What the Argies think of us . . .

[Caractacus]

Here's what the Argies think of it all:

Malvinas Islanders feel ‘safe' amid UK defence cuts
Buenos Aires Herald (http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/50849)

The government of the Malvinas Islands said it was "satisfied" that defence cuts were not leaving it vulnerable to an invasion by Argentina. An official communiqué was released by the Islands' government according to British newspaper The Independant.
but . . .

Argentina's President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has revived its demands for the islands since oil firms began explorations for possible reserves in Malvinas waters earlier this year.
noting:

"In respect of the newly valuable Falklands and their oilfields, because of these and other cuts, for the next 10 years at least, Argentina is practically invited to attempt to inflict on us a national humiliation on the scale of the loss of Singapore.

" . . . British prestige, let alone the administration in power at the time, might never recover," they wrote in the open letter."

Looks like we've invited them in. Maybe we can strike an oil deal:

They drill - we buy. At greatly inflated prices.

We're complete twats, we really are.

[hunterboy]

I'm afraid that we Brits have historically been guilty of short term thinking.
We tend to do things on the cheap, and of course, it always ends up costing us more in the long term.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Con Coughlin (Telegraph) knows his stuff.


Admiral Lord West of Spithead might like to describe himself as “a simple sailor”, but even the humblest deckhand should know better than to spout the kind of nonsense he’s come up with this week about the Falklands being over-run again by Argentina.

Lord West and his naval chums believe the cuts in the Strategic Defence and Security Review are tantamount to inviting Argentina to stage a repeat of its 1982 invasion. It is easy to understand why our former First Sea Lord feels so strongly about the Falklands. It was here that Commander Alan West, as he then was, received the Distinguished Service Cross for his heroism during the Falklands war, when he insisted on being the last to leave his frigate, HMS Ardent, as it sank after being hit by an Argentine missile. But that does not mean he can overlook how much the political environment in the South Atlantic has changed since then. Argentina’s military junta has been replaced by a flourishing democracy. These days, its gripes about the Falklands are referred to the United Nations, rather than the high command.

In short, modern-day Argentina has neither the capability nor the political will to invade the Falklands – so it is quite ludicrous for Lord West and his friends to claim that Britain is about to suffer a humiliation on the scale of the loss of Singapore. It may well be true that we will no longer be able to send a proper task force to recover the islands. But their defence still remains an important consideration – which is why today’s garrison is 10 times the size it was in the early 1980s, and is supported by a squadron of Typhoon interceptors.



Now, shall we move on?

[Economics101]

Argentine rhetoric will always demand the return of the Malvinas. But looking at the reality, quite apart from the points made by the Telegraph, the reduction in Argentine military capability has been such that their ability to threaten the Falklands has probably diminished much more than the UK's ability to defend them.

The only serious navy in that part of the world is Chile.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

and is supported by a squadron of Typhoon interceptors.


Well that's Mr Coughlin's credibility established then.

The Lord West makes a valid point but doesn't make it very well. In fairness, he may have "simplified" it for your average Big Brother viewer. The danger now isn't a reinvasion but interference and harassment. To extract that oil from the Falkland Basin is going to need a lot of equipment and facilities to do it safely. That gives the Argentinians great opportunity to involve their Navy in, say, the detaied inspection of bills of laden of "contraband" goods. Covering that with a RIVER Class and a Fleet Oiler, with no Nimrods from MPA, should be interesting. Think Cod War 8,000 miles from a reliable and credible Base; but, hey, what the hell does a retired loggie know.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Is this the same Con Coughlin who wrote: How could Britain defend the Falklands without the Ark Royal and its Harriers, asks Con Coughlin (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/8079008/Defence-review-These-cuts-leave-us-vulnerable-to-our-enemies-around-the-world.html)?

[engineer(retard)]

GBZ

Why does that task require 2 aircraft carriers?

regards

retard

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

engineer(retard). Fair point. The task would not need 2 Carriers on station. The 2nd Carrier, if fitted for task, would probably be in Upkeep, Fleet Time Maintenance or wider training and cooperation with allies. The South Atlantic task probably wouldn't need a Carrier permanently on station anyway, just be on hand if events "hot up". Now this is where life becomes interesting: to get the Carrier (not plural), we have mortgaged the DD/FFs we will probably need as a permanent presence.

Although a Carrier would be useful to the South Atlantic, it wouldn't be essential. What it would be essential for is intervention in any other part of the world where our National interests or alliances may be at risk.

My view, for what it's worth.

[engineer(retard)]

Fair call, I could not follow the initial logic.

regards

retard

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

You might as well have 20 carriers on station...if there are no FJ assets to fly off them, the Argies aren't going to lose too much sleep!

