??

<<Banter Mode: OFF>>

S41

[DADDY-OH!]

Squirrel41!!

STAND TO ATTENTION & GIVE YOURSELF A BOLLOCKING!!!!!

7 DAYS JANKERS DETAIL FOR YOU, LADDIE!!
:ok:

[Fubaar]

I'm more than a little bemused to see so many here from what I'll call "our" side indulging in what amounts to a dick measuring contest, comparing the state of the art kit possessed by Britain versus the aged kit in the Argentinean inventory.

There might be one other nation apart from the UK which should have a better appreciation of being on the receiving end of a successfully waged asymmetric war. That nation, the US, lost a war 40 years ago to a third world nation, not because it didn't have the ability to win, but because it didn't have the national will to win.

Today, history may well repeat itself if a bunch of mostly illiterate irregulars who don't even represent a nation state are as willing to hang in for the long term as the North Vietnamese were. (Despite the recent optimistic comments by General McCrystal.)

Another set-to in the South Atlantic will be yet another example of asymmetric warfare, and its outcome will have far more to do with the national will of the leaders of both sides than who's got the shiniest jet or ship.

Someone's said it already. If the Argentinean leadership was willing to commit a small SF force to take the airfield by stealth, the really big question will be whether a British PM of either political persuasion will have the political balls to commit his near(?) bankrupt country to the considerable expense - to say nothing of the considerable expenditure of 'blood, sweat and tears' - to take the islands back. Just as importantly, would the voting (and non-voting) population of the UK be prepared to suffer that economic and personal pain? (Any such move might have the back hand benefit getting quite a few "British passport holders" to leave the country.)

I for one don't think either man likely to be occupying No 10 Downing Street in the next few years has those (forgive the perhaps unfortunate use of Spanish) political cojones to do so.

[Jabba_TG12]

Yep, I'm with Fubaar on this.

Whilst not indulging in wilywaving or anything like that or getting into disputes with any of the argentine contributors, who obviously are not their politicians or have the same mind set.

Another contributor mentioned it earlier on as well.

All they've got to do is take MPA.

Once theyve taken the airfield, you're royally fecked. Possession being 9/10's and all that.

What it all boils down to on both sides is political will. Does Argentina think it is worth it to plan and mount a viable assault that may have a good chance of success...

Does the UK Government figure that it is worth it trying to defend the islands or if it came to it, attempt to retake them, as per CORPORATE...

FWIW, I think in the next 5 years or so, I wouldnt be surprised to see something happen. Or come to the brink of it. :uhoh:

Suffice it to say, the UK defence policy at the moment appears to be akin to leaving a sweet shop (tantamount to) unlocked and unguarded next to a school on a sink estate... you just know, deep down, the longer you leave it, the chances are of it being raided go up exponentially... but how long can you leave it? :confused:

Brown, for certain would see his worst particular chickens coming home to roost, (as if they havent already). But, considering he's odds on for the boot regardless of who gets in in May/June, thats of not much consequence. Cameron or others on the other hand (or if theres a hung parliament...)... :confused: Nah, not sure I can see it. He might talk the talk, but... Cant exactly emulate Thatch if the cupboard is bare, can he?

No. The Brits have neither the capability, the manpower, the resources, nor the political will to attempt another Corporate. Not now. We cant even prevent a middle aged couple on a yacht from being ambushed by a bunch of gung-ho bloody pirates for gods sake, let alone defend/retake a group of islands. :ugh:

Hopefully, Chavez is just beating his gums because he likes the sound of his own voice. :suspect: Should we start seeing Flankers turning up in Argentina, then I'd be seriously worried. Theres only so much a limited number of Typhoons can do. :(

The next five years are going to be interesting.. :sad:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

1. It’s interesting and worrying that we are expending so much bandwidth on the likelihood/means/intent of Argentina attempting to take the Islands again. The Argentinean Government may be fanatical but it’s not stupid (that’s a compliment amigos). They don’t need to take the Islands. They just need to harass the oil exploration and oil production shipping and other assets. That is very probably within their current Naval capabilities.

2. Harassment and general embuggerance will result in one of two things;

a. we will send Maritime assets (I include Nimrods in that) that either aren’t currently free or no longer available to prevent/deter the harassment.

b. we will negotiate some backdoor deal with Argentina to “share” the wealth.

c. a combination of both (OK, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition)

3. Option “a” will require political will and backbone. It will also require money to regenerate and multiply Maritime (see, I’m being very Purple here) forces and that would be a fraction of the wealth to be “harvested”.

4. Option “b” will require no political will nor backbone. It’s totally affordable; in the short term. Who really cares what the Bennies think (well, actually, I do) and can’t we buy them off quite cheaply anyway (not necessarily)?

5. It’s all good fun playing Trump Cards and thinking like CGS (past and present) but it’s not really addressing the likely threat and the probable true loss of National wealth. Also, we can almost guarantee public apathy because it doesn’t involve singing, dancing, celebrities or sex. It also might need a waste reduction exercise in Health, Education, Benefits and anything else a Mail/Sun reader believes it’s entitled to.

[taxydual]

A simple solution, perhaps?

a. The Falklands are supposedly oil rich

b. Everyone wants to be 'mates' with the oil rich.

So, therefore, the FI become a sovereign, independent state in their own right (perhaps join the Commonwealth). They then join the UN and sign treaty's with all and sundry to come to their aid (really the oil's aid) if they are attacked/invaded.

After all, look what happened when a small, independent, oil rich country (Kuwait) was invaded by it's neighbour.

[Widger]

The regular answer that most people on here seem to provide, when the conversation gets around to funding the current and future MOD capability, is that there is no money. There is money, unfortunately, most of it goes into the pockets of the great unwashed, the single parents, the long term unemployed, legal aid, social security, incapacity benefits for the fat, new cars for the fat etc etc. The country needs to get itself away from rewarding those who do not want to contribute. No, I am not being unfair, most of the people I speak with all know someone who is taking the P!**.

These bits of rock around the world are the source of our future wealth along with the centuries of coal under our feet. We need to protect and defend our resources. We will be out of the Stan sooner rather than later and we then need to reset to deal with resource based conflicts. The previous post about the vulnerability of fixed airfields is well made although I think you under-estimate what it would take to be successful.

[Metman]

Maybe naively, I also think you underestimate the will of the British Public were there ever another attack / invasion. I don't think they'd let the politicians get away with doing nothing, and I doubt the press would either!

Looks like the Tories are being quite clear about their beliefs - heres hoping the government do the same!

[Fat Chris]

Times Online - Argentina will ‘take measures’ to stop British oil drilling off Falklands (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7031163.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1)

As the article points out, military action won't be needed on the part of the Argentines as.......

controls that block shipping from using Argentine ports could render oil exploration uneconomic.

We really don't have the time or resources to be fighting this one out, so it'll be up to the diplomats to square this one on their own, I think. Of course, the US Government could show how much they value our 'special relationship' and add their weight to persuading Argentina to go and bother someone else for a bit.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

OK, it’s the Mail;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251901/British-warship-sent-Argentina-oil-drilling-row-deepens.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251901/British-warship-sent-Argentina-oil-drilling-row-deepens.html)


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.
Argentine Foreign Minister My blue.

It’s clearly written by one of their top reporters because it has a picture of;

Type 2 destroyer the HMS York is patrolling waters off Port Stanley
Argentina stopping merchant ships that it believes to be running “contraband”, to examine papers etc, would be an embuggerance and probably legal if the UN is wound up in the right way. They don't need to invade and, as I said, they aren't stupid.

[NutLoose]

All the posturing and brow beating in the world will not hide the one truth, even Argentina realises the UK armed forces are a spent force capabilty wise to redo a re run of the Faklands war, and the reason for that is simple.......

Politician's and their endless budget cuts to feed and educate the third world and pay those that choose to sit at home all day or chose to travel to the UK to sit at home and be paid for it.....

What I would do....
Unemployment benefit should be increased to help those who suddenly find themselves in the predicament with mortgage payments etc, after all paying £800 a week to put a family in a B & B is stupid if their mortgage payments are less than that.... Payments will decrease to a basic benefit until at the 2 year point when they will cease, period, these folks that sit at home and refuse jobs because they are better off will simply find them selves without anything!

Sorry off topic rant.

[DADDY-OH!]

Surely if a ship leaves an Argentinian port for the Falklands', then it is fair game for the Argies to scream & shout about, but the chances are an Argentinian company was standing to make money from any shipment & shipping business?

However if a ship bound for the Falklands' from ANY OTHER port, South American or not, is sailing in international waters & is stopped, boarded, searched & confiscated by the Argentine Armada, isn't that tantermount to piracy?

4 more Tyffies, 8 GR4's with Sea Eagles, 4 Nimrods, an extra tanker & a pair of AWACS, another Sub, a Frigate, a Destroyer & an RFA tender should be sent to MPA on an 'Exercise'. I'm sure the Americans can cover our NATO obligations in exchange for an oil deal or 2 & HMG should get it's finger out & build the airfield on TdC that the islanders want... just in case...
:ok:

[maddog37]

After reading carefully all your posts, I wonder, What is the problem???!!! If Argentina do not allow ships entry their docks, just knock on Chile´s door!
This is only a "presure problem", very far from becoming a war. You must remember what happen to Brazil when the oil costs raised one year ago, they started to explore their waters in order to find a place for drilling and save money. UK, and it´s my opinion, is trying to get some reserves for the future. There is no benefit getting out oil nowadays with the price of a barrel.
And for everyone, if you have the opportunity go to Falklands, there is nothing at all for visiting! When I was there, they only had 2 hotels and the biggest part of the islands are empty(if you do not take note of sheeps and mines of the war). But if you finally decide to go do not miss the opprtunity to visite Argentina!:)

[knowitall]

Fubarr

i assume your comment was directed at me

the point i was making to people like jabba-tg12 who said

"All they've got to do is take MPA."

With what?

there's no realistic propect of an inavsion, special forces or conventional they don't have the kit!

their politicains dislike and underfund their armed forces to an even greater extent then brown does in the UK, though in their case given their history its understandable

[4321]

So all this talk from Argentina and assurances from Brown that we are prepared. So what happens when we reconfigure to a COIN only military? Chinooks are awesome in the Stan but its short sighted to be cutting the RAF and Navy in just about every other way. How long will it be before we are incapable of undertaking such an operation down south I wonder? Do we never learn the lessons of history!

[DADDY-OH!]

I'm pretty sure Officers & Men (and others) of HQBFSA are well briefed & familiar with scenario's such as the Argie SF crash landing, say for example, a Punta Arenas departed/ Antarctica bound 'GreenPeace' Chartered, Angolan registered Herc', declaring 'Electrical problems' & 'Mayday'ing in to an unsuspecting MPA leaping out & saying "Buenos Dias, Gringo y Amigas"!....

...by the way, how did the last exercise go?

...INCOMING!!!!!
:ok:

[hulahoop7]

I am a little shocked by what a huge huge effort it was to get those 4 Phoons down to MPA - and how long it took. It's clear to me that against an organised Argie attack we would have no chance of increasing that number in a timely manner.

[Roadster280]

Well with 232 on order, why not just put a half dozen from each delivery tranche there permanently, and do this while we can, even if not crewed.

The classic "TTW" phase might not exist in this scenario. It didn't last time.

Edited to add "It didn't last time, or at least the Int wasn't believed".

[Wrathmonk]

with 232 on order

Think you might be a good few months out of date there. Hasn't been 232 "on order" for quite some time.

Otherwise nice idea;)

[Roadster280]

Good point. Delete 232, insert 160.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

But you only need 4 for a flypast at an airshow; so we could put 156 on the Malvinas:O

Duncs:ok:

[Fortyodd2]

"Do we never learn the lessons of history!"

No, Never. :(:(:(:(

[Out Of Trim]

Perhaps the F3s should have been left down there as well. :confused:

[barnstormer1968]

Cosmiccomet.
Hi again. I think we may be having a problem as English is not your first language (and Spanish isn't one of mine at all:}).

I am not blaming the Argentine people for being interested in the world cup (and yes we were here too). I just feel that British troops felt more supported by the British public than the Argentine troops were by the Argentine public. This is not a complaint against your people, but IMHO did make your troops wonder why they were going through such tough times if no one cared about them.

I am also not saying Britain is a great place to live, or Argentina is a bad place.
It is good you are sticking up for your country. You may also know that no matter how much politicians cause trouble, and start wars, that the troops of both sides usually can get on well together, and have things in common.

You mention your air force pilots. I think most folks on this site will agree that your air force and navy pilots were very brave in their missions, and were well trained. But of course, it was a war, and so we did our best to win, just as your side did.

So, please don't confuse any digs at your countries leader of the time, with a dig at the general population.

[glad rag]

http://www.blacksuntechnology.co.uk/images/Aircraft/eurofighter-typhoon-2%5B1%5D.jpg

don't forget the ARM's too.....

