Falklands anyone?

[Selatar]

Looks like a few more folks heading south. SDSR manoeuvring, because we now have some Army capacity post Herrick or are the Argies ramping it up?

Today's Telegraph:
11:26PM GMT 23 Mar 2015
Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, will announce plans to bolster the Falkland Islands garrison

Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, will announce plans to bolster the Falkland Islands garrison amid fears of a renewed threat from Argentina.

The south American nation is feared to be increasing military expenditure, according to reports. Senior ministers in the country have also made a series of increasingly aggressive statements about the islands in recent years.

A Whitehall source told the Sun newspaper: "The Defence Secretary's decision reflects our operational judgments and the heightened nature of the threat."

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence added: "There is a defence review and an announcement will be made about it. There will be a full statement by Michael Fallon."

[stilton]

Perhaps telling them you're 'fearful of their military expenditure' is not the best tactic ?


If they cause any more problems just drop a cruise missile on their military headquarters.


You can still afford to use ONE of those can't you ?

[pbeardmore]

"During the peaceful transition, some private homes were regretfully damaged. The new government has rehoused families within military barracks as a short term solution where they will be warmly received."

[Martin the Martian]

According to the Sun, Argentina is receiving twelve Su-24s from Russia, 20 Mirage F.1s from Spain and 18 ex-Israeli Kfirs. I'm surprised they forgot to mention the Brazilian Gripens, but they do illustrate it with a nice photo of a Flanker.

And it's in the Sun, so it MUST be true.

[ImageGear]

URGENT QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS

12.30pm

Urgent Questions (if any)

Ministerial Statements, including on Falkland Islands Defence Review and on Cyber Security

[Wyler]

Election looming.....Army cuts...Defence Spending...Blah Blah Blah.

Nothing to see here, move along please.

[ImageGear]

Irrespective of whether an election is looming or not, things are not standing still down South.

Britain is set to boost ​its defences in the Falklands amid claims Russian president Vladimir Putin is helping Argentina re-arm.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon is due to tell MPs on Tuesday that the Government is beefing-up the UK’s presence on the islands.

But critics will question the timing of the expected announcement just six weeks before the general election and as David Cameron faces intense pressure over his failure to commit to spending two per cent of national income on defence - a key Nato benchmark.

The move comes three months after it was claimed the Kremlin and Argentina had struck a deal for Russia to supply long-range bombers to the Argentinian air force.

The deal was said to involve Moscow lending 12 Sukhoi Su-24 supersonic, all-weather attack aircraft.

Military experts have warned five years of Tory armed forces cuts have left the islands in the South Atlantic vulnerable to attack - just like 33 years ago when General Galtieri’s Junta launched an invasion.


Now I'm not a Mirror reader but this does not appear to be outside the realms of sanity.

Putin's Falklands threat: Britain to boost defences amid claims Russia is arming Argentinian army - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/putins-falklands-threat-britain-boost-5388607)

Imagegear

[pohm1]

Now I'm not a Mirror reader...

That's what they all say;)

P1

[Bannock]

During a BBC live broadcast from number 10 this morning whilst discussing an unrelated topic, MR Fallon was observed legging it down Downing street and into the PMs gaff.

Top Tip

"Dont run sir , you will panic the men !"

[dctyke]

With the Germany withdrawl and post afghan there are a lot more soldiers in uk twiddling their thumbs. Lots of spare accommodation in FI plus saves money on training and outward bound anywhere else abroad. A win win for Dave and his chums!

[Hamish 123]

I thought Argentina was virtually bankrupt? How can they afford to run an increased FJ force, even if they're acquiring the jets at knock down prices?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

They can't. It is political posturing by all involved.

[pohm1]

Which, if I recall correctly, was the cause of the problem in 1982? (Forgive me if it wasn't, I was only 12!)

P1

[Cows getting bigger]

Hamish - You obviously haven't been to an Argentinian steak house. :)

[Willard Whyte]

I thought Argentina was virtually bankrupt? How can they afford to run an increased FJ force, even if they're acquiring the jets at knock down prices?

Pretty sure Putin would be happy to subsidise any destabilising action in and around the FI.

Wonder how long it will be 'til a Bear overflies the islands.

[Valiantone]

Ah yes....


The Sun, who use a picture of an Su-27, and a top GA of an Su-22 in the paper but use a pic of an Su-24 on the website and called it an Su-30....


The Sun a credible news(toilet)paper..... No wonder the country has no clue about Defence.


Stick to page 3, its about the only thing they can get right




V1

[Heathrow Harry]

"Wonder how long it will be 'til a Bear overflies the islands"

Why bother - everything is parked in the same places most of the time and you can see that from the weekly LAN Chile flight.....................

[SAMXXV]

Sanctions on Russia possibly biting hard now? Putin is getting severely pxxxed off with the stranglehold on Russian finances with the concurrent plummeting of oil/gas prices. He has probably decided to create further problems for the UK in us deciding whether to spend vast amounts of defence cash on the Falklands. He is, of course pushing the US/Europe on all fronts at present.


Where is the Islamic State buying it's weaponry from? - From states funnelling Russian weapons DIRECTLY from Russia....


Putin isn't stupid. The aircraft he is selling to Argentina are not fitted with state of the art avionics & without using well trained Russian aircrew able to use modern weapons, the platforms are worthless.


Sadly, Britain cannot defend the Falklands anymore than it can defend the UK mainland anymore, without the use of our submarine launched nuclear deterrent. We have no anti-submarine defences except from short range (fleet range) helicopters & ASW vessels. Etc. Etc.


The military pratts that oversee our defences have let this country down badly. I remember undertaking TLP at Florrenes, Belgium in 1991 during the Florrenes Taceval, when the Belgian Air Force actually had to airlift & "Borrow" Air to Air missiles from Holland for their F16's to pass the Taceval!


