So how vulnerable are the Falklands now ?

[stilton]

With the retirement of Ark Royal and all Naval fixed wing fighters how vulnerable are the Falklands to another uninvited Argentinian arrival.



I understand there are RAF fighters forward deployed to Stanley but would there presence be enough of a deterrent, and a powerful enough one ?


Anyone think that Argentina would be interested in 'trying again' ?

[The Old Fat One]

Anyone think that Argentina would be interested in 'trying again' ?


No .

[Jimlad1]

A more sensible question would be - does Argentina have the capability to land and tackle a well defended outpost, and sustain themselves against any counter attack? The short answer is no.

Done to death on ARRSE, but essentially Argentina would need to massively increase its military in key areas to be able to present a credible threat to the Islands security. They don't have the ability at present to do this.

When discussed on ARRSE, this usually descends into Tom Clancyesque scenarios to try to work out how the Argentines could deny the airfield, and dislodge 1500 plus defenders, all the while having no credible amphibious capability. Suicide ninja penguins seems to be the plan...:E

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

RAF fighters forward deployed to Stanley


Really? Deploying to Stanley is away from Argentina, so surely that would be a backward deployment...

[Jabba_TG12]

Without giving too much away about assets, locations and strengths:

1) Not sure that Stanley is suitable or equipped for Typhoon operations. It might have been made so, but I doubt it. Happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong.

2) I think the "1500 defenders" figure is stretching it, quite a bit. Other public arena information suggests that the figure is certainly no more than two thirds of that, possibly even half.

3) The scenario recently publicly outlined by the original Op CORPORATE TF Commander, Sandy Woodward, is viable. IIRC, Julian Thompson who also played a highly significant part (TF Land Forces Commander) also endorsed this scenario. It is plain and simple. Lose MPA, you lose the Islands.

The only way to prevent it is timely reinforcement. I'm sure the Reinforcement plan has been gone over and overhauled many many times since I last saw it in the late 1990's. Providing any warning signs are seen and acted upon promptly with no political fannying about, any immediate threat to the islands can be negated. The islands are not in any immediate danger of being over-run now or in four or five or ten years time, so long as we retain the capacity to reinforce.

What the future of the islands depends on is the political will of the Argentine and whether they see it as being achievable and do-able and desireable. I wouldnt be in a great hurry to scoff at their capabilities or what tools they have at their disposal.

We have proven on many occasions ourselves that despite the tools available to us that we are far from inviolable. We can - and have, through either lack of resources or equipment, lack of planning, lack of leadership, but never lack of courage - failed and failed badly in recent times. Incidents like HMS Cornwall's adventures in the Gulf, Nottingham being parked on top of a rock, T45's conking out mid-Atlantic, Astute being parked on a sandbank, the episode surrounding the capture of the Chandlers, Basra, setting up platoon houses in Afghan... the list goes on. We seem to have developed a highly annoying capacity for shooting ourselves in the feet.

What Argentina has to work out is where the tipping point is and whether they have the resources, the political will and the opportunity to assemble the requisite assets and carry out such a plan. They're not the same forces they were in '82, a lot has changed. It would not be wise to not only underestimate them, but also to think that we can continue reducing our resources to the point where reinforcement of the islands is jeopardised.

We do not - yet - lack the ability, the tools or the people to keep the islands. What we probably already do lack - and if we dont lack it yet, we very soon will - is the ability to recapture the islands if they were to fall.

[TEEEJ]

Stilton,

RAF Mount Pleasant -- Sightseeing with Google Satellite Maps (http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/10401)

or

Copy and paste the coords into Google Earth.

RAF Mount Pleasant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant)

RAF Mount Pleasant is roughly 30 miles to the west of Stanley.

TJ

[Green Flash]

I presume the Argentinian Air Force will deny the MPA runway by crash landing on it. After all, their home base runways will be being ploughed by a cloud of Tomahawks .....

[TEEEJ]

Some fairly recent figures from Parliament on Falklands personnel strength.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 12 Oct 2009 (pt 0097) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091012/text/91012w0097.htm)

TJ

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

Warfare has come along way in the past 30 years and fortunately for us, the Argentinian Armed Forces have not. They have received very little new equipment since the Falklands War and now have the second lowest military budget in South America. And for good reason. The last Generals in charge of Argentina were responsible for the disappearance of an estimated 30,000 people and there is serious distrust between the Army, Navy and Government (the Air Force is looked upon more favourably).
Yes, every Argentinian is taught at school that the islands are theirs and any mention of the words 'Las Malvinas' by the President will always get a rousing reception however comma, the educated person on the street realises that its nothing more than a political show piece. And no one (especially the president) is prepared to have a crack at the Falklands if it means giving the military more power.
Argentina have far bigger fish to fry at the moment, starting with the economy and corruption.