[Vizsla]

Perhaps the Afghan Army can lend a battalion or two to help us out

[cornish-stormrider]

we've got all these old grey ships sitting in docks. fill em with fuel. add troops and guns put some harriers in the helo hangers and sail em down south. Do I have to all of the thinking here.

How many sqauddies would tun their nose up at a three month fishing trip down FI way?

[Fafner shim]

Haven't the RAF got a brand new MPA rolling of the production line as we speak?
From open sources, does it not have a capability and potential that would have made Bomber Harris weep with joy ?
Isn't it going straight into a hanger for a couple of years while 40 years of MPA experience and excellence shrivels faster than a hard on in the snow.

Agile Adaptable Capable ?

:ugh:

[TEEEJ]

DADDY-OH wrote

8 GR4's with Sea Eagles

Sea Eagle was retired in April 1999 without a replacement.

Source

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 19 Dec 2001 (pt 9) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo011219/text/11219w09.htm)

TJ

[elderlypart-timer]

Does anyone remember this particular quote? I especially admire the way in which Maggie implies that she had nothing to do with the Endurance decision.




Mr. James Callaghan
On a related question, is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's decisions to withdraw and pay off HMS "Endurance" when she returns from the South Atlantic is an error that could have serious consequences? Is she further aware that this stale old proposition was put to me on more than one occasion when I was Prime Minister and after considering it I turned it down flat? Will she please do the same?
§ (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/feb/09/engagements-1#S6CV0017P0_19820209_HOC_155#S6CV0017P0_19820209_HOC_155) The Prime Minister (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/mrs-margaret-thatcher)
I recognise that this was a very difficult decision for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are many competing claims on the defence budget, even though we are increasing it substantially. He will also know that the defence capability of that ship is extremely limited. My right hon. Friend therefore felt that other claims on the defence budget should have greater priority. (Hansard, 9th Feb, 1982)

[Alpha Whiskey]

Aside from all the arguments about relative capabilities, the key issue is one of political will. There probably isn't the same will in Argentina to repeat the decisions of 1982 but the worrying fact is in the UK we are seeing that period played out all over again.

Put simply, with forces over-commited in a war Brown inherited and frankly wishes he didn't have, a govt who really wishes the military were something they didn't have to consider and an economic crisis of huge magnitude, there is no chance of us doing anything sensible as pre-emptive action. Unless we take the national eye off the economic ball by invading somehwere............

And as for the Jeremy Kyle Show fodder us tax payers fund at the expense of a genuine contribution to national well being, perhaps if we rehoused them in the FI the Argies would think twice anyway!! Better yet, they could have them. :ok:

[The B Word]

All this talk of Argie SF taking the airfield - twaddle! Do you not think the Roulement Infantry Company and the rest of the forces on the FIs will have something to say about that? The Buzos Tácticos (equivalent to SBS) are not sufficient in number to mount a big enough raid to secure and hold against the combined UK and FI Defence Forces that are ever present. They could blow something up and be a right pain the ass, but that's about it.

I would hope that we would not be stupid enough not to increase our security patrols and start arming the military if the tensions start to spiral - if they haven't already?

The B Word

[vecvechookattack]

However, in retrospect it was the right decision to pay off HMS Encumbrance.... The ship was old, lacked any credible sensors and was in desperate need of updating. Thankfully, the Argentinian invasion saved the name HMS Endurance if not the ship.

[Widger]

Its a shame we don't have a simple Like or Dislike button on here. You could then get instant feedback on what the general Pprune populous thinks of each post.

[DADDY-OH!]

Thanks TEEEJ, I wasn't aware of that. Can the old & new versions of 'The Mighty Hunter' still carry Harpoons?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Perhaps appropriate to the current discussion; (Gun) busting makes York feel good (http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/718-gun-busting-makes-york-feel-good.aspx)

West Falkland is also home to two RAF radar sites – Mounts Alice and Byron. With both down temporarily for routine maintenance, York filled the gap, providing an ‘air picture’ for the islands’ military command before the radar sites were powered back up.

We do appreciate that it is, perhaps, presented more dramatically than it would have been.

[Ivan Rogov]

Didn't they learn with the Vulcan OSD? Why not wait until April and the Rods will be gone, one less thing to hinder their long standing ambition. In fact why not bid for them, make sure they are turned into coke cans and then carry out plan B.

Sorry Daddy Oh, you shouldn't get an answer here, even if it's only a rumour site. :ugh:

[Whenurhappy]

Hate to be the Fun Police, but by reading through these posts, I have identified a lot of accumulated information about force dispositions, capabilities and availabilities, whilst not necessarily protectively marked, it is not generally in the open domain. I hesitate to call BEADWINDOW but I suggest that contributors -especially those who may be/or were recently serving - moderate what they post. This is a particularly sensitive time in the South Atlantic and we don't need to 'up the Anti' any further.

Remember that 'quantity has a quality of its own', before I am screamed down by ill-informed posters claiming that they read it in Janes, or wherever...

I got back to an earlier post - is GoAg actions on merchant shipping contrary to UNCLOS III (ie Law of the Sea)?

WP

[TEEEJ]

No problem, DADDY-OH.

See

RAF - Harpoon (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/harpoon.cfm)

TJ

[Green Flash]

Two SSN's, one with a ton of Spearfish for the troop transports, the other with Tomahawks for the airbases. Does the Argentinian navy still have a carrier? Bet the Andrew would like to put that on the bottom in short order. Any air assault that leaks past the Typhoons would be mopped up by the RIC and the FI Def Force. No, probably a bad career move for Argentina. Think again, lads.

[TEEEJ]

Green Flash,
The Argentine carrier went years ago. The Super Etendard and Turbo Trackers still train on Brazilian and US carriers now and again.

TJ

[November4]

and the official line is....

Defence of the Falklands

There is widespread media coverage of tensions over British companies' intended oil explorations in the Falkland Islands which the Argentinean Government is protesting against. The coverage focuses on perceived actions by the MOD to bolster up its defence of the islands.

In a particular comment piece in The Daily Telegraph, Damien McElroy argues that Britain could not once again assemble a task force of the kind sent to the Falklands following the Argentine invasion in 1982.

The UK has transformed its military presence in the Falklands compared with the small force in place before the 1982 invasion.

The question of whether or not a task force identical in nature to that sent in 1982 could be dispatched once again is therefore totally academic. The South Atlantic Overseas Territories are now defended to such an extent that such an emergency course of action should never again need to be taken. In 1982, the situation was very different.

The UK Government is fully committed to the South Atlantic Overseas Territories. A deterrence force is maintained on the islands and in the South Atlantic, which comprises a range of land, air and maritime capabilities.
We have stationed on the Falkland Islands a sizeable garrison of Service personnel, four of the most up-to-date air defence aircraft in the Royal Air Force's fleet, and other air assets.

In the South Atlantic we have an enduring Royal Navy presence currently provided by HMS York (Type 42 destroyer), HMS Clyde (Falkland Islands Patrol Vessel), RFA Wave Ruler (Fleet Oiler) and HMS Scott (Survey Vessel). None of this was the case in 1982, prior to the Argentine invasion, when the Falkland Islands were far less well defended.

Defence News (http://www.industrymailout.com/Industry/Redirect.aspx?u=143817&q=186488614&lm=22463567&r=190666&qz=f4b702a285b3686d8bc35f05424f21c2)

So that's OK then 1 x Type 42, an RFA and a patrol boat armed with a 30 mm gun, 2 × Mk44 Miniguns, 2 × GPMGs. Yes that is a major deterent!

The RFA certainly scared the pirates when they took a yatch the other month. In 1982, wasn't there another survey ship in the area...that didn't stop the invasion either.

The report reads like including the BBMF in the current strength of the RAF.

[vecvechookattack]

Don't forget the Typhoons that are down there........ armed with....err.... Armed with.... hang on a mo....

Armed with something really fast and noisy...

[Metman]

and if you think we're in a bad state, I'd suggest looking up the Argentine forces capability....

Why let the truth get in the way of the press talking up a good old war? Sorry, conflict...

[Tourist]

Bit of a silly discussion really.
What matters is the relative strengths of our military capabilities, rather than just how much less we have than last time we went at it.
They have nothing new since last time, minus a carrier, a cruiser:ooh: a sub and lots of aircraft etc.
We actually have, in many ways, a vastly superior fleet from the one that went down last time. We could do with SHAR certainly, but in terms of air defence, strike and amphibious capability we are far stronger.
Phalanx, Goalkeeper, Seawolf, Ocean, Bulwark, Albion, Type 45 (ish:\) sub-launched Tomahawk (no need for Vulcan, and it might actually do real rather than political damage) Lynx Mk8, Merlin, GR9, Defensive aids on A/C, Vikings, hugely enhanced and enlarged SF, Smart bombs, Seaking 7, troops with decent kit, GMLRS, ships with modern damage survivability, the list goes on.
I have to say that given the chance to go back in history and choose which fleet to send, if I had the choice, I would send our much smaller but more capable one.

[airborne_artist]

And not forgetting that the RN now has AWD/No.8 shirts that don't melt onto skin during a fire :sad:

[JimNich]

The Ocean Gaurdian is quite old and has serious limitations operating in the waters around the Falklands. It should, however, be able to update the information aquired by the Dolphin some ten or so years ago. There is still no guarantee, at this time, that serious exploration is yet viable in the area.

Last year the Argentinians walked away from an exploration sharing deal, with the UK, around the Falklands.

If Argentina comes they will not make the mistake of last time. They'll bring friends.

This story will not be a one movie hit but a long running Bond franchise if ever I saw it. We're going to be hearing about this for lots of years to come.

Your SDR better get it right 'cos at the moment you've got a bucketload of really expensive chiefs and no feckin' indians (but you'll probably just get rid of more engineers again).

Hanging on to a couple of MR2s for a few more months might not go amiss.

CosmicComet. Please talk to your government. No-one on the Falklands wants a Sullom Voe on their doorstep. The natural place for such an installation and the support for any exploration in the area would be on the Argentinian mainland. This would bring your country billions of pounds in revenue. Surely to goodness, whatever your view of who should rule in Stanley, the best way out of economical difficulties is to strike a deal! :ugh:

[TEEEJ]

The most recent (2008) Argentine arms holding declaration

http://disarmament.un.org/UN_REGISTER.NSF

TJ

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Hanging on to a couple of MR2s for a few more months might not go amiss.


I think you will find that certain contributors to,
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/242005-nimrod-crash-afghanistan-tech-info-discussion-not-condolences.html?highlight=nimrod have made that option near to impossible.

airborne_artist. Actually, we're on Improved AWD, No 4 rig now. :ok:
No 4 IAWD and No 5 Work Dress : Blue Uniforms of the Royal Navy : Uniforms and Badges of Rank : RN Life : Training and People : Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/training-and-people/rn-life/uniforms-and-badges-of-rank/blue-uniforms-of-the-royal-navy/no-4-iawd-and-no-5/)

[AR1]

Just been looking at the noseart on the Etendard, and it chilled me to the bone. It was like I've seen a ghost, because I was sailing through Portsmouth last week and Invincible was there. - I must have been mistaken.

[Mike7777777]

Does the opposition believe there is an RN sub in the vicinity? As long as the answer is yes, there isn't a problem (1977 ... again)

I'll now read the rest of the thread.

[West Coast]

Does the opposition know there's a bunch of P-3 and S-2T aircraft in the vicinity?

They knew it was there the first time around, and I doubt a single sub would stop any operation from going forward.

[Mike7777777]

1977. There's a clue there somewhere.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I think he means BBC NEWS | UK | Secret Falklands fleet revealed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597581.stm)

That would probably work for an invasion. For harassment of shipping, think tits on a fish.

[Mike7777777]

Harassment of shipping? Do you mean piracy? Or just a bit of name calling?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

As an accredited warship, demanding to see "papers" and taking in suspected "contraband runners"?

[Togue]

The clown has spoken.

http://http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE61I5GM20100219

[Mike7777777]

From the Times article Yesterday’s decree amounts to an Argentine move to control all traffic from South America towards the islands, All traffic? I can't see how the Argentinians can control anything outside their territorial waters without breaking the "Law of the Sea". The problem the RN might have is that destroyers and frigates are not designed for close contact of the "prepare to ram" variety, probably need to borrow some of those Icelandic "gunboats", are they available at a knock down price at the moment?

[ORAC]

AFN reporting Chavez:

"In Caracas Chavez, speaking on his radio and television show "Alo Presidente", called on Queen Elizabeth II to hand over the Falklands to Argentina.

"Look, England, how long are you going to be in Las Malvinas? Queen of England, I'm talking to you... The time for empires are over, haven't you noticed? Return the Malvinas to the Argentine people."

"The English are still threatening Argentina. Things have changed," Chavez continued, still addressing Queen Elizabeth II. "We are no longer in 1982. If conflict breaks out, be sure Argentina will not be alone like it was back then.".......