Lets hear what the experts on here would suggest that are capable to defend the Falklands?


Let me suggest our best effort given our pathetic assets:


2 AWACS to give 24/7 coverage (5 x Crews).


2 MPA anti-submarine a/c equipped with nuclear depth charges (5 x Crews)


A full Squadron (14 a/c ) of typhoons


A full squadron of medium/long range Surface to Air missiles - which the UK does not have since getting rid of Bloodhound Mk II.


My personal view is that as reported today, Russia can mobilise over 150,000 (conscripted) troops within 72 hours yet the West can do bugger all is showing that Western Governments don't seem to worry about the Russian threat.


The USA & EU have pushed Russia to the limit with financial sanctions & sooner rather than later Russia will push across the Western European Plain with an armoured push.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Which, if I recall correctly, was the cause of the problem in 1982?

The Argies basically still have the same aeroplanes, but fewer and much worse serviceability. You can hear the Tiffie pilots thinking "Oh, please, pretty pleeeze, have a go! I so want to be an ace in an hour"

[Martin the Martian]

No.1310 Flight going back south again then...

[Basil]

Russia will push across the Western European Plain with an armoured push.
Do we still have tactical nukes, preferably with enhanced radiation?

[SAMXXV]

I forgot to say (deliberately) that we have no more MPA a/c with US tactical nuclear depth charges,
as you all know, but politicians & general public don't.
With our current QRA (Listen in to Cameron/Millibands ignorance et al) with the limited fuel range of Typhoon the UK could not cope with an UNPREMEDITATED attack of much more than 8 antiquated Bears, capable between them of launching ASM,s that would decimate ALL of the UK's defence airfields & a few major cities.


Don't mean to rain on anybodies parade but things are not looking good in Europe anymore because of politicians who have never had to have a real job & are refusing to appoint ex-military commanders for defence jobs. I hardly blame them as IMHO above Air Commodore rank they have lost touch with reality.


I"ll toss an other grenade into PPrune; (as a VERY experienced CW/X band SAM operator/trainer), the Malaysian Airlines disaster over Ukraine IMHO was a result of a Russian BUK operator firing on a Ukrainian SUKHOI 25 that was circling the airliner- which we DO know occurred. The operator did not realize that his search radar had switched lock (very easy to do without realizing) from the SU25 to the airliner & IF he realised the change of lock, he could do nothing about it
with limitations of the BUK system....

[Tourist]

SAM

Am I going to have to remind you of what happened last time you spouted apocalyptic nonsense on here?

You looked stupid, and then refused to honour the deal.

Remember the deal where you promised to leave the site if you were wrong and I promised to leave if I was?

I'm sure, incidentally, that an experienced SAM operator might have some inkling as to the capability of an SU25 to circle a 777 in the cruise at altitude?

Here is a clue.
What is the max speed of an SU25
How high can it fly?

http://m.aviationweek.com/blog/how-su-25-can-shoot-down-faster-higher-flying-aircraft

[charliegolf]

What's an unpremeditated attack, exactly. I'm trying to visualise how such an attack would pan out in a pub.

CG

[Tourist]

I can only presume it's an attack they were not expecting.

Maybe they are just passing by and think "f@ck it. Let's just bomb them"

[melmothtw]

the Malaysian Airlines disaster over Ukraine IMHO was a result of a Russian BUK operator firing on a Ukrainian SUKHOI 25 that was circling the airliner- which we DO know occurred.

Tell me Sam, how does a ground attack aircraft with a service ceiling of 16,400 ft (with weapons - no point it being there without them) "circle' an airliner flying at 33,000 ft?

Edited to add: I see Tourist beat me to it, but the questions stands.

[SAMXXV]

Tourist; Quote:


I'm sure, incidentally, that an experienced SAM operator might have some inkling as to the capability of an SU25 to circle a 777 in the cruise at altitude?

Here is a clue.
What is the max speed of an SU25
How high can it fly?


The simple answer to the SAM operators question is "No idea & don't care because I have no time to react to my doubt"! I believe the SU 25 obtains Mach 0.82 with a ceiling of approx. 23,000 feet? So what is your point. other than trying to make me look stupid, stupid? The BUK operator (& he could have been a VERY experienced controller) locked on to the SU 25 (If indeed it was only a SU 25...). He fired & unbeknown to him his static fire control radar shifted to the greater engine rotary noise source (The Malaysian Airlines 4 Turbo jets). He would not have had a clue & even if he did, once launched, the missile was autonomous. There is no self destruct radio signal on these beasts! They guide onto the reflected signal of the ground based mother radar!


As I am some 20 years out of date with CW radar (but the radar spectrum has not & will never change - ever) perhaps somebody from the Wild Weasels or Ex-360 Sqn can educate Tourist.


How about Courtney Mil who although not being a back seater (Whoops, sorry, Weapons Operator) knows all about "A" Scope radar returns!

[melmothtw]

I believe the SU 25 obtains Mach 0.82 with a ceiling of approx. 23,000 feet?

The 777 obtains Mach 0.89 and was flying at 33,000 ft, so again, how does a ground attack aircraft with a service ceiling of 16,400 ft (with weapons - no point it being there without them) "circle' an airliner flying at 33,000 ft?

[Tourist]

Wow SAM, make up your mind.

One minute "we know" it was an SU25, and the next you are hinting that it might not be.....

To be fair, insane conspiracies are very difficult to keep straight when you are making them up on the fly. Perhaps if you kept some kind of "lunacy file system" it would help.

[Tourist]

What incidentally is a "engine rotary noise source"?