[Jabba_TG12]

A cloud of Tomahawks from where though, GF?

I'm assuming you know how close the sub will have to get to land to launch an effective attack?

And, you know as well that the Argentines have more MPA aircraft than we do?

Plus SSK's and other ASUW assets?

If the resident Brit sub down there is an SSGN, it could be plausible to retaliate using TLAMs, IF she's in a position to do so and IF the warheads aboard would allow for runway denial that could not be patched up in 48-72 hours.

Last time, earlier on this year we sent an SSN, Sceptre.

All of the Trafalgar class are SSGN's, likewise the Astute class, so we do, I guess, have the capability. However, given that we've barely been able to get Astute out of harbour before parking her on a sandbank and doing a couple of million quids worth of damage, I wouldnt venture that she's even had any kind of TLAM test firing yet, let alone be in a position to fire any in anger.

I guess what I'm basically saying is that last time in 82, Conqueror pretty much had the area to herself. Its a bit different now.

[Not_a_boffin]

More pertinently, Conks was one of ~ 12 nuclear boats in service. The current number is much less........

[Justanopinion]

The comments by former defence chiefs illustrate the primitive state of Whitehall thinking on the defence of the Falkland Islands. No matter that Argentina's military capability has for two decades been below the level of posing a threat to the Falklands; no matter that, despite token reassertion of their territorial claim, Argentine governments are now constitutionally pledged to respecting the way of life of the islanders: these retired officers view the South Atlantic as though nothing had changed sinced 1982.
It is to neither sides credit that UK and Argentine governments have failed to reach a lasting agreement over the territorial dispute while guaranteeing the islander's way of life. The potential is there: what is needed is a maturity and imagination on both sides. There should be no grounds for the Falklands to be a defence issue, or for anyone to be proposing that British tax payers fork out yet more for military power to be deployed to the South Atlantic

Robin Wallis, Hon Secretary, South Alantic Council

Seems that the locals are keeping calm and carrying on as normal.

[Jimlad1]

I promised myself I'd stop responding to 'Oh noez Argentina can haz Malvinaz' threads, but I am too weak willed and bored to resist.

The situation the Argentines have to deal with as follows. To take the islands requires moving sufficient troop assets to be able to conduct an amphibious landing, then advancing to an airbase purpose built to be defended against external attack, across extremely difficult terrain. They will then have to conduct an assault against a base which has been waiting for just such an attack since it opened nearly 30 years ago and is well defended and designed for such an eventuality. They then have to take and hold the base, while defeating UK opposition, and then digging in against any counter attack.

The Argentines do not have any large scale amphibious shipping capability - to build this up would take years of effort to not only build the capability, but also develop the training and doctrine required to do so. Conventional military wisdom calls for a roughly 3:1 ratio of attackers - defenders. This means the Argentines will need to build enough shipping for nearly 4000 troops plus enabling elements like their J4 chain. So lets say 6000 troops all in.

Having built this, they then need to sail to the Falklands, conduct the largest amphibious landing since 1982, and disembark all their kit. They will then have to advance on MPA without being discovered in order to keep the element of surprise. If they are seen, then the reinforcement plan starts up and they are in trouble. If they try to deny the runway, then the reinforcement plan starts up and they are in trouble.

It took the UK several weeks to conduct a similar sized landing and then reorganise to advance on Stanley. Yet some people seem to think the Argentines will magically be able to do it in the same night, without being spotted and will retain the element of surprise.

There are often suggestions that the Argentines could land on the runway and do a commando raid. I would suggest that unless they've sabotaged all the air defence radars, such a raid may well be spotted and action taken to prepare for their arrival - even to the extent of temporarily denying the runway to prevent them landing.

I've often seen suggestions that somehow the Argentines will put together a massive strike package using their 20 front line aircraft and 3 C130 Tankers which will attack the runway, and deny it - ignoring the problem of how to get past the air defence radars and assorted defences. Also ignoring what the impact will be in the UK who will press the panic button and begin reinforcing.