[jumbolloyd]

Ahhh...so...Argentina will not be alone like back then in 1982 says Hugo....this is great news...the U.K. should be able to kill two birds with the one stone....wonderfull....getting rid in the world of another pariah...:ok:

[Jabba_TG12]

Dunno about killing two birds with one stone old chap, IMVHO, the presence of Flankers may give 1435 something to think about.

More than likely though that this is just empty Chavez-self propagandising for domestic consumption.

Cant seriously see him going through with it.

[vernon99]

If he did join in, just what assets do they have. Would the USA get involved? as I am sure they would want rid of him too.

[Data-Lynx]

Chavez will not expend a bullet outside his border, but fuelled by political and media interests, this flurry is going to be awkward so it is worth a closer check on the detail. For shipping, Article 1 of Argentine Decree 256/2010 states: To every ship or vessel intending to transit between ports located on the Argentine mainland and ports located in the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich, or go through Argentine waters toward the latter, and / or loading goods to be transported directly or indirectly between these ports, you must request prior authorization by the competent national authority.

Whereas, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Part II, Article 24 on Duties of the Coastal State requires:
1. The Coastal State shall not hamper the innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea except in accordance with this Convention. In particular, in the application of this Convention or of any laws or regulations adopted in conformity with this Convention, the coastal State shall not:

(a) impose requirements on foreign ships which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage; or

(b) discriminate in form or in fact against the ships of any State or against ships carrying cargoes to, from or on behalf of any State.

However, The Danish-owned and Manx registered MV Thor Leader (http://www.isleofman.com/en-gb/News/article.aspx?article=24504&area=2)was banned from Argentine ports. Greek and Swedish shipping sources are quoting a vessel which was due to load in Argentina, following a call at Port Stanley, and was unable to go ahead with her intended operation as it was banned from taking bunkers in Argentine waters. It was also subjected to a thorough port state control inspection which delayed departure. They are advising their members intending to trade in this area to contact local agents or correspondents to ascertain the situation in advance.

Meanwhile, the tug Maersk Traveller and the aging Ocean Guardian semi-submersible drilling rig should be in the Northern Basin (http://www.desireplc.co.uk/images/strategy_map.jpg)and preparing to drill this week.

Oil rig security is a civil matter with the Royal Falkland Island Police (RFIP) at the the front. So if this is not to be military business, who does Cristina Kirchner task to monitor and enforce decree 256? The Prefectura Naval Argentina (PNA) (http://www.lamilitary.org/AR_PNA.html) is under the Ministerio de Justicia, Seguridad y Derechos Humanos, to conduct maritime policing, port security, shipping control, navigation security, border control, fishery protection, life-saving, navigational aids maintenance, coast guard and patrol of the sea frontiers in search of smugglers. While this force has useful capabilities in the event of a conflict and it has been attached directly to the Navy a number of times during its existence, it is a civil organisation. Its aircraft are here (http://www.lamilitary.org/AR_PNA_Aircraft.html) and the PNA can call on the Agrupación Albatros (http://www.lamilitary.org/AR_PNA_Albatros.html).

This is first and foremost a challenge for the Falkland Island Government (FIG) and particularly the FIG Legislative Assembly (http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assembly/Assembly_Members.html) who are committed islanders, many with long memories and some with active service behind them. In their latest statement (http://www.falklands.gov.fk/news/2010/02/oil-statement/), they recorded that any potential revenues from exploitation will not feature in the Islands’ economic planning unless and until commercially viable reserves are discovered. The Falklands are not an oil producer now and holds no proven reserves, so far; Stanley is not Sullom Voe. HM's representative is Alan Huckle as the Governor of the Falkland Islands and Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Huckle)(since 2006). He has been the Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory and Commissioner of the British Antarctic Territory.

There is plenty that is unhelpful, but none of it is military posturing. Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana said Argentina “seeks to have a diplomatic, peaceful dialogue” with Great Britain, and asked for London to join in discussions regarding the Falklands/Malvinas Islands sovereignty to “finally end this anachronistic colonial situation. (http://en.mercopress.com/2010/02/21/falklands-dispute-argentina-seeks-diplomatic-peaceful-dialogue-with-uk)”

Mercopress reported "The operation which includes giving the Argentines part of the sophisticated avionics of the Super Etendard Modernized (http://en.mercopress.com/2010/02/21/falklands-war-tested-modernized-super-etendard-in-argentine-navy-s-agenda)(SEM) model would take place in 2015 when the French Navy will de decommissioning their air fleet to be replaced by the new Rafale."

Labour's Quentin Davies is firmly on the fence about HMS ENDURANCE (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-11-02e.296736.h) with no final decisions on whether to repair or replace it.

You could also ask UK ally Uruguay about the Argentine handling in the International Court of Justice (http://www.investmenttreatynews.org/cms/news/archive/2009/09/28/oral-arguments-held-in-icj-dispute-over-pulp-mills-on-the-river-uruguay.aspx)(ICJ) concerning their Pulp Mill dispute.

This is complicated, messy, political, very public and involves lots of gestures. May I commend we sit tight and consider the saying "I couldn't give a fig" which is based on the Spanish 'fico' (fig). This gave its name to a traditional gesture of contempt made by placing the thumb between the first and second fingers. The gesture was common in Shakespeare's time and was known as The Fig of Spain. The modern-day UK equivalent used to be the "V" sign.

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Just an idea,

Beg, Borrow or unusally, 'Buy' a 'PATRIOT' system or two.

Place them in careful places in the 'Ilas Mavinas' and switch to 'AUTO-ON'

Step Back, and enjoy the 'nibbles'

(PS: Ensure FIGAS have working IFF.......)

Advo

[cokecan]

while obviously a good proportion of this is for a purely domestic audience, surely they are raising this as they also perceieve military weakness?

i'm not sure i agree with their conclusion, but perhaps sending another handful of Typhoons and a few GR4's would put the matter well and truly beyond doubt - we all know that without SHAR a second task force is going to be a nightmare, so why no move to boost the current air defences (both for military and political deterence)?

[tonker]

So glad we sold the Type 23's for bugger all to Chile.....



Latin America backs Argentina as Britain begins Falklands oil quest - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7036764.ece)

[parabellum]

I would have thought that the Falkland Islands are much, much better defended against air attack than they were in 1982?

A seaborne troop carrier is relatively slow moving and requires an air defence and anti-submarine escort with up to date detect and destroy capabilities. Does Argentina have this kind of equipment, is it state of the art?

I can't believe they would be stupid enough to try the military option again. Could be wrong!

[vernon99]

yes but it depends how determined the attacker is, yes they could go by sea, but wouldn't a para assault make more sense?

As for the air defences, you could think more WW2 big wing tactics, and the limited number of defenders are to overcome, afterall they carry a finite amount of weapons, and can only be in one place at a time. If you have 8 AA missiles and 16 attackers? Yes you would be sacrificing aircraft, but with the potential for several billion $ in oil revenue, the costs are fairly low.

Likewise we know that the odds favour the defender on the ground, but if they have neutralised the airborne defence, then they are free to shuttle more paras as required. How many sorties can they fly in a 24 hour period? Could they deploy sufficient SAMs to prevent us from flying in reinforcements, without taking the airfield? Then it becomes a siege mentality.

As ever it depends how desperate the enemy is, and what is at stake.

[francophile69]

As an ex TEV Canberra Engineer that photo of the Bogey at Gadana beach is soooo sad.

Reference getting troops down there (or anywhere else!) by ship. As others have referred to there are no British companies left, Cunard has not been British owned for years however P&O was always a British Government "golden shares" company to ensure that ownership could never pass abroad for reasons of National security...I could never understand how that was allowed to change.

Incidentally with the exception of the QM 2, modern cruise ship design is vastly different form the line voyage days of the Canberra and Black Pig (even if she was a complete wreck and deemed too unreliable to actually go near the Falklands!) Would be interesting to see a modern ship trying to keep the revs up in a big sea if it was deemed necessary.

[Vizsla]

I would have thought that the Falkland Islands are much, much better defended against air attack than they were in 1982?

A couple of Otters and a C172 - Hmm

[rigpiggy]

Maybe it is time to borrow a page from the swiss, and issue all islanders between 18-59 an L1A1 with an ammo allotment. Why did Japan, not invade the USA?

Fox amongst the chickens:)

[Data-Lynx]

They have the Steyr AUG. Hansard noted in Mar 2008 that The Falkland Islands Defence Force (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80310w0002.htm)(FIDF) is a locally maintained volunteer defence force unit, funded by the Falkland Islands Government, working alongside the UK military units based at Mount Pleasant, to ensure the security of the islands. Falkland Island nationals, British citizens, British overseas citizens and Commonwealth citizens aged between 17 and 55 are eligible to apply to join the FIDF. According to the 2006 Falkland Islands census, approximately 1,600 men and women may have been eligible to apply to join the FIDF, subject to medical clearance and selection procedure.

The main role of the FIDF (http://www.sotcw.net/downloads/Falkland_Islands_Defence_Force.pdf)is to assist in the defence of the Falkland Islands. The Force also provides an armed Fisheries Protection capability, mountain rescue and general search and rescue services, and assistance to the civil and military communities. The FIDF maintains company strength with a membership in early 2008 at 75 volunteers plus two full-time staff: a CO and a loan Permanent Staff Instructor (PSI). Based in Stanley, FIDF trains weekly to maintain Sniper/Recce, machine gun, close combat, amphibious and logistic support units, armed with Steyr AUG, GPMG and HMG. For transport, they have Landies, quad bikes and rigid raiders.

[rigpiggy]

75 volunteers, yes, that will give the Argies Pause, Not!

[tangoe]

I don’t often entertain conspiracy theories, but you can call me a cynic if you like or go and read a few history books, That Sweet Enemy, is one I would thoroughly recommend.

Relations between UK and Argentina have been improving over the years
The Argentinean population needs galvanizing to perhaps divert civil unrest
Argentina will probably default on its loans
It could really do with it own natural resources outside of the rain forest

We are likely to have the backing of the UN, unconditional surrender and all that
The US will be on our side but will push for a peaceful resolution
The Labour party, whatever today’s polls show are heading for a fall, how big?
What saved Maggie’s government in the 80’s
What also saved the forces and re-justified to a skeptical public and cabinet in the need for investment in the forces
What frankly put the great back in Britain, temporarily anyway from the doldrums of the 70’s

Rising tensions, motions to war at the public’s and our level anyway, but all calm at the top, even arrogance displayed by the UKGov.

If Brown can rescue this i.e. saving face and the lions share now without spilling blood whilst appreciating his short comings in defence planning and then his Argentinean opposite number has ‘come to an agreement’ over his loans, ‘bigging up’ Brown again and got concessions over oil revenues, having got all the right noises from South American leaders with little to lose anyway.

“Whilst not appreciating the negotiating tactics used, we understand difficult times call for difficult measures, boot other foot etc and therefore no amount of oil is worth a single drop of our forces blood!” can they then say or that “its not all about oil”

Then what a brilliant piece of political engineering!

Who said that politicians were good at quoting history but so bad at learning from it? Might have been me and I hope I was wrong!

If I was right, then how will the RAF feel about going up against the Flankers? No specific details needed!

[Metman]

I seem to recall that we had some kind of agreement in place with Argentina about resources in the South Atlantic, however Argentina withdrew from it fairly recently - last year or the year before? (Kirchner, either male or female).

What would this agreement have meant for Argentina? Have they already walked away from an agreement that perhaps gave them access to some of the oil revenues or sharing drilling resources or something? Have they already cut their nose off to spite their face? Or did the agreement not cover anything like that? (May have to look that up if I get a chance, but there is an outside chance someone here has already done it...)

[Data-Lynx]

Arranged between John Major and Carlos Menem and concluded in Washington, the 1995 agreement aimed to remove political uncertainties arising from sovereignty claims to the area by both countries which could dampen foreign interest in exploiting potential oil reserves. Nestor Kirchner cancelled the agreement in Mar 2007.The Hydrocarbons Agreement (http://www.falklands.info/history/agreements.html)was signed on 27th September 1995 between the British and Argentine Governments, with active participation by the Falkland Islands Government. Agreed to designate part of the South West Atlantic as an Area of Special Co-operation, and to co-operate through the establishment of a Joint Commission in order to encourage the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the South West Atlantic by the offshore gas and oil industry.

[Aeronut]

Is it just me or does anyone else find the title of this thread objectionable?
The Falkands war was fought and won to prevent the Argentine name being used and all which that implies. It's inappropriate, even if intended in irony.
We should not even recognise it. I request it be changed or a new thread titled 'The Falklands, (again?)' started and merged. :D

[soddim]

You are absolutely correct, Aeronut.

Clearly there are many here with no sensitivity to the recent history of these islands and, more importantly, to the feelings of those very British people who live there.

[Tankertrashnav]

Personally I think Aeronut is being a bit po-faced about this. Its pretty obvious that Grabber was using irony in choosing the Spanish version.