If you mean what I think you mean, do I become invisible to radar if I shut my engines down?

[Tourist]

I hesitate to ask this question, but, with a due sense of dread....
SAM, how many engines do you think a 777 has...?
....plus, how many turbojet engines?

[t7a]

'' He fired & unbeknown to him his static fire control radar shifted to the greater engine rotary noise source (The Malaysian Airlines 4 Turbo jets).''


He's obviously not aware that Malaysian 777s have noise suppression kits fitted as standard on the 4 engine versions!!!

[Tourist]

I'm having second thoughts. I don't want him to leave Pprune anymore. He is a welcome distraction from the horror on rumour and news section.

[SAMXXV]

If you were a Harrier, F4 or Jaguar or certainly a B52, yes, your radar cross section would be magically reduced to the point of (in the first 3 cases) only detectable with CW radar at approx. 6 Nm

[Rakshasa]

I... well....

Please be a comedy sock puppet.

[Rakshasa]

He's obviously not aware that Malaysian 777s have noise suppression kits fitted as standard on the 4 engine versions!!!

Yup, that second pair of engines run so quite and are so stealthy you can't see them! :E

[Tourist]

So is the engine a "source" of noise or a reflector?
How does a radar see noise?
If the missiles like hunting Turbojet engines, why did they go for the 777 which doesn't have them, unlike the SU25, which has two?
How does a static fire control radar shift?
Does it stop being a static fire control radar once it does?

[cornish-stormrider]

Yay
Sam is back

Treatment went well I presume?

They let you out early and then you started forgetting your meds??
And today you came up with more SWAG theories and decided to share....

Seeing as you are "the man" in "the know" can you please give me - by PM if you cannot share in public what ACTUALLY happened to the K129 and Azorian...

And somebody please order me a big forklift, I get the feeling I am going to be ordering a whole load of popcorn

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Sorry SAM, but it's election season so the standard and quantity of total b#llocks we are exposed to have risen tremendously - and some of us have flown the aircraft you are on about. You are going to have to Try Harder. ;)

[Heathrow Harry]

well to get away from the light relief I do think we could do with some longer range GA missiles in the Falklands....................

[charliegolf]

Maybe they are just passing by and think "f@ck it. Let's just bomb them"

Ha ha- where I grew up that's probably how the pub scenario would go too!

CG

[Big Pistons Forever]

I got into a lot of trouble as a Canadian Navy Midshipman during the first go. My request for Falklands OJT with the RN got passed to Naval HQ without any adults looking at it first. Their Lordships were not amused :O

[BEagle]

Is that SAMXXV person trying to discuss turbine modulations and their appearance on the (ancient) PD search radar display in fighters such as the F-4?

Or simply spouting utter bolleaux?

I'm disposed towards the latter.

[Willard Whyte]

"Wonder how long it will be 'til a Bear overflies the islands"

Why bother - everything is parked in the same places most of the time and you can see that from the weekly LAN Chile flight.....................

Well obviously no military reason. It would of course be a political act.

[Marcantilan]

Nice, an early April´s fool!

What´s next, martians invading Liverpool?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Doubt it. Their spacecraft would be up on bricks with the wheels nicked before they could say

"Take me to your.....oi! b@stards!!... no, not you, sorry. Can you take me to your nearest tyre shop?"

[Courtney Mil]

How about Courtney Mil who although not being a back seater (Whoops, sorry, Weapons Operator) knows all about "A" Scope radar returns!

Er, yeah. A Scope. Frequency against amplitude. Good for ECM. Gets in the way of targets on the left side of the scope. Helps show where MBC is. Later generation radars, good confirmation of where a target sits in terms of Vc. Even later generation radars, not displayed because it's processed more effectively.

If we're talking about turbine mods, I'm not sure if we are, that is processed by by other circuits now. Kind of NCTR, EID stuff.

Maybe we're talking target detection? I honestly don't know from the question. Done my best to answer. Happy to help more if there's a more specific question.

[Courtney Mil]

...oh, and welcome back. You've been gone for well over a year. Hope all is well.

[O-P]

SAM,


I heartily endorse CM's welcome, our village is now back to full strength!


O-P


Oh, can you explain the bit about CW and 6 NM again please, I thought there was a RADAR eqn that covered that based on physics?


CM,


I watched a FA2 video that tracked the AIM 120 fly-out on the A-scope and also as a TWS tgt. F'in impressive!


O-P

[CAW]

So was the statement finally made? Anything new?

Before Fallon´s speech I heard the Chinook Flight was to come back south after almost 10 ten years. Is that it? No E-3, no River-Joint... not even an extra pair of Typhs?

And that single deployment´s going to imply 20 million pounds a year to the british tax-payers?

Is not something wrong when a press headline forces governments to act in weird ways? Could it be that we´ll be reading in the papers something about weapons of mass destruction in some argentinean hide-out within five years? What would then be stated in the "Defense Review"?

[O-P]

CAW,


You live in a land where the government acts in 'weird ways', you tell us what the press thinks!


Please, tell us what your Defence review will give your armed forces? Will it be a bunch of crapped out leased SU 24s or some lifex Kfirs?

[CAW]

Regarding this particular topic it´s pretty obvious that the country run by the press head-lines is not Argentina.

I admit that there´s a chance that actually the british press (or the american for the matter) could be a branch of the Government... But History tends to show me otherwise.

As for the second question, I´ll surely dissapoint you: none of the above will be flying argentinean flags. Neither soon nor ever.

Again I tell you, the press lies to you. They just simplify things to an extreme that an alliance between russians, Yedis, Yodas and argentineans to recreate a proper scenario for Operation Corporate II -The Definite Challenge, will be their next headline.