[oldgrubber]

101,
Don’t dismiss the rest of the countries in the area quite so quickly. Brazil have an expanding navy with ships and submarines being built at the present time. They are also constructing a major new naval port to house all their new gear plus their active/operational aircraft carrier. They have made no secret of the reason for their military build up; not only is it to keep pace with the rest of the countries in the area who are re- equipping as their budgets allow, but they say it is to protect their “oil and mineral rights”. Old Hugo is just barking enough to kick off at Colombia for their recent increased love fest with the Yanks and he hates us just as much.
A couple of old type 23s and good will from the Chilean navy will only get you so far against the coalition that you are likely to meet down there and don’t forget that as well as France and Russia selling them arms as quick as they can, China is now offering very good “buy now pay later” terms to anyone in South America who wants it.
Cheers

[Lonewolf_50]

If you want to keep the Falklands your own, my dear friends across the pond, simply establish an SSN on permanent patrol there. (Rotate every X months).

With a modest investment in overhead recon assets, tartget acquisition becomes a picnic. Any vessel bringing soldiers and their supplies goes to the bottom.

Invest in sufficient SAM/IADS to cover that part of the battlespace so that airborne/air assault meets similar reception.

When the first ship probing the nerve of political resolve is sunk, do as the North Koreans and simply deny that the Royal Navy sank it.

And remind people that you have nukes. :ok:

Problem sorted.

[orgASMic]

Lonewolf 50

I think we are all sorted except for item 2 on your list. Hmmm...If only a British-based defence and aerospace company had come up with a (late and expensive) update of what we used to have in the role that we could use. :rolleyes:

[soddim]

I think Mr West is overstating the case for a carrier for there are many other deficiencies in our ability to retake the Falklands should they fall to the Argies again. Not least of these is the reduction in our merchant fleet and our ability to mount an amphibious force.

The only capability we seem to have left is to deter re-invasion by the prospect of mounting sufficient resistance and attendant casualties on the opposing force that it is seen as a very risky venture. We might well argue that our present force levels are marginal in this respect but we lost the ability to re-take the islands a long time ago.

It appears to me that the RN are lucky to be getting new carriers at all and that is only because they cannot sensibly be cancelled. Perhaps they should wind their necks in and lie low in the hope that they may get some aircraft to put on them.

[Not_a_boffin]

I think you might find that the amphibious force we currently possess (recapitalised extensively over the last decade) is significantly more capable than that which went south 28 years ago. We also have our own fleet of strategic lift shipping (operated as a service).

Troopships are the only thing we might struggle with....

[Charley]

Allow me to start by saying I'm not mil, merely someone who takes an interest, so I'm far from qualified to comment on military matters. However, colleagues of mine at a European company are involved with their Brazilian-sister-company counterparts and have of late been travelling extensively in the region. That Brazilian company does business at a continental level.

Their experiences suggest that the countries of South America are currently experiencing the most harmonious period in a long, long time. Generally, the nations are sharing a cordiality and spirit of co-operation that is perhaps unprecedented. Of course there are some countries that still have beef with each other on individual levels (Venezuela has issues with both Colombia and Guyana, for example) but generally the leaders of many countries there are beginning to realise that South America could do better for itself by becoming something of a 'bloc', particularly in respect of competing for trade against the Chinese, Asian subcontinent, US and Europe. Likewise, a small core of common interests is evolving between many nations there.

In other words, beware against considering any single South American country to stand on its own. Maybe it's true today, but it may not be true forever.

Old Grubber mentioned that the Brazilians have been espousing the rhetoric about 'protecting their mineral rights'. This is entirely true and I know this because my European colleagues, their Brazlian counterparts and I all form various small parts of the greater exploration/surveying machine. And while Brazil may not have any claim to the Falkland Islands, it would perhaps lend some support to a neighbour that did on a 'sauce for the goose' basis.

I note also that Chile has been voicing similar intentions, to protect their future resources. It'd be very interesting to see if, in the event of the Falklands kicking off again, they'd be as staunch an ally as last time. Not only is it a different government, it's a different form of government in Santiago these days...

As for Argentina's military might (or otherwise), is it not beyond the realms of possibilty that they make some strategic military alliances in the future? After all, I seem to recall a country much closer to home doing that recently with one of their close neighbours, all in the interests of maintaining their place in the Global Importance league tables [while making swingeing cuts to soveriegn capabilities, that is..... :ugh:]

Yep, mineral wealth... gonna be a prickly subject in the next 50 years. Hopefully UK plc won't be too quick to rule out future shenanigans solely on the basis of the oppo's perceived weaknesses today. Then again, that might require some foresight.

(I predict that Antarctica will become a bunfight in the fullness of time too, hopefully not in my lifetime. Ever noticed how vast swathes of it are claimed by countries that are hardly 'local'?)

Just my 2p; fire at will.