It also points up the fact often missed or ignored by the Argentines that Las Malvinas is just the Spanish for Les Malouines (from St Malo), so called because the original colonisers were fishermen from the St Malo region , so neither Brits nor Spanish! Maybe the fairest thing would be to offer the islands (and the oil) to the French - I'm sure nobody would argue with that!

Dons helmet and retires to a VERY safe distance;)

[vecvechookattack]

Maybe the fairest thing would be to offer the islands (and the oil) to the French

Having spent the best part of 18 months of my life in the place, the French are welcome to it.
(Tongue in cheek)

[Double Zero]

While some people might think we may be struck in the Falklands while distracted elswhere/s, frankly one nuclear attack sub even thought to be around will prevent a conventional amphib' invasion - the Argentinians are a sensible lot, and I doubt theyl'd follow a git into war again just for votes, especially regarding the state of their forces.

Plus there are a lot more ground based defenders, AFAIK now to deterr paratroopers and a lot else,let alone the signicant ( everyone likes to take the P', but who would actually choose a fight with them ? ) air defence forces.

This of course remains an opportunity to tar & feather all the political arses ( inc' military ) who objected to an AMRAAM equipped Seajet / Harrier 2+...

Falklands 2 ain't going to happen - fingers crossed for the brave people at the sharp end on both sides !

[althenick]

00

I hope your right but that is possibly one hell of a lot of oil under and around those islands. And two very money-desperate countries wanting it. enough said.

[parabellum]

Vernon99/Viszla - Your negative comments surprise me. Does that mean that there are no Rapier units based in the Falklands now? No RN ship with sea to air capability in the area? No ground based air defence radar unit? Just these three items would amount to a very significant improvement on the air defences of pre invasion 1982.

Double Zero - You sound more optimistic!

Not sure who mentioned an airborne landing but you would have to pick a calm day otherwise half your force would end up in the sea and the other half would have broken bones after being dragged across the LZ! Para units travel light and are shock troops, you would still need a sea tail to back them up, arriving within hours of the drop, assuming any transports were left in the sky and able to drop.

[Dan Winterland]

If I remember my history correctly, the French gave it up as a bad lot and left.

[Dan Winterland]

And while I'm at it, this is what Dr Johnson said about the Falklands in 1770 when we took it from Spain.

"We have maintained the honour of the crown and the superiority of our influence. Beyond this, what have we acquired? What, but a bleak and gloomy solitude, an Island thrown aside from human use, stormy in winter and barren in summer: an island which not even the southern savages have dignified with habitation: where a garrison must be kept in a state that contemplates with envy the exiles of Siberia: of which the expense will be perpetual and the use only occasional: and which, if fortune smile upon our labours, may become a nest of smugglers in peace, and in war the refuge of future buccaneers".

[Union Jack]

..... if fortune smile upon our labours, may become ..... the refuge of future buccaneers"

Now wouldn't that be nice!

Jack

PS DW - Great quote:ok:

[OnaBeach]

Forget about who has what kit and who's missile can sink what ship and make Britain and Argentina should make an agreement about how this huge amount of resources is going to be extracted and how both countries can benefit.

To successfully and efficiently extract a considerable amount of oil and other natural resources in this remote area, both sides need to work together and share the $4 trillion bounty that is estimated to exist.

Then maybe the Argentinian Polo ponies will still be available for our Royal Family to use when they jet over to eat steak and drink Argentinian wine!:rolleyes:

[maddog37]

I am amazed about the number of lines dropped in this post!!!
As I said some days before, we must talk as gentlemen but please do not distort the history!! Why frenchs have to take the control of the islands? The Argentinan goverment was entitled in 1810 and by that time Spain had the control over the islands, and all the territories which belongs to Spain came to Argentina, not to the previous countries.
If you want to believe that those islands are yours... cheers for you! but who used to live there? EXILES. But now the situation has changed... it seems that there is oil, and the islands are important for you? I bet my right hand that if there were no oil at all this topic will not have place.
And for those who are claiming about if Venezuela should help Argentina, just remember what Chile, France and USA did in 1982. I do not like Chavez at all, but please try to look back and analise who helped the UK in the past...Pinochet was not a saint, but Mrs Tatcher was not worried in that.
Please go and visit the islands to know of what are you talking about.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

I really hope this does not kick off again.

On the other hand:

1. Maybe Argentina senses weakness in the UK, in a financial sense. Could we afford and are we financially ready to repel an advance?

2. We are plainly heavily committed elsewhere unlike 1982. How ready would the UK be to open another front?

3. There may be oil reserves. The revenue from these could save Argentina (or the UK for that matter) from the big money troubles ahead.

4. Although 'Air' would be helped by the new Airbase, the RN are weakened since the last conflict. Mind you the Arg. Navy is nothing special.

5. Rightly or wrongly the Argentinians continue to assert their claim to the islands. their point of view enjoys a degree of synpathy.

I suspect if the did start again, HMG would find itself in quite a difficult position.

My own judgement, however, is that the Argentinians will do nothing.

Hope so.:hmm:

[soddim]

maddog37, we don't just believe the islands are ours - they are.

I have been to the islands and I have met and lived with many islanders. They are more British than most of those who live in UK now and none of them wish to change that status.

It is not the prospect of oil that makes us care about the islands and our people who live there - we cared so much in 1982 that many of our servicemen died kicking your invaders out.

Despite the best efforts of our politicians to weaken our armed forces I have no doubt you will get another kicking if you invade again.

[Metman]

maddog, a number of people in this thread are likely to have visited the islands for extended periods of time, many on several occasions, and therefore they DO know what they're talking about! Granted it is likely many have not. Have you spent any real time there?

Whilst perhaps the UK government were negligent in their duty to properly support and protect the islanders prior to 1982, The UK cared enough about the islands in 1982 to take them back, before any real talk of oil or natural resources. You could argue that Argentina wouldn't be making this much fuss if there was no oil! So I think you'll find oil doesn't play the part you think it does (although I'm not saying its irrelevant!). If we didn't care, you'd still have them after your 1982 invasion. I'll send you a postal address for your right hand if you wish?:)

You know, all of this could easily be resolved by asking the residents of the islands what they think...! Self Determination I think they call it, and a key part of the UN charter. Would that solve the problem do you think maddog, as both our countries are signatories to the UN charter, and therefore both our countries are bound by the wishes of the residents?

[Hymie65]

Re: BarbiesBoyfriend point;

My own judgement, however, is that the Argentinians will do nothing.See this in todays Buenos Aires Herald;

Buenos Aires Herald (http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/26052)
Buenos Aires Herald (http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/26042)

I suggest that they are doing something, and it's happening right now! What at first would appear to be a rather low(ish) key diplomatic affair that requires some face-to-face discussions to put to bed quickly, will quite easily escalate once they have the full backing of States in the region, including Chavez.

I agree with previous statements in this thread regarding the current economic status in Argentina and that in order to secure another term in the elctions next year that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is willing to venture into a risky game with Brown whilst garnering a lot of support for the sovereignty claims from other LA and Caribbean states. And we all know that Brown is a puppy when it comes to foreign policy, he just hasn't the guts to stand up strong against this sort of situation. And I wouldn't trust Ainsworth as far as I could throw him (see last night's abject performance on Newsnight!).

I'd also like to understand what the US may do if this situation does escalate? If Bush was still in the chair then I could see him getting his hands dirty, especially as this really is all about natural resources. Obama will go down the diplomatic route entirely (as this situation should be and not miltary action). But as they will not want to be putting themselves into direct conflict with LA states then inevitably they will expect UK to go it alone.

[DADDY-OH!]

Maddog

I have visited the Falkland Islands many times & they are more British than parts of Britain itself. The Falklanders themselves want to remain British & want virtually nothing to do with Argentina. The UN will take consideration of the 2000+ inhabitants before several hundred miles of sea bed.

[Wyler]

I have spent a total of 31 months on the islands, including a 23 month accompanied tour with the family. We still have many good friends there. Stuff the oil, it is about British people who wish to remain so and are more patriotic than the Pearly King.
I would far rather we put all necessary resources into protecting them than propping up that corrupt b*stard in Kabul.

However, the islanders are predominantly white, loyal to the Crown and hard working. Everything Labour and 'Dave' hate. :mad::mad:

Look on the bright side though, if they do find oil the Americans will invade.......:E

[Madbob]

ISTR that the Government / MOD had NO contingency plans for what transpired in 1982 and the whole plan to retake the Falkland Islands had to be forged from essentially blank pieces of paper....

This sabre-rattling by Argentina may in fact be all very timely coming as it does just ahead of a general election and a SDR.

I only hope that this time the Government does have a contingency plan already drafted, to include both deterrence to disuade Argintina from taking military action (i.e. overt military re-inforcement) as well as plans to land troops to retake the islands if, for example, MPA was either captured by the Argies in an attack by SF or aerial mines or bombs put the runway out of action so preventing its use for re-inforcement. Even a few Argie SF with MANPADs would cause more than a few problems.....

MB

[Plane Dumb]

It is rather galling that the Falkland Islands are being maintained/supplied by an airline from the Seychelles.

[Grabbers]

Mods,

Why? I called the thread "Las Malvinas (again?)" as I was curious as to whether anyone else thought that a potential enemy may have spotted a weakness in the UK Govt's ability to project itself in two different areas with two different strategies. The thread title was to stimulate debate.

Not getting arsey I'm just curious as to why you've changed it.

[Jabba_TG12]

Maddog,

Maybe you're right, if there was no oil, then maybe this sabre rattling wouldnt be going on.

maybe if there was no oil, Nestor would not have ripped up the agreement previously signed back in 1995 back in 2007.

Cuts both ways, chap.

I did four tours on the islands and from what I had seen of the place myself and the places where those who fought on both sides died, I sure as hell dont want to see anything kick off again. No way. But the islander's self determination is of paramount importance. And, they do not want to live under an Argentine administration. Its that simple.

[Archimedes]

Mods,

Why? I called the thread "Las Malvinas (again?)" as I was curious as to whether anyone else thought that a potential enemy may have spotted a weakness in the UK Govt's ability to project itself in two different areas with two different strategies. The thread title was to stimulate debate.

Not getting arsey I'm just curious as to why you've changed it.

Grabbers - I suspect this may have had something to do with it:

http://www.pprune.org/5530853-post133.html

[Grabbers]

Archimedes

Thanks, I see the two offended posters now. Sheesh!

Aeronut, you're not alone there are two of you. Good work on giving yourself a round of applause for acting as the morally outraged spokesperson. :D How was The Daily Mail today?

Soddim, I too have visited the islands, East and West and all stops between. You're quite correct that they are British. If your comment referring to those "with no sensitivity to the recent history of these islands" was aimed at me I must rebuff those too. I know from personal cost how much it took to defend the Islands. Also, how do you say that "They are more British than most of those who live in UK..."? I've neither the time or inclination to research population rates, immigrants vs indigenous Britishers and attitudes thereof but I very much doubt it if out of the approx 60 million people dwelling in the British Isles over 59 million people do not see themselves as British.

Now, let the debate carry on and if you find the points of view so reprehensible I suggest you try here:

Mumsnet Discussions - Am I being unreasonable? (http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable)

Top of the day to you!

[Data-Lynx]

Jabba. Assuming that you are not the ex-Tomcat backseater version, I don't believe this has really got as far as sabre rattling. Once the media realise that neither side proposes to invade the other, this faff over a 'spudded' exploration well will sit uneasily in political and diplomatic circles. It will flare up in the next two weeks when Cristina K' has another attempt to get her hands on her country's banking reserves and again in about four weeks when Desire Petroleum announce the results from Liz 14 /19-A. With luck, military shipping and aircraft will go about their business while one old oil rig grinds away. However, difficulties over commercial shipping will continue and we will watch with some concern.

It is likely that Nestor K' tore up the 1995 agreement as part of the ploy to get Cristina elected later in 2007, more than a calculated bet on commercial levels of oil. Indeed, there was an alternative view that he had scapped the agreement because there was oil and he wanted some political freedom to wave the sovereignty flag to get a better deal.

For Plane Dumb, With the exception of Diego Garcia, the Permanent Joint Operations Bases are serviced using commercial aircraft for what is routine business. I might even suggest that the Air Seychelles provided 767-300 ER is probably the best aircraft available in terms of seating capacity and range to cover the HQBF requirements. As a relatively frequent flyer, I know which kind of seat I would rather use for 2x 7+ hours.

I will stick with the Chief Foreign Commentator for the Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article7038368.ece), Bronwen Maddox, when she considered: For once, the tone that Britain has adopted is right: firm, but low-key. The best outcome is clear too: that the drilling goes ahead, and given that the Falkland islanders do not want the infrastructure on their soil, that Argentina rapidly benefits from the industry that will spring up.

[rogerk]

Is there any truth in the rumour that they are going to rename the rig "Belgrano" ??
:=:=

[Jabba_TG12]

Assuming that you are not the ex-Tomcat backseater version,

My mind boggles at your above implication, D-L, but I think in a pleasant way... :}

Apart from that, yes, I'm quite happy to accept your analysis and would rather see the outcome you specify rather than one of escalation.