I've also seen suggestions that the Argentines could somehow deny the runway, then maintain a CAP above Stanley and force us to surrender. This ignores the lack of sufficient tankers to do this, the small number of available aircraft, the likely presence of Rapier and an RN warship with VLS Seawolf (assuming its not been sunk) and so on.

All of these suggestions seem to have several things in common - they assume complete success by the Argentines in everything they do, which is a large assumption given they've not conducted an operation like this since 1982. It also assumes that the Argentines somehow magically break with 30 years of procurement hell and only spending about 1-2% of their budget on new kit, and somehow produce a completely new set of kit which they've never used before and then succesfully invade the islands, without the UK spotting any of this or adjusting its own defensive plans to match any change in threat in the region.

Of course all of these threads always manage to fail to answer the most important question of all - namely what reason would the Argentines have to launch the invasion? They've got one shot at pulling it off succesfully and if they fail then the president loses power, the military are humiliated and the nation as a whole looks stupid. The Falkands are a great unifying tool for any Argentine leader in trouble, but ultimately to make the leap from that to launching a hugely high risk invasion and running the risk of another war with a nuclear power seems to be a very strange thing to do. It makes no sense, and they have little to gain from it, when they could just do it peacefully and hope for the islands to be reintegrated over a few generations.

[Two's in]

Anyone think that Argentina would be interested in 'trying again' ?

A better question is whather this (or subsequent) Governments would bother to try and defend it again. If the treasury department can remove vast swathes of the UK's military capability in order to balance the books, persuading Dave or his predecessor to save a few billion pounds by letting it go in the case of a future conflict will be a 2 minute chat over a cappucino.

[Pontius Navigator]

I presume the Argentinian Air Force will deny the MPA runway by crash landing on it.

I know what you mean :} but just using your post.

The Stanley runway is only about 2800 ft therefore not suitable for GR4s.

MPA has two runways about 8500 and 5000 feet. There is almost 7000 feet of main runway after the intersection. You could get several MOS from those runways.

There are multiple exits from the aircraft shelters which would all need cutting and 16 shelters that may or may not contain aircraft.

There are so many targets that it would take a considerable time to neutralise the airfield even without an opposition and more time than it would take to reinforce them.

Not only that, the airfield hasn't got any closer to Argentina in the last 28 years.

[onion]

Thought I may add to this.
Firstly the Argies don't need to land a large initial force on the islands to secure a bridge head! Of the say 1500 military personnel on the islands only a small fraction are deployable around the islands, probably only a few hundred! How many miles of coast line and safe anchorages do the islands have? You are all forgetting the UK forces that retook the islands were able to bring ferrys and cruise ships into these anchorages so the need for amphibious ships is not that important! Mount Pleasent Airbase maybe easily defendable but all the Argies need to do is contain it! There is an airfield at Stanley which was extended for Phantom ops post 82 and although has since been shortened again I would guess that restoration of the extention wouldn't be too difficult.
The final point is that the Argies are increasing their defence spending just as we are cutting ours. Im not suggesting that we should be increasing our defence spending.
The simple matter is if the Argentine government had the political will and the Argentine people the stomach for it they probably could take the islands.
There are/were many deterrents and reasons they haven't tried since.

[Pontius Navigator]

Onion, so far so good, but your Arg SF would need to neutralise MPA as an air base otherwise any attempt to utilise Stanley as an enemy base would be doomed to failure.

Return to the original campaign. The defending for never established local air superiority even before the task force arrived.

[Jimlad1]

"How many miles of coast line and safe anchorages do the islands have? You are all forgetting the UK forces that retook the islands were able to bring ferrys and cruise ships into these anchorages so the need for amphibious ships is not that important!"

Actually the need for amphibs is critical - particularly in this sort of proposed operation. To land troops properly, you need to be able to put them on with their kit, and be able to take them off with the right kit in the right time.

You need to invest heavily in landing craft to put anything above a person ashore, you need to run decent control of the operation (hence Albion and Bulwark have very expensive C3 kit out) and you need to be able to move your people around. Ferries are great to get someone to Point A, but to move them ashore requires specific kit.

End result would be a bunch of ferries slowly putting people ashore in ships boats, with no means of moving heavier kit ashore, and then watching as the troops sit there with no support and are totally exposed.

"The final point is that the Argies are increasing their defence spending just as we are cutting ours. Im not suggesting that we should be increasing our defence spending."

The bulk of the Argentine budget is used to pay for their pay and pension costs and not capital acquisition. The bulk of their fleet has barely been to sea in decades as they cant afford the running costs.

