Coming up on Sky News at 1330 10 Nov

[BEagle]

The signatories to today's 'Harrier' letter in The Times are expected to be on Sky News today at 1330.....

Madness to scrap the Harrier force and to decommission the Ark Royal!!

[ORAC]

Equally mad is the option they have put forward of scrapping 8 sqns of GR4s, with an OSD of 2025, to keep 3 sqns of GR7/9 with an OSD of 2018 and incapable of supporting the present AFG and NATO commitments.

[BillHicksRules]

ORAC,

There you go bringing logic to the table again.

That will never do!!

Cheers

BHR

[BEagle]

Hmmmm, Sky rather over-hyped their promotion of this piece.

Nevertheless, some highly sound views from Maj Gen Thompson!

[Saintsman]

Equally mad is the option they have put forward of scrapping 8 sqns of GR4s, with an OSD of 2025, to keep 3 sqns of GR7/9 with an OSD of 2018 and incapable of supporting the present AFG and NATO commitments.


But we still have wider commitments, particularly the Falklands and whilst the prospects of huge oil reserves remain (and the revenue that it will bring in) it would seem to be prudent that we have the means of keeping it secure.

I would be fairly confident that there will be an Argentinian plan* developed to invade again once they are sure that the UK does not have the means to retake them. Once in, they would be much harder to remove than in 1982 (if at all).



*emphasis on 'plan'

[Pontius Navigator]

Saintsman, have you not noticed the airfield with its hardened shelters etc?

I know that hardened shelters are an obsolete defence against a modern air force with PGMs and local air superiority. To gain local air superiority over a battlefield 400 miles away when it is being contested with a first rate AD is not easy.

Even a sneak attack is unlikely to neutralise Mount Pleasant.

[gashman]

Per square mile, the Falklands is probably the most well defended part of the UK. The point made that it would be extrememly difficult to displace a dug in force is completely valid. The UK are more than dug in. If you want to, imagine the islands as the World's biggest aircraft carrier sat at anchor.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Per square mile, the Falklands is probably the most well defended part of the UK. The point made that it would be extrememly difficult to displace a dug in force is completely valid. The UK are more than dug in. If you want to, imagine the islands as the World's biggest aircraft carrier sat at anchor.

Should that not read

"The worlds biggest aircraft carrier sat at anchor with a variety of working aircraft onboard that are more than capable of holding their own in the rather silly scenario being mooted here" :ok:

[ORAC]

The point constantly made is that the Falklands War was a desparately close run thing. The RN were lucky that the Argentine bomb fuzing was screwed up and that the SHAR did so well.

The RN is now far, far weaker, the numer of carriers is far, far fewer and the SHAR is no longer is service. It can also be expected the Argentine forces will also have learned how to fuze and target.

If the Argentine forces ever manage to take the Falklands, and MPA, we stand no chance of taking them back a second time, even if JSF was kept along with Ark Royal.

If there were the extra funds available, and a serious threat, then the money would be far more sensibly spent in adding to the defences, not on offences forces with no chance of success.

That the retired admirals trot out this defence shows how weak their case is, and how easily disproved. Sadly, it does absolute no good to, and positive harm, to the making the case to retain both the GR4 and GR7/9 fleets.

[BOAC]

Is it not, in all probability, that a decision has been taken to 'cast off HMS Falklands' in due time?

[green granite]

IIRC the Argentinians offered a hand over/lease back deal a while ago, but I suspect the stumbling block is oil, it's associated drilling rights and revenue.

[Ronald Reagan]

IF Argentina is ever foolish enough to attack the Falklands one must keep in mind we are a nuclear power. The chances of our leaders having the guts to resort to that is unlikely. BUT if we so desired we could remove Argentina, its cities and military bases from existance! A simple phone call to them saying withdraw your forces within 12 hours or we launch!
Lets hope it never comes to another conflict but if one does happen we have the ability to win it should we desire it enough!

[Neptunus Rex]

"Ronald Reagan"

Troll of the month award - and it's only the 10th!

[Biggus]

With some balls, a little bit of luck, and some secrecy, taking the Falklands in the face of 4 Typhoons (only 4 because of the secrecy) is not difficult.

I don't intend to divulge how I would go about it on here (no doubt many people who believe it is "fortress Falklands" will flame me for not doing so!) for obvious reasons, but I believe it is a practical proposition for a bold regime.

The idea that the Falklands is the most defended part of the UK may well be true - but simply highlights how badly defended most of the UK is!

Given the possibility of massive oil reserves in the area, which could well form the foundation of UKs' economy for the next 50 years, I think we should seriously invest in the defence of the Falklands - THOUGH I PERSONALLY AM NOT USING THIS AS A JUSTIFICATION TO RETAIN THE HARRIER.

I appreciate that Argentinas maritime landing capability is considerably smaller now than it was in 1982, but where there is a will, there is a way....

[Ronald Reagan]

Why don't we keep a squadron of Typhoons there. I would think 12 jets should be enough to keep them well defended and that number could be increased IF tentions were raised. Am I correct in thinking in the mid to late 1980s we had a full squadron of Phantoms there? Or has it always been a flight of 4?

