South Atlantic - Standby Standby

[Flying_Padre]

As this is the season of good will to all men and Tony Blair is such a giving man... 1500 troops here etc.

How long will it be before we are off down to the South Atlantic again? <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1721000/1721201.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1721000/1721201.stm</a>

Festive greetings to all

[MarkD]

The way things are going in Argentina, best not to make such speculations eh? Nothing better to distract the punters than a good war, as Thatcher discovered in the 83 election.

[Suit]

MarkD

It should be Standown and gohome!

I think the Argentines will have learnt a lesson from the war of '82.
A deeply unpopular and out of touch Govt won, and got re-elected.
A severely dictatorial Junta lost, and got kicked out of office.

MPA should standown and closedown, it's a complete waste of resources and effort, all for diddly squat.

Suit

[The Mistress]

The devastating effect on the Spanish banks will have a knock-on effect on all major European banks. The advent of the Euro very shortly will only make matters worse.

We'll all end up paying for this - out of our pockets.

[fat albert]

TM - Eddie George seemed to think otherwise on the Today prog this AM. Even though UK banks have loans to the Argentinians his opinion was that banks had covered themselves fairly well by charging wopping interest rates as Argentina had such a poor "credit rating".

Ah, the joys of capitalism.

[Jackonicko]

Suit,

The lesson the Argies learned from '82 was that losing, humiliatingly, was electorally difficult. Recovering the Falklands remains an issue guaranteed to please most of them.

The appeal of military adventurism to distract from internal problems has always been high, and I wouldn't be sanguine that the idea hasn't at least crossed some minds.

Wonder if it's an imaginary campaign they all study at their staff college? Wonder if there's a plan waiting to be dusted off.

I'd have thought that a high profile short notice Saif Sareea type exercise down there might be a prodent demonstration/deterrent, if we can afford it!

PS: Did you know that Menem had his VIP helo named Islas Malvinas?

[The Mistress]

Fat Albert - may I call you that?

Let's wait and see. I'll keep an eye on Hong Kong markets via the FT. I'm no supporter of the Euro anyway and as Princess Tony has exchanged some of our gold reserves for this Monopoly money we can't help but be affected by it's market fluctuations. We already have Euro-creep in the wilds of Oxon - supermarket trolleys with slots for £1 AND Euro coins and still NO Referendum in sight. Ah well, it'll soon be Christmas.

Spain, Portugal and Brazil already affected by the crisis.

[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: The Mistress ]</p>

[Sven Sixtoo]

And have you seen whats happened to the SA Rand? It fell through the floor last year - now its digging another big hole.

[West Coast]

What is the status of the UK's sea lift capability? Generally speaking is the logistical support available to mount another operation to the islands?

[Chinese Vic]

Jacko,
I hate to sound disparaging, but do you really think we have the necessary funds/equipment/strat lift (sea or air) or personnel that aren't already deployed elsewhere to carry out an exercise in the South Atlantic?
Not one to preach, but don't the current commitments in Afghanistan, Iraq (N and S) Bosnia and Kosovo, Sierra Leone, the Falklands, NI etc etc take us beyond the remit of SDR? (One medium-scale warfighting plus one small scale peacekeeping operation as I recall.) SSII took years to plan - a criticism in itself - and stripped the RAF (can't speak for the Green/Dark Blue community) bare of most of its critical components.
Every single aircraft type in our inventory is commited to one operation or another - there is no more 'fat' in the system.
I know that this is slightly off topic but hear me out. Without significant extra funding for better/more equipment (tornado engines, anyone?) coupled with investment in people, welfare, support, retention issues and all the other subjects that come up on these boards so often, we will soon have no capability to back up El Presidente's greater schemes.
Investment in this case does not mean signing up to some meaningless paperwork exercise (IIP is a good case in point) but how about:
1. Remunerating properly those of us that spend so much time rushing from one detachment to another.
2. If our future is to deploy to austere bases, then commit money and effort into establishing those units properly - to wit the huge hit on morale at Seeb when the US tented city grew up in the period of a week...with better facilities than the UK had established over a period of months.
3. Properly fund equipment programmes - constantly having to cope with u/s, poor-quality or insufficient equipment does nobody any good. (Deploy to the desert in Soldier 95 DPM as we can't afford any more Desert gear...!)
4. Sensible retention packages for those personnel areas we are short in - my Branch is currently 20% below the Crisis Manpower Requirement to be able to carry out our war role. Apparently we can't afford to train any more than the barest minimum during the financial year. The aircrew issues are already well discussed, so I won't go into them here.
5. The AT fleet is up against the buffers...more C-17s/C-130s plus additional crews, and purchase of cheap, economical passenger AT would help immensely. It takes over a day to get back to the UK from the desert - either in a VC-10 or a C-130 because we don't have enough crews and stop in either Ali Al Salem or Akrotiri. In pure financial terms, how many 'man-days' does that waste?

There are lots more fixes that could be employed but the point of my argument is really aimed at those in charge.
If you want us to be able to fly the flag and support your policies around the world, Mr Blair - then fund us properly and increase our actual capability so we can.