[Tankertrashnav]

Grabbers For what it's worth I think the Mods have a cheek renaming your thread just because it seems to have offended Aeronut's fragile sensiblities! I spoke up on your behalf before and I do so again. For what it's worth I'm 100% behind the islands remaining British, but that doesn't prevent me, or anyone else having a bit of fun with the name.

As I posted on the Persian/Arabian Gulf thread maybe we should follow the Irish solution to the Londonderry/Derry question and refer to them as the Stroke Islands (as in Stroke City).

TTN

[soddim]

Grabbers, yours was the offending post - if you cannot see that you have no sensitivity.

Most British people thought the Argies had a bloody cheek in 1982 and re-naming our Islands was part of that bloody cheek. So why would any true Brit want to perpetuate that new name??

[Grabbers]

Soddim, I apologise for being insensitive. While we are on the subject of sensitivity, I note your perjorative use of the word 'Argie'. Do you use the word 'Paki' or are you only selectively racist?

[soddim]

Grabbers - you are now being offensive.

If you don't understand this - accusing anyone of being racist is offensive.

Are you also concerned that I use the word Brit?

Grow up.

[Grabbers]

Soddim, it was just a question. I'm not concerned about the use of either Argie or Brit.

Back to The Daily Express eh? :{

And don't worry dear readers, I will offer no further comment on this pointless thread drift.

[Shack37]

If Victoria was still on the throne we wouldn't even be having this debate.

PS, I think Malvinas is an old name, not a new one.

[BEagle]

Surely it won't have escaped the notice of Argentina that if oil is found in quantities worth extracting, her best option is to seek lucrative support contracts and licenses for oil refining on the mainland. Perhaps a fixed percentage of every barrel sold?

Las Malvinas / the F**kland Islands are such a barren wasteland that most things of any worth have to be flown in or sent by sea. So there is zero chance of the place being able to support major oil industry requirements - and don't forget that both the islanders and woolly-hatted busy-body envirofundamentalists would be up in arms if the seals / penguins or other wildlife were to be forced to move out so that oil installations could be built on the islands.

A solution which benny-fits everyone is what's actually needed - jumping up and down about sovereignty claims or the possibility of Argentine military action is not going to help anyone.

[Spam_UK]

This may be my simple mind missing something.

But HMG keep saying how they respect the Falkland Islanders right to self determination, if so would it not be more benificial to grant the Islands Independance, then let the Falklands join the Commonwealth or rejoin the UK.

That way the Falkland Islanders get to do what they want and remain British, and the Argentinian Goverment would have no grounds to claim sovereignty, and the UN would be happy as well?

[Aeronut]

Grabbers may just be Argentinian.

[knowitall]

"But HMG keep saying how they respect the Falkland Islanders right to self determination, if so would it not be more benificial to grant the Islands Independance, then let the Falklands join the Commonwealth or rejoin the UK."

Not really no they are currently self governing in all matters apart from Foreign realtions and defence, thats about as independant as a "country" with a population of 3,500 can actually be, if they asked for full independance it's be granted but they have no desire for it at the moment

[Double Zero]

A few points from someone who's never been to the Falklands, but was periphally involved in 1982, read a LOT of accounts from various points of view of it since;

A, Has any intel' picked up one way or another the Argentinians ' suping up ' their sonar capabilities, as our sub's remain their major problem ? We ( bystanders unfortunately - better to send in a git like me than a young lad with his whole life ahead of him, and I'm sure a lot of Ppruners would agree ) willl not know untill 20 years or so...

B, I presume ( a very dangerous word ) that we have land based anti-air kit of some sort there, I've been involved with some and it was not called Rapier...Though have flown in an aircraft during a demo' being tracked by Rapier - I had a casual stroll beforehand to ensure all the missiles were marked inert - afterwards everyone reckoned we having been locked on were the safest aircraft for miles !

C, It may sound a bit liberal and wimpy, but why not give the Argentinians a cut of the deal re. the oil, ( how much is not my dept. ) and it may bring stability & friendship from that nation, with a huge ' rippling ' continental effect before the U.S. size 20 boots get there ?

D, Why not give a contract - relative MOD peanuts now, and outstanding if the oil thing picks up - for a builder to make decent housing & amenities for the Islanders - though hardly a builder, the project would appeal to me and no doubt countless others - before anyone says it, I'm not including sheep, even though I'm, half Scot, half Welsh, born & lived in England. :)

Of course all this and more has been thought over long ago, by politicians of every flavour and even worse, accountants.

[Hoots]

Save the Nimrod, send it to the Falklands. Maybe not such a mad idea, I would want something looking after large parts of the islands economic zone. May not end up in a full blown military campaign, but remember the cod war and the harrassment etc.

[knowitall]

Double Zero

We did give them a "cut" we signed revenue sharing agreements in 1994 and 2000 Nestor Kichener ripped them up in 2007



Beagle

Placing the infastructure in argentina makes sense for a multitude of reasons not least the much larger availible workforce

if only their Government can be trusted not to chuck their toys out the pram and shut the refinery down 1 year in four whenever their due a presidential election and the inumbents in a spot of bother

[Double Zero]

Hoots,

I knew someone who was in charge of damage control during the Cod Wars ( Malcolm ended up demonsrating sailing yachts, no idea where he is now ) it must have been the most teeth-grindgly frustratingy ROE - not a thing for U.K. Skippers; nowadays, with the terrosist threat and close in weapons, I remain in hope...

[Data-Lynx]

Ladies and Gentlemen. If you really want a 'threat', it is more likely to arise from the UN Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/special_committee_main.htm), not from land, sea or air. The Times had it right today. We might agree with the Islanders and the UK stated view, but we are being isolated. Uruguay now supports the Argentina claim. One chair of this UN committee noted recently about the Falklands:
The year 2010 would not only mark the conclusion of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, but also 45 years since the General Assembly had expressed, for the first time, the need for bilateral negotiations between the two parties.

There is a Falkland Islands (Malvinas) UN Working Paper (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/docs_working%20papers_2009.htm), dated 18 Mar 09, which dealt with the "Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples." In it, the UK stated:
The British Government attaches great importance to the principle of self-determination as set out in Article 1.2 of the Charter of the United Nations and article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That principle underlies our position on the Falkland Islands.

The Falkland Islands are not a colonial enclave. Britain’s Overseas Territories are British for as long as they want to remain British. The people of the Falkland Islands have chosen to retain their link with Britain. The democratically elected representatives of the Falkland Islands once again expressed their own views clearly when they visited the United Nations for this year’s debate in the Committee of 24. They asked the Committee to recognize that they, like any other people, were entitled to exercise the right of self-determination. They reiterated that the people of the Falkland Islands did not wish for any change in the status of the Islands.

There can be no negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until such time as the islanders so wish.

The United Kingdom has no doubts about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

This is all good stuff but who was listening? Representatives from Argentina and the FIG Legislative Assembly attended the 9th meeting on 18 Jun 09 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2009/gacol3196.doc.htm). The main outcome was a unanimous approval of a text calling for direct negotiations over the Falkland Islands. There was a follow up meeting on 19 Jun 09 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2009/gacol3197.doc.htm). It may be boring but I suggest that the 'battleground' is in New York, not on the edge of a disputed boundary around the islands.

[Mike7777777]

There are several scenarios here, four of which are:

i) Nothing meaningful happens

ii) The Argentine generally obstruct ships within the Argentine 12 mile limit that may be sailing towards the Islands of Several Names. As GB resource is generally stretched at the moment, this should be dealt with diplomatically and the ships concerned should avoid the Argentine 12 mile limit until the 4th Afghan conflict is resolved.

iii) Various South American countries generally obstruct ships within the respective country's 12 mile limits that may be sailing towards the Islands of Several Names. As GB resource is generally stretched at the moment, this should be dealt with diplomatically and the ships concerned should avoid the various 12 mile limits until the 4th Afghan conflict is resolved.

iv) The Argentinians launch a military offensive against the Islands of Several Names. This should be dealt with by Tomahawk attack on various Argentine targets of interest, primarily airfields and naval installations; additionally all Argentine military vessels at sea to be sunk by various Fish and supporting airborne weaponry. And then this scenario can be dealt with diplomatically.

Of course, the over-riding principle is that Argentina and Great Britain should be natural allies with a common objective: defeating SANZAR ..

[mister hilter]

Mike777777, you are forgetting that the Pumas are joining SANZAR

[Mike7777777]

... not yet ..

[Grimweasel]

It will be interesting to see just who else jumps on board at the UN. There is a large Latin American backing and the UN has always been championed by Western 'Allied' governments as having the ultimate say so (remember Blair was insistent that we sought UN backing prior to liberating Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam!)

It would be very hypocritical of us now to stand in the way of the UN should they issue a dictate that says we must talk to Argentina on the issue of sovereignty!

I'm playing Devil's advocate here; but if China were to jump on board, what would we do then? The Falklands is also a strategic base for the UK's future exploration of the Antarctic's possible reserves. If China were to do a US/Taiwan pact with Argentina on the basis they could use the Falklands as a stepping stone to the contested riches of the Antarctic then who knows where this could lead?

Argentina/Brazil/Venezuela know that we are fully committed to Afghan and our focus is elsewhere currently. Could this be the UK's economic and military 'Black Swan' that people were not quite expecting as they merrily slashed the Navy and RAF to pieces? Time will tell......(and yes I have been there; 3 times!)

[barnstormer1968]

Can I just ask a question (and I may have my 'ooooh get you' handbag in hand:E)

Quote
If you don't understand this - accusing anyone of being racist is offensive.

Now, I had to fill in an application form recently, and it asked who I would like to meet from history. One of my choices was Hitler, and I would have liked to ask him about his rascist ideology. Now I see that would have been an offensive question, and that it was purely just his lifestyle choice to commit genocide!:}

OK, sorry for drift, but I did find the quote funny. Back to normal service.:ok:

[Mike7777777]

I wasn't aware of much RN involvement in Afghanistan, at least not until someone builds a big canal and refurbishes HMS Belfast for a bit of gunnery support.

I'm sure that the RN are champing at the bit to make up for various embarrassments suffered in the Middle East (captured by Iranians? How?)

[LateArmLive]

I wasn't aware of much RN involvement in Afghanistan, at least not until someone builds a big canal and refurbishes HMS Belfast for a bit of gunnery support.

Well, you are obviously not really aware of much then, are you?

[Charlie Time]

I would suggest some basic research Mike77......

[vecvechookattack]

I wasn't aware of much RN involvement in Afghanistan,


Apart from

The Royal Marines

845 Naval Air Squadron

846 Naval Air Squadron

857 Naval Air Squadron

847 Naval Air Squadron

Fleet Diving unit................. Which may not seem a lot but when you consider that the CPA of Afghanistan is about 300 miles from the Sea then that isn't bad

[Charlie Time]

EOD, Medical, Logs etc etc

[Mike7777777]

Well, you are obviously not really aware of much then, are you?
and
I would suggest some basic research Mike77......
Feel free to enlighten me ... you do realise the Belfast/canal comment wasn't entirely serious don't you..?

[maddog37]

Hi guys!
I am sorry if someone felt unconfortable with my lastest post, it was not the intention.
I have been at the islands for only one week, and it was quite enough for me... there are not so many things to do there except going to the pub:}! What I wanted to express was that our countries are "fighting" for a piece of earth with no value except the people who lives there and the oil(or not).
If you read my first post in this topic, you will see that, in my oppinion, islanders will always prefer the UK rather than Argentina. No discussion about that... I am realistic. There is a paint in one street that says something like this: "Argentians are always welcome but do not claim about the islands" (I know that it´s not litteral). That gives you an idea of the islanders intentions.
The oil drilling maybe it is not profitable so do not be worried about the opposition of sudamerican countries... and if it were, I repeat, you have Chile.
PS: Everyone in Argentina knows that we do not have anything to do against UK! That should be a suicide. Unless we were talking about rugby....:O

[Mike7777777]

Apart from

The Royal Marines

845 Naval Air Squadron

846 Naval Air Squadron

857 Naval Air Squadron

847 Naval Air Squadron

Fleet Diving unit................. Which may not seem a lot but when you consider that the CPA of Afghanistan is about 300 miles from the Sea then that isn't bad

Not bad indeed, but perhaps 10% of RN capability? Difficult to measure.

[parabellum]

Las Malvinas / the F**kland Islands are such a barren wasteland that most things of any worth have to be flown in or sent by sea. So there is zero chance of the place being able to support major oil industry requirements - and don't forget that both the islanders and woolly-hatted busy-body envirofundamentalists would be up in arms if the seals / penguins or other wildlife were to be forced to move out so that oil installations could be built on the islands.



I seem to remember that the Shetland Islands were considered an environmental paradise at one time, then along came oil. The elders of the Shetlands proceeded to negotiate themselves some excellent terms and conditions and all environmental issues were 'overcome'!