Freedom of speech means that you can read whatever anyone puts out. But don´t forget that freedom of speech is firstly the freedom of the owner of the press to say whatever he wants. No proof, no real sources, no truth needed.

Just like this fantastic tale of the argentinean build-up that we read as a saga since a couple of year back.

[O-P]

CAW,


I have no idea what you have just blathered on about.


With the exception of the BBC, all the UK press is independently owned. The BBC is funded by the UK government, but controlled by an independent board.


How is the press in the former Spanish colony controlled?

[CAW]

My friend, I know my english is not that good and I apologize for that. If you want me to I can translate my previous post to spanish.

As for the press in the "former spanish colony" if that`s meant to be offensive (shall we refer to England as te former french britain? or the US as the former british colony?) it`s clearly private owned.

Just like in Britain or in the states the press happens to have economic interests which makes them act in -again- "weird ways". You might remember this:

"But beneath Murdoch's public meltdown lies a bigger problem, and it’s not confined to England... It’s about what happens when media corporations get too cozy with power — and government officials fail to challenge them."

Rupert Murdoch Scandal | Free Press (http://www.freepress.net/rupert-murdoch-scandal)

Or closely in time:

Brian Williams Takes Leave as NBC Anchor Amid Controversy

Brian Williams Takes Leave as NBC Anchor Amid Controversy - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-07/williams-says-he-ll-take-himself-off-broadcast-for-few-days)

It`s the press!! That`s all there is to this topic. Why is The Sun printing these fake-news... just beats me. I can assure you that`s not because it is seeking the truth. It`s more likely "modeling a truth" creating a "common sense" that forces the G`ment to act in ways that go beyond my capacity of speculation.

I wonder if it has something to do with this:

http://i59.tinypic.com/2rqkak1.jpg

David Cameron dismisses concerns over UK defence cuts - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31695082)

Cheers!!

[Red Line Entry]

CAW,

You are absolutely right to point out that, irrespective of ownership, a nation's press is not necessarily representative of its best qualities!

I would be interested in your prespective on the current national sentiment in Argentina. Would there be any significant support for military action to change the sovereignty of the islands?

[barnstormer1968]

Can I just point out that the stories about the Su 24s originated in Argentina some time ago.
I just thought I'd mention it as some posters appear to think it's a story from an agenda laden UK media.

It's also worth noting that many say the stories started on December 28th 2014 (CAW, you know the importance of that day) and that many Argentinians see the story as just a political joke that shouldn't be taken seriously.
It must also be noted that the Argentinian Government aren't saying the story is incorrect...........politicians and their self aggrandisement, they are the same the world over :)

[CAW]

Red Line Entry

There`s not a chance that the argentinean government could mount a military action against the british military garrison in the islands. There`s no political will to do so, there`s no military capacity to garantee a quick, swift victory, there`s no a single political party that speaks out loud about the need to solve the Malvinas issue by force.

There is a strong sentiment towards Malvinas but it doesn`t necessarily mean that argentineans demand military action to expel the british. It wasn`t like that back in 1982 and it`s not like that nowadays.

Barnstormer,

The SU24 story DID NOT ORIGINATE in Argentina. It was another one of those Sun Headlines. The buttom line of the supposed deal was so fantastic and unreal that I just can`t believe that serious informed people still believe it to be true.

In case you did not know when Argentina decided to get some russian equipment, payments were cashed in hard currency. Cows are no longer something that mean big economic revenues for the local economy not to mention that they are barely enough to deal with the local-yearly demand of meat for human consumption.

[melmothtw]

The SU24 story DID NOT ORIGINATE in Argentina. It was another one of those Sun Headlines. The buttom line of the supposed deal was so fantastic and unreal that I just can`t believe that serious informed people still believe it to be true.

It actually originated in the Express. The reporter doesn't actually appear to attribute his/her information to any particular source, and reading the article it could have come from Russia/Argentina/MOD.

Falkland Islands defence review after military deal between Russia and Argentina | UK | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/549006/Falkland-Islands-defence-review-after-military-deal-between-Russia-and-Argentina)

Although highly unlikely, the proposed deal is really not "so fantastic and unreal" to be discounted completely.

[Hempy]

Given the support shown to the Yanks (ops Telic, Herrick et. al.), even IF the Argies were prepared to bankrupt themselves for a crappy piece of dirt that really means nothing to anyone bar 'national pride', and even IF the UK couldn't meet said threat with superior force, surely good friends from across the ditch would step in and lend a hand. Wouldn't they? :ouch:

[Hangarshuffle]

Our own press are far from independent though is it? they all have their own agendas, and are very capable of whipping up hysteria for the masses, at their masters request (and at times I've fell for it, I admit it).
Recent UK Govt statements struck me as total cojones, spewed out because of the general election and they have to try and look hard.

[ricardian]

A cartoon (with English sub-titles) shown on Argentinian TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=819&v=VKkcTpCur7g

[Exnomad]

We have no aircraft carrier, no sea Harriers, no Vulcan. I belive we keep a couple of Aircraft at Stanley, but surely not enough to resist a serious attack.

[cornish-stormrider]

4x tiffin = "a couple of aircraft"

hmmm, no mention - as you would expect of a T boat (have we retired these?) or similar skulking about in the water.

[Courtney Mil]

We have no aircraft carrier, no sea Harriers, no Vulcan. I belive we keep a couple of Aircraft at Stanley, but surely not enough to resist a serious attack.

Couple? Stanley?

I believe Argentina keeps a couple of aircraft at Villa Reynolds, but surely not enough to mount a serious attack.

But they have no aircraft carrier, no Sea Harriers, no Vulcan. Nothing to match Typhoon.

[MPN11]

Perhaps the "need" for Garrison enhancements has now been revealed?