[draken55]

According to a Government spokesperson, responding to questions in the House of Lords to-day, we have a Squadron of Tornado's based on the Islands to deter the Argies:uhoh:

[Fareastdriver]

Just because you may have a load of oil does not mean everybody is banging on your door. The money that comes from oil is the difference between what it costs to bring it up and what you sell it at. There is still stacks of oil left in the North Sea and other UK waters but it is too expensive, too much paperwork, tax, H&S plus all the other things compared to other parts of the world which is why the resources are not being exploited as well as they could
Operating in the South Atlantic would be a nightmare. Apart from Australia there are no other meaningful oilfields that far south of the equator. There are no oil facilities that far south of the equator. Exploration rigs are easy, production platforms are a different ball game
The costs of setting it up would be horrendous. Everything would have to be towed thousands of miles to be positioned; the expertise and labour also. This is not cheap and when it comes up it then has to be shipped thousands of miles to its market. All this in the unpredictable South Atlantic.
We all know what happened in the Gulf of Mexico with BP. There everything you could get was within a days sailing.
The Falklands? Can you imagine.

[iRaven]

Admiral West :ugh:

This is the man who took us to war over WMDs without question...

Here are some quotes from him when he was in the military in an interview from 2003


What's your opinion of the broader situation facing us today in the Gulf?
"Saddam needs to get rid of his Weapons of Mass Destruction.
We have decided to deploy naval forces in strength to back up the work of the arms inspectors and the diplomatic effort. It is a traditional use of seapower and entirely justified. Those naval forces show we mean business."



But the jet fighter that played such a key part in providing air defence for the task force in the Falklands War, the Sea Harrier, has been left behind...
"Ark Royal has deployed as a helicopter carrier, or LPH, because we could see that we might need to project power in the same way that we used her sister, Illustrious, in 2001, to insert Royal Marines into the Afghan battlefield. The truth is that, with the retirement of HMS Fearless last year, we lacked an amphibious platform and the new assault ships are not yet in service. We clearly needed to form another Amphibious Ready Group in addition to the one centred on HMS Ocean, because two Royal Marine commando groups were to be sent. It was therefore eminently sensible to use Ark Royal in the LPH role. The package deployed as Naval Task Group 2003 in January was assembled around Ark and Ocean, with an appropriate level of escorts. It is a sensible package that gives the UK Government a range of options."


Full interview here: Warships Magazine - Admiral Sir Alan West (http://www.warshipsifr.com/interview_alanWest.html)

:8

[draken55]

The decision was taken by HM Government with the full support of Parliament i.e. including the Opposition. Privy Council Members would have had full access over the intel now considered to have been "dodgy". Was that given with a deliberate intention to mislead, well I don't know but to accuse one member of the Forces as being to blame for taking the Country to War is utter nonsense.

As for the use of Ark Royal during the Iraq invasion, she switched role from a Strike Carrier to LPH with Sea King Baggers also deployed. You may recall the crash of the latter that led to great loss of life.

With the USAF, US Navy, and RAF deployed along with the US Marines there was no need for Ark Royal to add to the mix of air defence and close air support assets already available.

Royal Navy carriers have been able to deploy Air Groups tailored to the requirements of the job and in 2003 that did not require the SHAR. In 1982 the situation was a tad different:D

[Al R]

Charley,

I wonder if the South American (Brazil lead) economic miracle is about to hit choppy waters.

Either way, in the week that this nutter died, is there the public Will to return to those dark days?

Argentine junta admiral Massera dies - The Irish Times - Wed, Nov 10, 2010 (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1110/1224283024945.html)

[davejb]

Draken,
well said. :D

As I understand (if that's the correct word to use!) things, it's all about Antarctica and the possible resources in that lightly explored part of the world from the pole upwards - the weather, sea and climate being extremely hostile much of the time. This, combined with less concentrated populations, has left a large section of the planet largely unexplored and unexploited. Anyone with a bit of land (eg UK and FI) far enough south gets dibs on Antarctica.

Our technology advances, and we become more practised in using it. As resources become harder to collect, making them more expensive, this then leads to previously uneconomical areas becoming economically valid for exploitation. It's all pretty much a balance between economics and engineering.

So now we are approaching a point when we might conceivably explore and exploit what is pretty much the last large, resource filled (we think) area on the planet, which could - if done well - bail out any of the struggling economies of the developed world, or catapult the developing economies into a dominant position.

We rely on the nations of S America to be at each other's throats to an extent - should they combine to grab everything we'll be on a very sticky wicket. The carriers could be useful for reinforcing - if we can fight off potential invaders for long enough for reinforcements to arrive - but I'd imagine it'd be rather better to have enough on the islands from the start to prevent invasion, and to have a plan in place that ensured further air and land assets could be delivered when necessary. I'd have thought a 'proper' fighter cover based on the FI with tanker support would allow for air and seaborne support rather better than a bunch of aging Harriers on a High Value Unit, as we used to call most carriers whilst directing Buccs etc against them in JMCs. I just don't see how the carriers are any better than a properly thought out, already in place, defence policy for the FI.

It seems to me that all the 'save the -----' stuff currently going on, whether about ships, aircraft, or bases tends to ignore what the 'asset' is meant to be doing, rather a lot of nostalgia is kicking in - I believe we need an MPA for example, it need not be Nimrod MRA4, equally we need to do certain jobs (like protect our interests in the FI) but that doesn't mean we have to have harrier or CV.

Even then, against a South American coalition, I doubt we could hold on. Consequently it's a political battle as much as anything.

Dave