Das Island, in the Arabian/Persian Gulf can only be supplied by sea or air and has been for the last fifty years, providing major oil field support.
I'm just amazed that Argentina tore up the agreement on oil, talk about self destruct!

[vecvechookattack]

Not bad indeed, but perhaps 10% of RN capability? Difficult to measure.

10% ??? yer Joking.... Thats nearly half of us.

[Mike7777777]

10% ??? yer Joking.... Thats nearly half of us.
Nearly half the capability? We must be referring to different Royal Navies ...

[Finnpog]

He said:

From last October (08) to April (09) this year, around 3,000 members of
the Naval Service provided over 30% of the UK forces deployed to Helmand,
including not only the Royal Marines of 3 Commando Brigade and the Harrier
jets of the Naval Strike Wing, but also Naval Air Squadron helicopters and
significant numbers of logistic, engineering, medical and HQ staff.

Reference http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/15469_271109stanhope.pdf

:ok:

Admittedly only c. 10% of their total strength.

Don't you just love spinning stats!! :E

[BEagle]

This thread is about BennyLand. Would all the navy willy-wavers spouting off about 'the Stan' please find another thread for such discussions.

Thank you.

I venture to suggest that supplying somewhere in the Persian Gulf entirely by sea/air is probably slightly easier than coping with the vile climate of the South Atlantic.

[Data-Lynx]

BEags. You're young enough to remember the various orders about what you could not call the locals. I believe the sequence was:
Bennys - Do not call them Bennys.
Nots - Do not call them Bennys or Nots
Stills - Do not etc .....

[ORAC]

I venture to suggest that supplying somewhere in the Persian Gulf entirely by sea/air is probably slightly easier than coping with the vile climate of the South Atlantic. Times change, but when oil field development was first mooted in the late 80s, there was a South African consortium which was proposing to run daily flights bringing in SA labour, fresh food etc (as well as surface movements for heavy goods) and taking the workers out to Sun City for their days off to take their money off them.

I would presume the sums still work.

[vernon99]

Now that would be sweet justice, are Argentina going to blockade shipping East of the Falklands? I don't think so.....

[BEagle]

Well at least it looks as though, even though the broke MoD plans to throw way our MPA capability, we'll have a Vulcan again - an anonymous donor has just contributed £458 000 to the 558 Appeal Fund, so the £800 000 target has now been exceeded!

Andies - And they're still Bennies!

[ORAC]

I believe the sequence was:
Bennys - Do not call them Bennys.
Nots - Do not call them Bennys or Nots
Stills - Do not etc .....

Hmm, I remember it as:

Bennys
Still (They're still Bennys)
Yetis (Yet they're still Bennys)
Andys (And yet they're still Bennys)

[Evanelpus]

an anonymous donor has just contributed £458 000 to the 558 Appeal Fund, so the £800 000 target has now been exceeded!

I'll bet it was the MOD, you never know, she may be needed again!!

[ORAC]

Torygraph: Navy intercepts Argentinian warship near British waters (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7313829/Navy-intercepts-Argentinian-warship-near-British-waters.html)

The Royal Navy has intercepted an Argentinian warship near British waters in an apparent escalation of the row over the Falkland Islands.

Destroyer HMS York spotted the vessel around ten miles inside the disputed “oil zone” around the South Atlantic islands. The British crew had to radio the Argentinian ship, a smaller corvette named ARA Drummond, to demand that it change its course.

Sources told The Sun that the ship made an “innocent navigational blunder” and were embarrassed about the mistake. :hmm:

It is believed that the Drummond was spotted sailing alongside a French fleet before it broke away and headed for the disputed zone.

Under international law, the 15 miles of sea surrounding the Falklands are officially British waters.

The ship was spotted around 65 miles from the islands, in an area of sea called the “conservation zone”. It is in this zone that the oil exploration is taking place. It is not illegal for Argentinian ships to enter it but the incident has heightened tensions.

A spokesman for the MoD played down the incident, insisting that the radio communication had been “friendly”. He said: “We can confirm that on 28 January this year during rough weather and at night, HMS YORK and an Argentine ship were operating in the same locality in international waters around 50 miles from Falkland Island Territorial Waters. After a friendly dialogue by radio they each continued with their own exercises.”

On Wednesday the MoD said that HMS York would remain the area around the islands. A British submarine has also been dispatched to the Falklands to patrol the area.

Argentina has since protested to the UN about the British oil exploration. Its foreign minister is due to meet Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

[tangoe]

York is in excellent hands, ex 849 Observer, which is,,, what it the word Im looking for? Ironic perhaps

[Thelma Viaduct]

Here's what will happen.

It'll cost the UK a fortune to extract/process the oil & somehow or other the Americans will end up with the proceeds.......again

Maybe more Brits will have to die for the US&A to profit.......again

For the duration of the process the general UK population (and therefore by proxy the general pPrune population) will have been given some BS excuse that they actually believe to be true.......again

Fools will continue to be fooled. :ok:

[Papillon]

Just reading through this thread, I'm reminded of the early 20th century saying amongst naval personnel, who watched cut after cut after cut - and were then asked to do the impossible: "God and the navy we adore, when danger threatens, but not before".

Still true.

[Smoketoomuch]

Back on topic;
It looks like all of South America and the Carribean is siding with Argentina on this. Just what help could we expect from our European chums? Would France send a carrier? German / Dutch warships?

[caiman27]

Just one thought, and it has nothing to do with aviation.

Deep water oil off Falklands would be at the absolute screaming edge of technology to profitably extract and take to market. Therefore, it will need access to that technology and an acceptance that it will always be expensive to work. If it comes in it will probably be marginal, high cost oil. Which is why the major oil companies are not there in force.

Not exactly Saudi is it...

This whole Falklands oil thing to me is a bad case of two bald men fighting over a comb.

[Grimweasel]

Caiman27 - Ah, but check the company registers of the major investors of these mining 'minnows' - BHP-Billiton, Barclays and HSBC. Not the sort of people to enter into whimsical 'punts' on a drop of black gold.

[SASless]

Reckon the MOD will start buying ammunition for the Typhoon guns now?

[althenick]

It doesn't look good does it? 1 sub and a shagged T42 with an out dated air defence capability, 4 typhoons, 1 seaking, some ground troops and a malitia. Not that I want to detract from the commitment of these fine people but with that small list of major equipment, if argentina was to throw all its air miltary resources at the islands at once then how long would it take to overcome them? - Not too long I think and certainly less than the 1 week which it took for the Typhoons to get down there in the 1st place. There already testing the sea around the islands and the runway is much more capable of operating fighter aircraft. Assuming that the capured MPA intact then how difficult would it be to retake the islands with a Naval fleet that has no credible air defence and less ships than it had 27 years ago?

[SASless]

During the first go we were going to give you a Carrier (probably one of the Iwo Jima Class LHA's) but the RN realized they could not man it and such support would have caused the USA lots of problems with the South American governments less Chile.

The sad truth I think is the British Military has been cut back to the point there is no realistic way to ward off an Argie takeover of the Malvinas by force.

I doubt they really want to try again and are just rattling some sabers about the place making some noise. As long as they have Jughead from Venezula in the mix.....who knows what could happen?

He has been cozying up to the Russians, Chinese, and Cubans of late. Maybe he has seen the way our two countries have declined in both capability and national leadership and thinks the time is right to start acting up.

We have the forces and ability to handle that militarily....but politically is another story with Barry Boy at the helm.

[knowitall]

althenick et al

CALM DOWN dear, its only a spot of tubthumping!

Argentina can not even repeat the invasion of 1982

they have no aircraft carrier to use as an LPH and they have no landing ship, both have been cut up for razor blades with no replacement

their fast air consists of 1950's vintage Mirage 3/5's, etandards and skyhawks with limited upgrades and no BVR capability their only AAR is the same 2 KC130's as last time

The Argentine government has a pathlogical distrust of their own armed forces and thus refuse to consider a military solution and refuse to give their armed forces the kit to do the job

As an aside the US's position is entirely reasonable. Why take sides in a dispute that is currently handbags at 50 paces

to quote Ronald Regan

"While we have a policy of neutrality on the sovereignty issue, we will not be neutral on the issue involving Argentine use of military force."

[StuartP]

Deep water oil off Falklands would be at the absolute screaming edge of technology to profitably extract and take to market. Therefore, it will need access to that technology and an acceptance that it will always be expensive to work. If it comes in it will probably be marginal, high cost oil. Which is why the major oil companies are not there in force.

Not exactly Saudi is it...

Indeed. I just caught the tail end of an interview on R4 yesterday; 391 million barrels (which is what they think is there) is about...er...four days world consumption.

[vernon99]

Personally, if I were in number 10, UK forces in afghanistan would be packing up already. I'm sure we could place a battalion of troops, a squadron of armour, a couple of ships and a few more jets at MPA

Indeed it is an excellent opportunity for us to remove ourselves from an operation that is costly in monetary and lives, with no clear end in sight.

We could wring our hands about wanting to help, but our forces are needed elsewhere to protect the UK. Start an immediate withdrawal and do so as fast as possible.

We can then send some GR4s and more Typhoons, troops and maybe some armour to the Falkland islands, once there it wouldn't cost as much as Afghanistan is costing, so we benefit again. Maybe we could send more submarines(ensure that they are spotted at more than one location at the same time) and perhaps a T45 with PAAMS capable of tracking and engaging many targets at once(well at least we can find out if it works, if not we can stop building the carriers it is designed to protect).

That should deter ideas any South American country or group of countries have about reclaiming something which was never theirs!

Meanwhile the rest of NATO can argue amongst themselves as to who is going to send more troops to Afghanistan.........

[TEEEJ]

SASless wrote

Reckon the MOD will start buying ammunition for the Typhoon guns now?

The decision to support the Mauser on RAF Typhoon was taken in 2006.

Typhoon wins gun dogfight - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1530420/Typhoon-wins-gun-dogfight.html)

'The service has decided to issue ammunition to future Typhoon squadrons and train pilots in using the fighter's single German-made 27mm Mauser cannon, reversing its cost-cutting edict.'

Green Flag - XI Squadron fired Mauser - 2008

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Typhoon proves its air-surface capability (http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/equipmentandlogistics/typhoonprovesitsairsurfacecapability.htm)

RAF Typhoons conduct Mauser BK-27 test firings, EUROPE

RAF Typhoons conduct Mauser BK-27 test firings - Jane's Defence Weekly (http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2008/RAF-Typhoons-conduct-Mauser-BK-27-test-firings.html)

TJ

[PPRuNe Pop]

Good grief! My fellow mods have been busy. The thread has been severely culled to remove the troll trash and the wildly off topic rubbish. I have never known such a load of venting, which was supposed to pass for interesting on topic posts.

Gents. If this thread is to survive you will have to do better than this. It is one helluva mess and no fewer than 40 posts have been deleted, either through being way off topic or the posts that followed had no relevance to anything. It will need to get back on topic.

This is a case of live or let die. Its up to you.

[anita gofradump]

It's REvive........

.......and thanks, by the way!

:ok:

So it was survive! I'll get my coat.

[diginagain]

I think Pop meant to write survive, in his haste.

Incidently, I currently work for the drilling contractor that did the initial exploration. Desire offered the guys shares at an attractive rate. Few, if any, took them up on the offer - I haven't heard any of them cursing their misfortune. Read into that what you may.

[taxydual]

For what it's worth, back in the mid 80's, I was acting the part of the casualty for a 78 Sqn Seaking mountain sits training exercise on Pleasant Peak.

"Get somewhere really inaccesible" was the brief "Make it difficult for the winchman".

I did as I was told and lay under a rocky outcrop out of sight. When eventually 'rescued', I discovered my immersion suit legs were covered in a black oily gunge.

Going back to the outcrop, sure enough, there weeping out of the rock was the said gunge. For some reason the theme tune to The Beverly Hillbillies came to mind.

Make of it what you will.

[petit plateau]

I rather suspect that it is not a matter of if but when there will be a commercial oil/gas find in the Falklands basins. Most of the pieces of the puzzle are there as searches on "Falklands basin oil prospectivity" make obvious:

Falklands oil dream taking flight - Investors Chronicle (http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/MarketsAndSectors/Sectors/article/20090616/a5630054-5996-11de-bbc4-0015171400aa/Falklands-oil-dream-taking-flight.jsp)

Falkland Islands Goverment Department of Mineral Resources - North Falkland Basin, play (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/falklands-oil/NFB/play.HTM)

What the industry is looking for is an 'easy' field that gets enough basic infrastructure into the area to then go after the more serious stuff. The easy field need not be that large and would ideally be water drive or low GOR gas drive (i.e. flare the associated gas) processed via a floater (probably a semi, maybe a ship-shape) and buoy off-loading to tanker. The only land-side infrastructure would be logistics in nature.

They will typically go through exploration cycles that run in low but rising oil prices. This allows for the lower rig rates and higher availabilities. The lag in availability tends to mean that you can't explore in Falklands in low but falling oil prices, and in high oil price periods the rigs are priced out of the Falklands market.