Oil and gas discovered off Falkland Islands - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11510866/Oil-and-gas-discovered-off-Falkland-Islands.html)

[Lonewolf_50]

The USA & EU have pushed Russia to the limit with financial sanctions & sooner rather than later Russia will push across the Western European Plain with an armoured push. Uh, what? Not sure if you kept up with current events, but the Red Army is considerably smaller than when that was a daily concern during the cold war.

Hempy:
Given the support shown to the Yanks (ops Telic, Herrick et. al.), even IF the Argies were prepared to bankrupt themselves for a crappy piece of dirt that really means nothing to anyone bar 'national pride', and even IF the UK couldn't meet said threat with superior force, surely good friends from across the ditch would step in and lend a hand. Wouldn't they? :ouch: That's a puzzle to me, and I think I'd bet the under given President Obama's well displayed ambivalence towards the UK.

[Bannock]

"even IF the Argies were prepared to bankrupt themselves for a crappy piece of dirt "

Its not the dirt they need to save their economy, its whats under it and around it.

As oil starts to flow and we start waving two fingers at them just watch as they work themeselves into a frenzy. Its not just the island that need their defence beefed up, I think its the cash cows moored off shore that do.

As Senor Belgrano knows only to well. Just one Sub can ruin your day.

[Hempy]

Bannock, you make excellent points sir. And so it begins again..

Chinooks to boost falklands defence | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3008933/Falklands-force-attack-fear-boost.html)

Premier, Falkland Oil & Gas and Rockhopper announce new discovery | Business | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/business/marketforceslive/2015/apr/02/premier-falkland-oi-gas-and-rockhopper-announce-oil-discovery)

If it's about black gold surely good friends will help.

[Lonewolf_50]

Bannock, you make excellent points sir. And so it begins again..

Chinooks to boost falklands defence | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3008933/Falklands-force-attack-fear-boost.html)

Premier, Falkland Oil & Gas and Rockhopper announce new discovery | Business | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/business/marketforceslive/2015/apr/02/premier-falkland-oi-gas-and-rockhopper-announce-oil-discovery)

If it's about black gold surely good friends will help.
What are the odds of that black gold leading to an Argie/Brit cooperative operation rather than bickering and rivalry?
Is there a way to get a win-win deal out of this?
(A quick look up shows me that in Argentina there are nine operating oil refineries.)

[Training Risky]

an Argie/Brit cooperative operation rather than bickering and rivalry

Sir - you forget the preening, macho, hot-headed latin mindset. If it came to it - they would argue with gravity and insist on their right to float since 1833...

[Marcantilan]

Sir - you forget the preening, macho, hot-headed latin mindset

Interesting...

So, your idea about the average Argentine is:

http://stockfresh.com/files/l/lunamarina/m/59/939223_stock-photo-bandit-mexican-revolver-mustache-gunman-sombrero.jpg

I will buy a poncho, the hat, two revolvers...and I still need the moustache.

[Bannock]

"I will buy a poncho, the hat, two revolvers...and I still need the moustache."

Can you afford it?
As for the moustache.. My copy of Viz profanasaurus talks of a Dirty Sanchez.

[CAW]

What are the odds of that black gold leading to an Argie/Brit cooperative operation rather than bickering and rivalry?
Is there a way to get a win-win deal out of this?
(A quick look up shows me that in Argentina there are nine operating oil refineries.)

Up to this day, chances of cooperation as you suggest are none.

A deal was reached between 24 and 25 years ago to cooperate in the south Atlantic, leaving "the main issue" to be discussed later. By 2006 that issue was yet to be address as the British governments had refused to even have a quick chat on the matter.

Argentina did comply with the secret agreements and did scale-down its military presence down south, even shutting down a few military air bases, a radar site and preventing training amphibious operations to be carried on in Tierra del Fuego. Unfortunatly, this did not mean -as sugested in Madrid- that within a few years (may be at the beggining of the new century), the sovereignty conversations would begin.

By 2006, after some 15 years of patience, Argentina´s Governments decided that it was pretty obvious that the British Administrations were not willing to fulfill the commitments they had agreed to. The papers signed during the ´90s were denounced and only a SAR agreement (as far as I know) is currently "the only cooperation" the two nations carry on in the area.

On the other hand, it should be said that oil exploration and drilling has been carried out around the islands for some 10 years now. Not a single drill-site has yet turned out to be economically profitable (and with oil prices shrinking world-wide, this is not likely to happen soon). Plans for a "large oil port" at San Carlos have been silently abandoned. The construction of a new deep water port at Port Williams (Watt Cove, actually) is said to be just about to be started... most likely it is going to be a proper instalation for large cruisers and fishing vessels which are a real, clear and sure way for the islanders and the FIG to get cash.

[Lonewolf_50]

Thanks, CAW. Sad to see that more progress had not been made.

Marcantilian, FWIW: that picture looks a lot more like a stereotypical rendering of a Mexican bandito than it does a Gaucho (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Gaucho1868b.jpg). The sombrero looks to be more of Mexican provenance, and the blanket / pancho looks a whole lot like a blanket my wife got in Progresso about ten years ago. :p

I am familiar in a very personal way with the social and cultural phenomenon of Latino (mostly Latin American and Mexican heritage) males and machismo attitudes, thanks to where I live and who I know and work with ... and who I go to church with. It is disturbing to see how often this is hand waved away by people who are not exposed to the reality.

It is not a myth, but also it is not universal.

[PeterGee]

I do not believe the Falkland Islanders (or the UK) ever agreed sovereignty was up for discussion. It never will be until such time as the islanders want it to be. It is their home, no one else's. Not ours or Argentinas. I really do not understand why Argentina, a country founded on a colonial past, does not get it. The sooner it does, the sooner real beneficial cooperation for all is possible.