[Tourist]

There is so much tripe talked about Falkland scenarios.
What matters is not what we have now compared to then, but what the relative strengths of the opposing militaries are.

Our Fleet compared to theirs is now vastly superior. They still have Type 42s, but we now have type 45 and ships with Harpoon, Seawolf, Goalkeeper, Phalanx, TLAM etc. Exocet is now a negligable threat, as are bombing aircraft. We now have a far more capable amphib fleet. We have Baggers, we still, for a little while, have Harriers with precision weapons. And on the Harrier, people talk about the Harrier as if the 1982 SHAR was something special. It was an FRS 1, which was nothing compared to the later SHAR. Merlin Mk 1 and 3/Chinook (Todays Chinook is a very different beast in terms of capability)/ Lynx. Decent kit for troops, MLRS, I could go on.
We are currently in a far better position to dominate the battlespace

ORAC

When you say that the "the numer of carriers is far, far fewer " are you sure about that?

Then we had 2.
Right now we have, erm, 2. plus Ocean.

[Pontius Navigator]

With some balls, a little bit of luck, and some secrecy, taking the Falklands in the face of 4 Typhoons (only 4 because of the secrecy) is not difficult.

Are you sure it is only 4?

Absolutely 4 and no more?

Or is it possible the other 12 HAS are occupied too and may be by more than one aircraft?

HAS may be obsolete in defensive terms but the are brilliant at concealing assets. I believe we have some track record as Maskirova.

[ORAC]

What matters is not what we have now compared to then, but what the relative strengths of the opposing militaries are. We now have a far more capable amphib fleet........ And on the Harrier, people talk about the Harrier as if the 1982 SHAR was something special. It was an FRS 1, which was nothing compared to the later SHAR.

Not necessarily what they have alone, but with regional allies:

Venezuela's Chavez vows military support for Argentina over Falkands (http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=88752)

Venezuela buys 24 Su-35 "Flanker-E" ,100 T90 tanks to boost power (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?144228-Venezuela-buys-24-Su-35-quot-Flanker-E-quot-100-T90-tanks-to-boost-power)

Our far more capable amphibious fleet?

1.3.i.d. Place at extended readiness a landing and command ship Apr 2011- Mar 2012
1.3.i.e. Decommission one Bay-class amphibious support ship Apr 2011-Mar 2012

The Shar?

Gone, all gone, including the FRS2.

Carriers?

Ark Royal, will decommission immediately, plus either Illustrious or Ocean, probably Illustrious since she was due to go in 2012 anyway.

Leaving only 1 helicopter carrier until HMS Elizabeth in 2016. When there will be 2, if you count Ocean as a carrier.

[Tourist]

ORAC

"The RN is now far, far weaker, the numer of carriers is far, far fewer and the SHAR is no longer is service"

The operative word in your sentence is "now"

We currently have more carriers than in 1982.
Yes, I am aware that we dont have the SHAR anymore, but we didn't have the SHAR in 1982 either, just the FRS1

Even after the loss of Bulwark or Albion and a Bay, we still have a superior fleet of Amphibs compared to the old Sirs and Fearless

And if you bring in possible Regional Allies, can we bring in some random friendly countries as well? I bagsy the US and France?

If you are serious about this, talk me through a scenario where Argentina can get to our fleet to stop them landing troops even without fast jet cover. I do not believe that they have a realistic capability to get through the missile cover let alone CIWS. Many many other countries do, hence we want JSF, but not Argentina.

And I haven't even started on our vastly SF capabilities nowadays.

[BEagle]

It's 'maskirovka', actually PN.

If you've ever served at Base Aerea Gringo with the Fuerza Aera Malvinas, you'd know that one does not disclose potential capabilities - notwithstanding the well-reported deployed force structure.

PS - worked out FNM yet?

[Saintsman]

Even a sneak attack is unlikely to neutralise Mount Pleasant.

Maybe so, but what if it was a 'sneaky' attack? Something similar to that our friends at Poole might attempt?

[Biggus]

I don't particulary want to get into a "what if" argument, which speculates that Argentina has retaken the Falklands, and we elect (have the balls) to send a task force with no organic FJ cover to retake it.......

However, I do feel I have to ask the following question...

When you talk about "missile cover" for a UK task force, are you referring to the T-45s that don't have missiles, as the system isn't operational, the T-42s that have had the missiles removed to save money, or just the point defence SeaWolf?

In my view, the best option is to properly ensure we don't lose the islands in the first place......

[Tourist]

I was talking about the T45/Baggers to give you the radar picture, giving you time to best arrange your fleet for defence with the seawolf seadart and CIWS

It would be a very brave pilot who went up against them unless he had enough drones to expend the magazines.

[BEagle]

Ij JMCs are anything to go by, it would be a very brave pilot of any side who went anywhere near the fleet when Roger Waitout and the rest of his blue-on-blue gang were at Action Stations.....:(