It is a myth that Falklands oil/gas must necessarily be in very deep water. Whilst the first commercial field may be, it may not be. It just depends on who gets lucky first and where. It is perfectly possible - but logistically & operationally tricky - to develop & operate fields in these sorts of isolated areas. An analogue is the NZ fields.

As the oil/gas price trends upwards then at a certain point the finds will cross the economic threshold and bingo things will start happening.

As I am sure the realists amongst you all know the Argentine driver is always domestic and then trigger the LatAm mood music. Having said that the sheer indoctrination of the Argentines into the "las Malvinas son Argentinas" mindtrack has to be seen to be believed even in otherwise thoughtful intellectuals. I have only known a few Argentines who had bothered to find and think through the real history. This has seeped into the whole of Latin American consciousness in the same way that the Brits tend to assume that they are "better" trained soldiers/sailors/airmen than (say) the US without always taking a hard look at the facts. (Not wanting to be controversial but am trying to find an example that will make the Brits squirm a bit).

On the military side I am sure you all know it is not just a matter of comparing ship or aircraft counts and snap cards factoids. But do not underestimate the professionalism of the Argentine armed forces - like the Brits they are a serious bunch that have been let down by their politicians for a very long time. I hope that all will realise there is more that connects us than that separates us.

The irony is that successful finds in the Falklands will also tend to trigger much more and much better informed equivalent work in the offshore continental shelf areas that are indisputibly Argentine and where there has been very patchy exploration work going back thirty years or more as this article alludes to:

Dispute Shows Argentina?s Lack of Oil Exploration - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/world/americas/26argentina.html)

Shell old hands have been through cycles of high cost exploration in Argentine waters which has disillusioned the local onshore folk. I have been told about similar experiences at YPF Repsol .

Hope that helps.

[SASless]

This is one view of the situation....and as you can see is not that of the Obama Administration....and sums it up in a pretty straight forward manner.

Falklands Fallacy


Diplomacy: The U.S., which backed Britain when Argentina invaded its Falklands in 1982, has suddenly gone neutral on who has sovereignty over the islands. This is much more than a bad slap to our best ally.

Remember April Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq who infamously told Saddam Hussein in 1990: "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." To Saddam, that was a green light from the U.S. to invade his tiny neighbor.

Today, we hear similar language from the U.S. on another territorial dispute that may take us down the same road.


But Arturo Valenzuela, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, reinforced the position on Friday. "It's not a matter for the United States to make a judgment on," he said in explaining why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's March 1 meeting with Argentina's president wouldn't discuss the Falklands.

But we smell trouble. The sudden hands-off attitude even when allies are threatened comes as several sinking governments in the region are bringing up old territorial claims to regain their popularity and seize resources such as oil.

It's not just Argentina, whose budget shortfalls, pension confiscations, false inflation data and inability to win back the confidence of investors after a $100 billion default in 2001 leave it in the same sort of mood it was in when it tried to snatch the Falklands from Britain 28 years ago.

There's also Chavez, Argentina's top backer, who has trumpeted his desire to seize territory in Guyana known as the Essequibo on which Venezuela had a 19th-century claim. Chavez has also laid claim in recent months to the Dutch territories of Curacao and Aruba. And then there's Venezuelan military doctrine, which since 2005 declares that Colombia's alliance with the U.S. means it's no longer recognized as a sovereign country.


There's also Brazil's naval buildup, a development linked explicitly to defending its newly discovered oil fields from predators. It obviously thinks the threats are real, and it doesn't intend to rely on international treaties or any U.S. defense.

By curiously declaring a passive neutrality on the Falklands, the U.S. opens the door to all sorts of destabilization efforts. China and Russia have no doubt taken notice with our new stance as they eye Taiwan and remnants of the old Soviet empire.

As for the British, they are understandably aghast at our new position and wonder what the "special relationship" between the two countries now means.

Since World War II, the United States has honored the territorial integrity of nations as they stand.

Now the message is that any territory is up for grabs, with no state's claim any better than any other's, ally or not.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

It is amazing how this thread degenerated into blaming the US for all of the ills of the world. I suspect that the current position of Washington has a lot to do with not showing their cards in a way to prejudice relations in Latin America, where I suspect American diplomats are going to be busy for the next few years.

Argentina cannot invade. It lacks amphibious forces for one thing, and the Argentine Air Force is not without it's problems. The Falklands are far better protected than they were in 1982. Argentina cannot generate a force sufficient to defeat the Falklands garrison faster than we can reinforce. I even expect that despite the cuts and overstretch, we could generate and deploy a naval task group quicker than they could.

As for the Sea Harrier, mentioned by BEagle and others, they haven't entirely gone away, and as I've suggested on the Sea Jet thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152), could probably get regenerated faster than Argentina's amphibious capabilities. Deterrence is the key, so we must remember to resist attempts to impose cuts that would pose a threat to maintaining these forces, and having reinforcements.

Subject post removed - the comment that was here is no longer valid.

[parabellum]

Hard to believe that the major powers would resort to blackmail but I suppose if the USA stick to their, "nothing to do with us" guns then the UK may have to tell the USA that all our troops in Afghanistan are now required elsewhere. Since we are, at this stage, only seeking diplomatic support from the USA one wonders, what is the problem? Defending one's sovereign territory is the inalienable right of any country, isn't it, USA included?

[SASless]

Our Dear Leader has taken a public position (certainly I hope the private position remains intact from previous years) saying the USA is not going to take sides (a position I do not support) but there are demands for the USA tohonour our "Special Relationship" with the UK.

The Swiss sat out a bunch of wars by claiming to be "Neutral", as did Spain and Ireland in WWII.

Why should the USA not be able to claim "Neutrality" in this issue and do so legitimately?

NATO obligations seem to focus upon attacks on members in the UK and Europe by neighboring countries it appears. Does it require NATO support to the UK in the Falklands, BVI, or in Hong Kong during its day?

As I recall, NATO member nations did not support the UK during the last war in the Falklands but in the end the USA did.

In light of the EU and all the jointness of the European nations and the UK....is there not a "Special Relationship" formed by that? If so....where's all the vocal support from the NATO countries in particular?

Probably the question I am asking is :"How do we define this "special relationship" we all talk about?"

PB.... Do "Friends" blackmail one another to enlist assistance or do "friends" come to the aid of the other when they really need help?

[RotaryWingB2]

PB.... Do "Friends" blackmail one another to enlist assistance or do "friends" come to the aid of the other when they really need help?

It depends.

What's in it for me? :mad:

[maddog37]

That should deter ideas any South American country or group of countries have about reclaiming something which was never theirs!

It seems that you have to learn reading vernon99....or if you have already known how to do it, just pick up a history book from the public library!

[cosmiccomet]

For historical purposes I would like to point out about the Argentinian claims over the Falklands/Malvinas islands..

Before 1810 those islands were included into the Sudamerican territories controlled by the Spanish crown.
After the Argentinian independence war with Spain those islands were under Argetinian government control.

In fact, the Argentina had positive control of the islands from 1820 until 1833 when the British government took the islands shipping the Argentinian people back to the continent (there was not self determination...).

Six month after, there was a rebelion initiated by two Argentinian "cowboys" and 5 other Charruas. They were commanded by el Gaucho Rivero, who killed the British governor.

The UK took over again after 5 month, during that period the Argentina was in a civil war between Buenos Aires and the rest of the country.

So, it is not true that those islands have never being Argentinian...

[glad rag]

never being Argentinian...

And they never will.

[vernon99]

Yes yes all this talk of things that happened in 1820-33 is irrelevant.

In 1765, Capt. John Byron, explored Saunders Island in the west, and named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont. These events were nearly the cause of a war between Britain and Spain, both countries having sent armed fleets to contest the barren but strategically important sovereignty of the islands.

Oh yes prior discovery.....

English explorer John Davis, commander of the Desire, one of the ships belonging to Thomas Cavendish's second expedition to the New World, separated from Cavendish off the coast of what is now southern Argentina, he decided to make for the Strait of Magellan in order to find Cavendish. On 9 August 1592 a severe storm battered his ship, and Davis drifted under bare masts, taking refuge "among certain Isles never before discovered." Consequently, for a time the Falklands were known as "Davis Land" or "Davis' Land."
In 1594, they were visited by English commander Richard Hawkins, who, combining his own name with that of Queen Elizabeth I, the "Virgin Queen", gave the islands the name of "Hawkins' Maidenland."

A little earlier than 1820, although we can excuse any lack of knowledge, afterall Argentina as it is today only existed properly after the constitution of 1853, 261 years AFTER John Davis and the Desire.

[tonker]

We could give the islands back, as long as all non native South Americans leave the new state of Argentina and return the country to it's original owners.

Fair?

No doubt this option would not be welcome, especially in the North American continent;)

[maddog37]

I also know how to copy and paste from the wikipedia, vernon99... but if you do not want to take time and study the history of the islands, please be fair and paste the whole article! The first part says:
-"The islands were uninhabited when they were first discovered by European explorers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery), but there is evidence that Patagonian Indians may have reached the Falklands in canoes. Artifacts including arrowheads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowhead) and the remains of a canoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canoe) have been found on the islands. There is also the presence of the Falkland Island fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Island_fox), or Warrah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Island_Wolf) (now extinct), but these may have reached the islands via a land bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_bridge) when the sea level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level) was much lower during the last ice age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age). A group of islands in Falkland Island region appeared on maps from the early 16th century, suggesting either Ferdinand Magellan or another expedition of the 1500s may have sighted them. Amerigo Vespucci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci) may have sighted the islands in 1502, but he did not name them. In 1519 or 1520, Esteban Gómez, a captain in Magellan’s expedition, encountered several islands. Members of his crew called them "Islas de Sansón y de los Patos" ("Islands of Samson and the Ducks"). These islands were probably the Jason Islands, northwest of West Falkland, but the names "Islas de Sansón" (or "San Antón," "San Son," and "Ascensión") were used for the Falklands on Spanish maps during this period. Piri Reis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis), a Turkish admiral of the time who drew remarkably accurate maps, also showed islands that may well have been the Falkland Islands."-
And continues with text you have pasted, but it´s not cleared... there are no documents, unless the maps, of the discovered.
Tonker, with that way of thinking you should must give back the Ulster to Ireland and Gibraltar to Spain, is that fair enough for you?

[vernon99]

Yes but you parped on about the Islands belonging to Argentina because of an event around 1820, when clearly they "belonged" to someone else first. As for trying to say they are yours because Stone age or Ice age man had possibly been there..........

It is generally accepted that the status of the world is as it is now as a result of colonisation by Europeans, it is also unlikely that the world will ever return to how it was before colonisation.

Conflicts have also changed the ownership of countries, in some cases several times, again some countries have gained land and some have lost land, just what date in history would you like to pick for the rearrangement of national borders? Obviously a date that suits you would not suit someone else, so we cannot realistically change things, and so we have the staus quo that we have today.

Interestingly in 1995 we signed an agreement with Argentina over oil exploration, a treaty that Argentina ripped up, maybe you should ask the Argentine government why they ripped up a treaty that gave shared access in favour of nothing, and then have the gall to complain about it!

[maddog37]

Unfortunatly my mobile phone it´s out of charge, so I will plug it and I will phone the goverment asap...:ugh:
I have my own version about the history, and seems to be very far from yours. You didn´t understand anything that I said... maybe the problem is my english, but I strongly recomend you to read, read and read! In a story there are always two versions, so please hear both and them apply your common sense. I wrote in the early days of this topic one or two posts that you can review, and you will see that I am not complaining about anything. I just exposed how argentinians view the islands, very far from saying that UK must move from the Falklands by force. So please do not be so obtuse to rescue a sentence(ref. ice age) from a post and comment it.

[Wholigan]

I post this with no comment, merely for "information":

Falkland Islands Info Portal - Chronology (http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html)

[Squirrel 41]

I've followed this thread for a week or so and have resisted the temptation to get stuck into this; but on a damp Sunday afternoon between paperwork, the temptation is overwhelming. And full marks to Cosmicomet and maddog37 for continuing to make their points - but gentlemen, here's why it's doomed- my apologies for not having enough Spanish to write it in your mother tongue. In advance, my apologies for the length.

<<International Law Anorak Mode: ON>>

It is widely accepted that the islands never had an aboriginal population, so before their discovery in 1600 (ironically, by Seebald de Weert, a Dutchman), they were unknown to humans. Initially called the Sebald Islands, they were named the Falklands by the British in 1690 after John Strong named them after Viscount Falkland, Commissioner of the Admiralty. However, there was no permanent settlement on the islands - variously claimed by Britain, France, Holland and Spain - until the French arrived in 1764, establishing Port Louis on Berkeley Sound, East Falkland (north of Stanley). Port Louis was sold to Spain in 1767.