[CAW]

The islanders are british citizens. The consideration for "their interests" does not mean that their will is to define the issue.

It´s clearly a british government´s fetish to put "the islanders" before anything else.

On the other hand... how about the interests of the argentinean population expeled from the islands (some of them even shot dead on the spot... Port Louis that is) back in 1833? There´s a name for that nowadays: ethnic cleansing. Of course, I wouldn´t get that far... but those are the roots to this conflict. It was about to be solved back in the ´70s, when locals were not even treated as british citizens, and the 82 war -in a fantastic twist of fate- changed it all.

The tree might not be giving us those red, sweet apples anymore, but it remains an apple-tree. And this conflict, as defined by the UN, has nothing to do with the islanders despite every excuse that might be put out for sale.

[melmothtw]

CAW, unless you're a native American I'd go easy on the accusations of 'ethic cleansing'.

[Jimlad1]

Ultimately though, Argentina could easily have gained the Falklands back in the 1980s but chose to create the circumstances whereby invading meant that there is no realistic way these discussions will ever occur.

Having met Falklanders and heard about the way they were treated by the Argentines during the invasion, they have no desire to ever be Argentinean. The way to make the Falklands want to be Argentine is to love bomb them, not make them out to be nasty little colonialists.

The UK will talk to Argentina the day the Falkand Islanders ask them to do so - until Argentina stops clinging to a very odd and inaccurate account of history, comes to terms with the reality that whatever may or may not have happened early in the 19th century is utterly irrelevant in the early 21st century, and tries to find a way to work with the Islands, and not cling to them as some kind of mascot or charm, then this will continue to be a running sore.

The problem is Argentinas to solve - treating the Islanders like idiots, not potential countrymen is not the way to do it.

[Courtney Mil]

CAW, the history of the islands is far more complex than just 1833. As I'm sure you wil know, The Falklands changed many time throughout their history. One single occupation getting on for two centuries ago is hardly relevant today. Unless, of course, you think your homeland should be returned to Spain, regardless of the inhabitants think? Or that ALL the former occupants of The Falklands through the centuries should also have a claim.

Even if your country had any kind of moral claim to the islands, you gave it up when you used violence to invade and capture them and used force to place the rightful population under enforced rule against their will and in contravention of International Law.

You lost the right to complain in the eyes of the world. Time to give this one up.

[CAW]

CAW, unless you're a native American I'd go easy on the accusations of 'ethic cleansing'.I do go easy on that.

Regarding the islands and the islanders, there never was a native population. The only ones that had been living for some decades were either argentineans or argentinean representatives (such as Louyis Vernet) by 1833.

The way to make the Falklands want to be Argentine is to love bomb them, not make them out to be nasty little colonialists. The problem is not what the islanders want or want not. The islanders can and surely would remain british citizens, their way of living and government would be respected, their tax policy should and could have a special status, no mandatory educational or religious imposition would be put upon them... simply because they are not the issue.

Foreigners have been coming to this country for centuries. And I´m talking centuries of Argentina as a country, not "the former spanish colony". They have always been and still are quite welcomed. They could choose what to do regarding their birth citizenship, but still, the Constitution of this country grants them the very same rights as for the native ones (except on the political participation). It could and would not be different for the islanders.

CAW, the history of the islands is far more complex than just 1833. As I'm sure you wil know, The Falklands changed many time throughout their history... Or that ALL the former occupants of The Falklands through the centuries should also have a claim.Former occupants? No permanet population was ever stablished there other than the spanish/argentinean at the very beggining of the XIX Century. French, British and other europeans never visit the island before the XVII Century... and of course they never stayed there. Diplomatic deals had stablished without doubt that the islands were to be a colonial spanish dependency by the late 1700. So that was the legal link that made the islands argentinean, not to mention that by 1833 they had been inhabited by people sent from the continental Argentina.

You lost the right to complain in the eyes of the world. Time to give this one up. To the eyes of the world, as every year appears more obvious, the fact that a UN Resolution of 1965 is still being ignored by one of the two countries it addresses to, makes clear how usefull Diplomacy can be.

Now that a deal appears to have been cut with Iran, may be a chance for concrete chats on the matter could flourish. In any case, I think it is a great lesson for all involved.

[Courtney Mil]

OK, CAW. History reume once again.

1764 French established Port Louis
1766 British established Port Egmont, France surrendered their claim to Spain
1770s squabbles between France, Britain and Spain about their various claims
1881 Spain quits the Falkland Islands
1886 Argentina claims all of Spain's former territories in the South Atlantic. On what basis?
1829 Argentina grant settlement rights to a German, even though Argentina have no rights to the island and have, thus far never settled them.
1831 USA kick him out and declare the "government" invalid
1832 Argentina continues to try to hold the islands, but is defeted by a mutiny; not an external force.
1833 Britain re-establish control of the islands.

But all of that is irrelevant, CAW. Since then, settlers have made The Falkland Islands their home. Many generations. Ask them who they wish to belong to. Or just invade by force again.

I admire your balls for stating your case in public, but it's a pathetic claim, well past its sell-by date. How about handing South America back to the nations that Spain conquered?

[Marcantilan]

Courtney, are you aware of the Nootka Sound Convention (UK - Spain 1790)?

The sixth article of the convention states:[/URL]
It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.
Look at the opinion of some (past) british leaders about the islands:



Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister (1834): "I have reviewed all the papers relating to the Falklands. Is unclear that we've ever been holders of the sovereignty of these islands."