Sabre rattling is all very well, but I think you'll find that if you look closely, that the cupboard is in fact bare.
Rant over.

CV

[ 22 December 2001: Message edited by: Chinese Vic ]

[ 22 December 2001: Message edited by: Chinese Vic ]</p>

[Flatus Veteranus]

I've been reading the press closely for several weeks and must have been missing something. Are the RAF's AD, GR and MP assets so heavily tasked in Afghanistan and the Balkans than none could be spared to defend the Falklands? I expect the charter companies would be delighted to provide transport aircraft (that's what MPA's orignal concept of operations was based on). AAR, as usual, might be the limiting factor, but surely a way could be found to get around that?

I don't think the Argies would be stupid enough to try it again; but lets not encourage them with all this defeatist talk. That's how it all started 20 years ago, with some diplomat in BA telling the Argies that we could not afford to defend the Malvinas.

[Chinese Vic]

I'm sorry FV but I have to disagree with you. The F3 and GR fleets are both committed to the Iraqi AOR, and also have both just been participating in SSII. Not much of a commitment out of all our squadrons you might say, but the drain on resources in so many directions doesn't exactly leave us with much to offer. Expeditionary ops costs more than money - the toll on the minimal resources we have is slightly less visible, that's all.
Also, with a significant proportion of HM's finest naval flotilla also on active duty where do you propose to get the RN assets from? I don't think I have a defeatist attitude, just realistic in that we are trying to punch above our weight. We aren't funded to sustain ops in so many places and to consider adding another major ex to the one that has just taken place might be that one bridge too far IMHO. In '82 we had many more sqns, regiments and ships than we have now - but think back to the size of the deployment required at the time. We are now much reduced in numbers and yet are committed to ops more than ever. Perhaps it's because we are seen to cope every time that continue to be under-resourced. I normally agree with what you have to say, FV, and respect your opinions but I honestly don't believe the flex is there to sustain an Ex in the SA.

regards

CV

[Gypsy]

MarkD - agree with you - 'divert attention from trouble at home with a good war'.

82 was a good example of that - on both sides!

[BEagle]

Chinese Vic is 1000% correct. Our underfunded, inadequately manned and grossly overstretched forces with their ageing and unreliable aircraft wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of doing anything meaningful to increase the defence of the Islas Malvinas - and without in-theatre air dominance any shipborne reinforcement would be suicidal.

Besides, now that there is known to be no oil, since mad Maggie's plan to rape Antarctica of mineral wealth was thwarted by the rest of the world - and even trust-me-Tone surely realising that there are no diamonds down there, isn't it high time that Mission Creep Malvinas was, in fact, scaled down, not up??

[ 23 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[Talking Radalt]

I remember chatting a US squaddie who said in terms of funding and having concerns about equipment/morale/training/manning etc taken seriously, the best thing to ever happen was live TV coverage of the fall of Saigon! (Cue chorus of "We told you so..." from US Forces)
Pretty drastic way to prove a point but I guess desperate times call for desperate measures... <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[MarkD]

Hmmm... it could turn out that the Navy might have a big say, or at least the sub force - except with Tomahawk rather than Mark 8**.

Time for Superb to make a "courtesy call" to Simonstown or Ascension, with suitable notice to the journos...

[Flatus Veteranus]

I agree with what BEagle and others say about the value of Las Malvinas to the UK; and I agreed with you back in 82 and was opposed, like many thinking servcemen, to CORPORATE until Maggie made the decision to go ahead (which seemed to me an inexcusable gamble). Then it was "heads down" and get on with it.

The fact is that, having spent all that blood and treasure back in the early 80s on liberating the islands; and then having invested (what was it - £250,000,000?) on a strategic airfield to obviate any need to do it all again, I do not think any government could survive "losing" them again. Imagine what The Sun would make of that!

In the hierarchy of Defence Priorities, the Falklands must rate close behind the UK homeland, and a long way ahead of charades such as the Balkans. The war against Terrorism, of course, counts as part of the defence of UK, but should that include policing the Iraqi "No Fly zones"? Not in my book, but I don't know much about it.

Last time round, the thought was that an opposed landing without air superiority was a highly risky enterprise and should not have been necessary if a proper airfield had been available capable of supporting operations by F4s, Buccaneers, Nimrod MR and (ha! Ha!) Nimrod AEW. A small army garrison was all that was needed, provided it could be reinforced within a relatively few days from the UK. Even in those days the RAF strat transport force of VC10s would not have been able to get more than the spearhead into theatre in a realistic timescale, so the use of charter aircraft was envisaged from the outset. In fact the runway and hangar were sized to meet the requirements of a particular civil operator, and not the RAF. (Indeed, the Air Force Department could not have been more indifferent until a fairly late stage, but that is another story).

A Merry Christmas to all having to spend it at MPA (originally named "March Ridge" by the Sappers, who were going to have to build it). Be aware that, if it had had to be funded out of the air force budget, you would probably be in portakabins, or even under canvas. Luckily, even the Army's taste for "real soldiering" dies quickly once the bullets stop flying!. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">