Meanwhile, the Brits were busy establishing a colony at Port Egmont, on Byron Sound - West Falkland. It is probable that the British and French / Spanish didn't know that the others were even there - Byron Sound is on the northern coast of West Falkland and everyone concerned seems to have believed that they had been banished to some godforsaken windswept wilderness on the edge of the world; at least both sides had this in common.

When they found out about Port Egmont, the Spanish were enraged, and attacked the place twice before the British surrendered and sailed on 10 June 1770 under protest. This eviction nearly precipitated war between Britain and Spain in Europe as well as the South Atlantic, with a deal done to allow the British to return - which they did in 1771 before departing again in 1774, but not without leaving a lead plaque which claimed the whole archipelago for Britain forever.

In 1790, an agreement called the Nootka Sound Accords was signed, which didn't help matters at all by talking about "the adjacent islands" to the South American mainland - without telling us whether this covered the Falklands or not. By 1811, the Spainish governor also ordered the Spanish colony to withdraw from the islands.

So, when the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata - that would become Argentina - revolted against the Spanish in 1816 and gained independence, it took seven years to emplace another colony on the islands, achieved in 1823. For the next 10 years, Argentina occupied the islands, despite the British claim from nearly 60 years earlier, before Britain returned under Captain John Onslow to Port Egmont, West Falkland in 1832, and forcing the surrender and evacuation of Puerto de la Soledad on 4 Jan 1833. The Union Flag would fly over Stanley until 1982.

Thus, though a legal argument can be made about the legal status down to 1833, it is quicker, easier (and probably more accurate) to accept that the British takeover in 1833 was imperial conquest. Which as this was the principal mode of territorial acquisition in 1833 - and had been for 5000 years - should excite no-one.

So what happened in the 149 years of British rule? Firstly, the UN Charter was adopted in 1945 and the UN would lead on decolonisation based on self-determination. However, as the Falkland Islanders had become the indigenous population since 1833, their wishes were the ones which need to be observed - not those of the Argentine settlers expelled more than a century before.

Hence, the fundamental problem for Argentina: if you accept self-determination as the cornerstone of international sovereignty, then you'll have to wait for the Islanders to decide to become Argentines. If Argentina doesn't accept self-determination as the basis, then they should say so, and be howled down by the rest of the international community who do accept it.

Alternatively, Argentina could invade again, but as acquisition of territory by conquest has been illegal since 1945, they'd also have to bin the UN Charter as well.

<<International Law Anorak Mode: OFF>>

Bottom line: the islanders will determine the future status of the islands - be that British, Argentine or independent. Good luck to them!

S41

[Tourist]

Entertainingly, I have just had a, admitedly not particularly helpful, post of mine removed from this thread.
Since this is a thread about the right (or not) of Falkland Islanders to decide their own furure, I enjoy the irony of having my post, and effectively my opinion, deleted from the debate when I am almost certainly the closest thing to a true Falkland islander on the whole of Pprune, and definately Military Aircrew.

Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

[parabellum]

Tourist, why not take it up with the Mods?

[Capt Pit Bull]

Why should the USA not be able to claim "Neutrality" in this issue and do so legitimately?

Perfectly entitled too.. but should recognise that such a stance has implications.

Do "Friends" blackmail one another to enlist assistance or do "friends" come to the aid of the other when they really need help?

Its only blackmail if its a bluff. I'm not talking about withdrawing from Afghanistant to send a message to the USA. I'm talking about adjusting the UKs defence priorities; because although trying to contain AQ is important, so is defending our sovereign territory.

What concerns me is that people assume the Argentinians will not have another try militarily. Yes, it would be costly, unwise and uncertain - but since when have those factors ever stoped a war in the past?

I would wager good money that military options are under serious consideration by the Argentine government. The questions are can they take the islands, and can they get away with it? Taking them will be more costly than last time, but if they can do it their chances of hanging on to them seem much better given the state of the UK military and the political environment (not least fence sitting by the worlds remainign superpower).

[Jackonicko]

Squirrel,

Good post on the face of it, but discovery in 1600?

Before that date there were previous 'discoveries' of the islands. These were variously discovered by Magellan (Portugese), Vespucci (Florence), or Piri Reis (Turkish). Davis (English) discovered and named them again in 1592, and Hawkins did the same in 1594. Certainly by 1600, they had been discovered.

[Chugalug2]

Let us hope that the history of 1982 will remain just that but let us also, as a Military Aviation forum, pay tribute to the skill and courage of all military aviators who engaged in that conflict. The Argentine Air Force seemed determined to prevent the retaking of the Islands by UK Forces, perhaps rather more so than its sister services. Appropriate then that the name of its commander, Brigadier General Lami Dozo, when spelled backwards became phonetically "Oh Sod 'em All"! We should respect such determination and they should respect ours and not make the same mistake again.

[glad rag]

Where does the notion that it would "just" Argentina this time come from?

[Squirrel 41]

Jacko,

Fair enough - Sebald was definitely the first to definitively find the islands - rather than the Jason Islands, or one of the other smaller groups. It is true, however, that since Amerigo Vespucci's third trip Europeans have suspected that there were some islands there without knowing the precise detail. My broader point is that:

- title to the islands has been contested by at least four powers in the last 500 years;
- there was never an aboriginal people there;
- since 1833 the Falkland Islanders have become the people in who self-determination resides;
- that as the international law has changed post WW2, self-determination has become central to resolving the dispute;

ergo, Argentina is going nowhere on this as long as it cannot convince the Falklanders to become Argentines.

And I for one would - and regrettably at some point in the next 20 years may have to unless the Argentine body politic gets the message - fight for the Falkland Islanders' right to choose their own future.

I hope it doesn't come to a punch-up again; but I've an awful feeling that it will. Let's hope sanity on all sides prevails - as has been said, there's no reason that Argentina shouldn't do very well out of the oil, if indeed it is economically viable.

S41

[SASless]

Chugalug,

I know this is more an aircrew forum than anything else....but while throwing credit about the place....one must remember the role played by the Army, Navy, and Marines in 1982. I assume your intent was not to diminish their role in the action but one should be sensitive to other's feelings in the matter.

It is not like I have any reason to say what I do...as I was not involved in any way... but the Lads humping heavy bergens and weapons over some very tough terrain, living out in the elements, and taking the fight to the enemy day after day, as well as the Navy standing by and taking losses while supporting the troops ashore just should not be left out when giving praise.

It took the efforts of everyone to accomplish what was done.....let's brag on all of them!

In my war, I flew support missions for the troops on the ground, taking them into the fight, supplying them while they were there, retrieving their dead and wounded, and flying them out afterwards. That was what I was there for....the guys on the ground....that was the reason for my being. I brag on them not my unit although I am very proud of what we did and how we did it. We took our losses too....just like the guys on the ground but they did the heavy work and dealt with the bad guys nose to nose.

[Biggus]

SASless,

If you read his post properly you will see that Chugalug was giving special credit to the Argentine Air Force - not the RAF!

[Stu666]

Given that there has been talk of Argentina "not being alone" should things kick off again, which countries are likely to assist, and how? Are these "friends" likely to have stronger military capabilities than Argentina? There was talk of Flankers "giving the RAF something to think about" (or something along those lines) earlier in this thread; from which country would this threat materialise?

[Chugalug2]

If you read his post properly you will see that Chugalug was giving special credit to the Argentine Air Force - not the RAF!
Indeed Biggus, and thank you for seeing the point I was trying to make. SASless, as an ex truckie and with a brother who is an ex fish-head, I was ever most conscious of the contribution required and provided by all of our Armed Forces. Your very ID recalls the feelings of guilt as we trundled home to warm beds and an enjoyable weekend having dropped our TA pax over the snow covered terrain of the Scottish Highlands many years ago, for we were thus truly SASless!

[knowitall]

"What concerns me is that people assume the Argentinians will not have another try militarily."

They won't Kirchner and the military don't get on, she and her husband were students at the time the miltary was making students "disappear" and she has been a consistent supporter of investigations into said events much to the militarys anoyance

they also don't have the kit, its a bit difficult to invade (and sustain the invasion) the islands if you dont have any form of landing ship


stu666

Venezuela seems to be the most likley candidate though chavez's flankers are struggling with the humidity by all acounts

having said that making supportive noises at the first meeting of your new "no-gringo's" club when your all trying (and failing) to get on is one thing, its HIGHLY unlikley to translate into practicle help in a shooting war

[SASless]

My apology to all then.....sorry I miss read the post.

[Chugalug2]

No problem SASless. While I'm busy confessing my guilt-ridden angst, your mention of "my war" (which I assume is Vietnam?) produced even more. While you flew:
support missions for the troops on the ground, taking them into the fight, supplying them while they were there, retrieving their dead and wounded, and flying them out afterwards.
I was enjoying the tour of a lifetime in Changi on Hastings (4-engine gooney birds as we were ever obliged to explain to your disbelieving countrymen). With the many US bases in the Far East we were for ever dropping in, and enjoying generous and overwhelming hospitality when we did so. Never once was mention made that we should have been fighting alongside you and your Antipodean Allies, which I for one then thought we should. In my dotage I think I was wrong and Harold Wilson, our PM, right to refuse even so much as a "Scottish Bagpiper". From that experience I learned that the Americans are generous to a fault, that if wars are entered into they must be fought to win, and that it is far far better to avoid entering into them in the first place if at all possible. If the Falklands are attacked again it will not be possible and consequently this country will again be at war. Perhaps a few lessons learned in the '60s need to be re-learned?

[SASless]

I too have come to the mind that we had no business in Vietnam. Now, I see it as a war of reunification and the ending of French Colonial rule that we somehow got involved in for all the wrong reasons. In a few days, I am headed back there for my second post war trip and look forward to seeing the place again. Politics can sure confuse things in my view....and I fully agree with the view that one plays to win after you kick off the game.

My first tourist trip was when I came to the firm conclusion about the war I hold now. I was stood at Ho Chi Minh's house, lookiing at his dinner table, and I began to wonder why I was able to do so. I would have thought that area of Hanoi would have looked like the surface of the Moon with huge bomb craters all about the place and nothing standing....much less Ho's dinner plates and cups neatly arranged for all to see.

I will have to admit getting some pleasure out of looking down Ho's nostrils as he lay in state as that was now the second Communist Leader I had done that to....Mao being the first while in Bejjing.

The fact he sought American assistance several times and was refused makes it all the worse in hind sight.

Ya'll didn't miss anything by sitting that one out.....as I now think we should have as well. The only mitigating thought is we may have helped limit the spread of Communism by taking a stand there in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos but sure should have done a much better job of it. It sure wasn't the troops on the ground or the sea and air support that let us down as it was the political and military leadership at the highest levels of the US Government that failed us.

I see a lot of the same going on today in both the US and UK.

One funny note.....

Subic Bay Chiefs Mess....circa late 60's...height of the Vietnam War.

Visiting RN vessel....lots of mingling in the Mess.

American getting some guff from the RN about how the war is going.

American retorts...."Well....we don't see your sorry asses there!"

British Reply...."And you won't either mate, the NVA seem to be doing quite well without us!"

I understand the RN became fully engaged in a flash!

[Metman]

*If* (completely hypothetically) Argentina did manage to claim posession the Falkland Islands through the UN, the question is what other lands would be at risk of "reposession" by other countries under the same principle?

[ORAC]

What, like Taiwan, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Taiwan#Arguments_for_the_Republic_of_China_a nd.2For_People.27s_Republic_of_China_sovereignty_claims) Gibraltar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar), Cyprus/the Aegean (http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Enosis/), Bahrain (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_iran_07_13.asp), the Kuril Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute), Alsace Lorraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace-Lorraine), not even starting on the Middle East and the other remnants of the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Soviet empires? And for South America there's Venezuala's claims on Guyana (http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/venezuela/dispute.htm), Guatemala for Belize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_claim_to_Belizean_territory), Chile with Equador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Ecuadorian%E2%80%93Peruvian_territorial_dispu te), Bolivia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_border_dispute) and Argentina (http://eagle1.american.edu/~jg4629a/chile-argentina.htm). I won't even start on Africa and the Far East in areas such as the Spratly islands (http://www1.american.edu/TED/ice/spratly.htm). Closer to home can I mention Rockall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall)? :hmm:

[cazatou]

ORAC

According to my distinguished French Neighbour (a former Presidential Chief of Staff who is an expert on early French History) the small Hamlet in which we live was the most forward English Outpost in SW France at the beginning of the 100 Years War.

Today the majority of properties in the Hamlet are again English owned - should we secede?

The answer is of course NO (not least because of the UK taxes on wine)!!!

[ORAC]

Today the majority of properties in the Hamlet are again English owned - should we secede? Boris Johnson: Time to reconquer France (http://www.boris-johnson.com/2007/04/19/uk-france-euro-route/) :p You should regard it more as the Normans coming home.... :p

[cazatou]

ORAC

I think inflicting Boris on anyone would be regarded as a "Cruel" or "Unusual" punishment and therefore in breach of the Hague Convention.