Sidney Spicer, head of the Americas Department at the Foreign Office in 1910 "... the Argentine government's attitude is not entirely unjustified and our action has been somewhat despotic"



R. Campbell, assistant secretary of the Foreign Office (1911): "Who had the best right while we are attaching the islands. I think the government of Buenos Aires [...] We can not easily make a good claim and we have done a wisely effort to avoid discussing the issue in Argentina. "



Sir Malcolm A.Robertson, the British ambassador in Buenos Aires in 1928[URL="http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/1928&rurl=translate.google.com.ar&usg=ALkJrhjEVG9lqUgUPppqjbLX749Reg3eRA"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#cite_note-nootka-81) "Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands in any way are unfounded" and insisted in another document that "English case is not strong enough to face a public controversy."



George Fitzmaurice, counsel to the British Foreign Office in 1936: (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936&rurl=translate.google.com.ar&usg=ALkJrhgSacF9F3XE1_t95rLKkcYtkXY_Qw) "Our case has a certain fragility" and advised it finally came: "Sitting on the islands hard to avoid discussing, in a policy to drop the case."



John Troutbeck, a senior British Foreign Office in 1936: "... our taking of the Falkland Islands in 1833 [...] was so arbitrary that it is not so easy to explain our position without showing us themselves as international outlaws. "

Or ask the Foreign Office about the S17111 (AS – 5728/311/2) document.

Or, for a different opinion, read this column in The Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/expat/t...the-falklands/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/expat/tessamayes/10137786/the-day-the-queen-was-asked-to-hand-over-the-falklands/)

Is a complex matter, after all.

Happy Easter to all.

[taxydual]

Ozy

Perhaps bad taste, if I may presume.

[flash8]

Perhaps bad taste, if I may presume.

Bad taste possibly, tacky definitely.

[NickPilot]

And this is 2015 when the current wishes of the people seems to have overridden statements made by people a hundred or more years ago in most of the world. So how about if someone actually asks the Falkland Islanders what they would wish to be?

Oh that's right…that actually happened. And three of them don't want to be British. Seems Argentina has a case… :ugh:

[[email protected]]

The problem is not what the islanders want or want not. The islanders can and surely would remain british citizens, their way of living and government would be respected, their tax policy should and could have a special status, no mandatory educational or religious imposition would be put upon them... simply because they are not the issue. and why exactly would anyone trust a country that 'disappeared' almost 30.000 of its own people in very recent history.

The Argentine economy has been rocky for many years and its politics are complicated and divisive - I have relatives (Argentine nationals) who moved out of Argentina because the country is so unstable.

All the Falklands mean to Argentina is money and the saving of face (that is where the Latin mentality has its flaw).

I believe there is an island in the River Plate that used to belong to Uruguay until Argentina bullied them out of it in exchange for a less important one further up the river - perhaps they could give that back before demanding the return of the Falklands.

[ORAC]

Perhaps they'll give Patagonia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert)back to the natives there before working their way back to previous territorial issues? :hmm:

[hunterboy]

It seems the UK didn't pay much heed to the wishes of the former inhabitants of Diego Garcia. One does get the impression that the UK government does make stuff up as it goes along. If it is about the oil and gas, why not just say so?

[denachtenmai]

If it is about the oil and gas, why not just say so?

Bit disingenuous there hunterboy, seeing that the discovery has only just been announced, :=
Although, to be honest, it had been predicted.
Regards, Den.

[Bigbux]

Bit disingenuous there hunterboy, seeing that the discovery has only just been announced, :=
Although, to be honest, it had been predicted.
Regards, Den.

http://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-governance/relationship-with-argentina/

And then there is the small matter of those who live there, were born there or know no other home than the Falklands/Malvinas. It is unlawful to make people stateless and the Kirchner administration's rhetoric, coupled with the actions of a previous Argentinian administration does not leave much to the imagination about the likely treatment of the Falkland Islanders under Argentinian rule.

The Falkland Islands Government has established self sufficiency for everything except defence and the Kirchner administration is doing all it can to destabilise that. In normal circumstances, that would be that - in time a more reasonable Argentinian Government would emerge and co-opertion could continue.

Unfortunately, we are in the midst of some quite extraordinary change - and change that Russia is playing a major hand in bringing about. Russian defence doctrine uses the stoking of of tensions as a means of warfare and I believe we will be seeing much more 'encouragement' being passed Argentina's way courtesy Mr Putin.

On the positive side - makes the case for some serious re-equipping much stronger - and with some of the new equipment on the horizon and better interoperability we may yet end up with something quite credible.

[teeteringhead]

their way of living and government would be respected, Yeah right. IIRC in '82 they were made to drive on the right of the road (rather than in the middle as they traditionally did!! ;))

How is that "respecting their way of living" .......

And is not "their way of government" err ...... as a British Overseas Territory under HMQ (Gawd Bless 'Er!)

[Basil]

Re the replies to Ozy: I do not think his posting is 'Bad taste' or 'Tacky' at all.
If CFK will lay off perhaps we will consider doing so; until then, suck it up, lady.

In the nineties, I was detached to BA flying with Argentinian CC and a very agreeable group of ladies and gentlemen they were. Pity about their leader.

[Courtney Mil]

CAW, Marcantilan,

You are just dragging up the same old crap once again. For me the bottom lines are these two simple points.

The folk that live there (and have done for generations) don't want you on your land. You don't have a great record on respecting their wishes and I doubt that will change - otherwise you wouldn't block ships heading to or from The Falklands. Right?

You have already proved that you have insufficient reasoned argument for your claim on The Falklands. Otherwise, why would you resort to starting a War (33 years ago) that cost hundreds of lives?

And here's a bonus for you. The Falkland Islands are British by the democratic will of all but three of the locals. And Britain will defend that right.

Happy Easter.

[Marcantilan]

Courtney,

First of all, I was six in 1982 and, surely, I didn´t start any war. Or, at least, I don´t remember starting any.

Anyway, I keep posting my "crap". The UN considers paramount the "interests", not the "wishes" of the islanders (UN Resolution 2065).

In any case, "insufficient reasoned argument" was not the case. Or all Latin America, 54 African countries (Argentina celebrates Africa?s 54 countries support for Malvinas sovereignty ? MercoPress (http://en.mercopress.com/2013/02/25/argentina-celebrates-africa-s-54-countries-support-for-malvinas-sovereignty)), China, Russia and others were totally wrong?

Happy Easter!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

UN Charter
Article 1

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

The over-riding principle is that the best judge of the interests of the Falkland Islanders is... the Falkland Islanders.

http://www.phantomreunion.talktalk.net/images/1435/1435button500.png

http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/home/twamoran/urbanghostsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/panavia-tornado-f3-falklands.jpg

Or all Latin America, 54 African countries (Argentina celebrates Africa?s 54 countries support for Malvinas sovereignty ? MercoPress), China, Russia and others were totally wrong?

Yes.

In my brief time in the Upland Goose, Argentina was mentioned once by an Islander, in a sentence where the other words were "can f#ck right off"

[Training Risky]

Anyway, I keep posting my "crap". The UN considers paramount the "interests", not the "wishes" of the islanders (UN Resolution 2065).

In any case, "insufficient reasoned argument" was not the case. Or all Latin America, 54 African countries (Argentina celebrates Africa?s 54 countries support for Malvinas sovereignty ? MercoPress), China, Russia and others were totally wrong?



Ha Ha Marcantilan...great way to shoot your own argument with your selected UN-fan club of countries with absolutely NO respect for international law!

Mentioning that lot is like calling Gary Glitter as a character witness for the defence in a rape case.

We all know the UN has no use whatsoever beyond feeding and immunising poor kids in the 3rd world. Resolutions calling for peace and self-determination for nations did nothing for Tibet, Taiwan...Iraq (!)

[Marcantilan]

Yep, that´s ok. The world is wrong, the UK is right. The UN is wrong also, or useless. I forgot Hillary Clinton, she is wrong too.

But you could re read what I posted supra...or the Duke of Wellington was a bad example for kids too?

In my opinion, it is a complex matter, just showing a F3 pic (and Thypoons were now down south...), a couple of insults and so on is a sign that the problem is not really understood.

And no, I don´t support Galtieri and neither the current Argentine government.

[rh200]

There are fundamental problems with a few issues.

When we say, we have "x" amount of countries supporting this cause, what does it mean? Well it doesn't mean anything in particular, as it has been shown, most countries will support whatever they think is in their self interest. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. There are a multitude of issues in the world which demonstrate that phenomena.

The UN supports whats best for the people, not the peoples wishes?:ugh:Now there's a recipe for disaster. Who the F#$k made them god, and decided they know whats best for the people. I certainly wouldn't want that mob of muppet's having to decide whats best for me. Using that logic they would have decided that Ukraine should be a sovereign part of Russia.

[CAW]

There are fundamental problems with a few issues.

Who the F#$k made them god, and decided they know whats best for the people.

Well... The UN was an American invention, which Winston didn´t see as bad. You may very well find within the english speaking community of this planet why the UN became GOD, and why it can decide what´s best for people...

I certainly wouldn't want that mob of muppet's having to decide whats best for me. Using that logic they would have decided that Ukraine should be a sovereign part of Russia.

Again, the UN desitions did not sound that bad back in time for Desert Storm, or Somalia, or Iraqui Freedom... or whatever the name giving to save those poor afghans some time ago.

Double standar, my friend: when it comes your way UN´s always gonna be fine. When it asks you to re-start conversations over some way away south atlantic islands they´re just a mob of puppets, decided to support a dictatorship that ended 32 years ago...

Just to get back to normal, grown ups conversation, ever heard of the Aland Island Case?

[seafire6b]

CAW

Just to get back to normal, grown ups conversationPerhaps a reasonable start to adult dialogue would be a fulsome and heartfelt apology from Argentina, in respect of the 1982 invasion? Instead of as currently, passing that action off with the zeal of a crusade, complete with the numerous public politico-military rallies led by CFK and her honchos?

That's despite the ill-advised episode causing the loss of almost one thousand young men's lives, the overwhelming majority of whom would have preferred not to be there. If these regular "road show" Argentine gatherings are really to mark the memories of those who fell, then perhaps subdued acts of solemn respect and remembrance would be much more appropriate.

If on the other hand, the fact that 33 years has passed now makes it too late for such an apology, isn't it also too late for Argentina to attempt turning the clock back almost 200 - one hundred & eighty two to be precise - years? Is it not yet time to just move on, live and let live?

The Falkland Islanders have never presented any threat whatsoever to Argentina, they're quite happy to simply jog along exactly as they are.

[rh200]

Double standar, my friend: when it comes your way UN´s always gonna be fine. When it asks you to re-start conversations over some way away south atlantic islands they´re just a mob of puppets, decided to support a dictatorship that ended 32 years ago...

Umm actually, I don't give a #$% even when they back our decisions, if I had my way we would pull out of a lot of UN conventions. That said, it might evolve into something in a couple of hundred years, if we last that long.

Now we can go back and forth saying you did this wrong in the past, hence it entitled us to do this, but when does it end.

The case of the Falklands is the local people who have been there for generations, don't want to be Argentinian. From their moral viewpoint its all that matters. Maybe Argentina should concentrate becoming a country they wouldn't mind being part of.

So it comes down to two reasons that Argentina wants them, economic or nationalism. If its nationalism, then nobody really can claim the high ground, if its economic, I understand, but you really need to find a legal way to obtain them.