"Mount Pleasent Airbase maybe easily defendable but all the Argies need to do is contain it"

How do you 'contain' a facility which is geographically large, has multiple capabilities and is designed to be used in this manner when you don't possess an amphibious fleet to put the equipment ashore which would be needed for this sort of business (e.g. artillery, heavy mortars etc). At best on their current laydown, the Argentines could put a light infantry group ashore. How does this 'contain' MPA?

[racedo]

It is concievably possible for War to be revisited giving circumstances in other countries that require support to be dragged elsewhere.

Given the tentacles of US Intelligence within Argentina perhaps they would provide some information on this occasion as firmly believe original War was given a US nod to prevent Maggie flogging off the fleet, the US bonus was getting Cruise missiles into UK.

[onion]

Jimlad I did not suggest that it would be done soley by ferrys and cruise ships! To secure bridgeheads you would usually land light troops, hence why we have the Royal Marines.
Containing Mount Pleasent isn't too difficult! Lets face it 4 Typhoons would be very highly tasked with invasion forces as well as trying to maintain air superiority as well. Portable air defence capabilitys can be placed to stop the comings and goings from Mount Pleasent and then you have it conatined!
We know the frontline fighting troops on the Falklands are only a fraction of the personnel based on the islands.
Yes I am assuming that intel wouldn't give us much more than 24hrs warning (in which time you would hope assets could be deployed south to reinforce) but we have been known to misinterpret intel before!
May of been vague before but what I am trying to get at is that there is an errosion of the deterrent (carrier strike force etc) while the Argies are actually increasing their defence budget and their escalation in aggressive stance on rights of passage for shipping in the area! In areas of defence I sometimes wonder if we learn!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the Argentines have more MPA aircraft than we do


That's not difficult these days is it?:{:{:{

[WE Branch Fanatic]

They also have no plans to stop flying the Super Eterndards from US and Brazilian decks.

As has been pointed out, we are going to be short of SSNs this decade, as the Trafalgar class are retired. Thus far, only four Astutes have been ordered. Given other commitments East of Suex and nearer home - what is the chance of gaving one free to send South at short notice?

Additionally, our depleted frigate/destroyer numbers are being cut. You may remember that HMS Northumberland was en route to the Falklands in late 2008 when she was retasked to go to fight pirates off the Somali coast. There was no frigate/destroyer in theatre for severals months. This will happen again with less ships and sudden events likely to happen. To add to the fun, the Falklands patrol ship Clyde is set to return to the UK for maintenance in 2012. Presumably another River class OPV will relieve her. But what else happens in 2012? Won't providing security for the olympics drain resources - so commitments in the South Atlantic and elsewhere will be comprimised?

[stilton]

Four Typhoons is all the RAF has at Mount pleasant ! ?

[Jimlad1]

Oh lordy, this is degenerating into another one of those 'the whole sky is falling into my head' threads...

Firstly, the Argentine budget 'increase'. Their budget is a fraction of our own and as I've noted, 90% of it goes on their pay and personnel costs. This increase is mainly to cover their pay costs and not capital equipment expenditure. The reality is that their procurement programmes have been starved of funds for years, and so have their maintenance programmes.

To all intents and purposes the Argentines have a coastguard navy which struggles to get to sea at the moment. They do not have an amphibious capability which threatens the islands. If they decided to get one, it would take several yearsto get to the point where they were able to present a threat to the islands, and you'd hope we'd notice this fairly significant shift. So, people need to stop thinking that somehow the ARA is about to charge down and grab the islands - they haven't got the ships or capability to do this.

Secondly, on the idea of ferries - if you drop people off, you need to support them. Dropping off penny packets of light troops across the islands won't work - they won't have any support at all, and will end up walking tired wet and demoralised, knowing that they've got an assault on a major facility to look forward to at some point.

I keep hearing these suggestions that the Argentines are going to do some kind of beach landing - my first question is 'where and with what imaginary ships' and my second question is 'how do you maintain the element of surprise?' To land and take MPA requires equipment and logistics and a beachead to put it on. Anyone reading the excellent 100 Days, or Amphibious Assault Falklands by Mike Clapp, will realise that if you want to land a credible force in the Falklands, there are not that many beaches where you can do it. By a strange coincidence MPA is actually some distance from any of those said beaches...

So, if you do an amphibious assault, you have lost the element of surprise to put boots ashore. If you lose surprise, then the FI reinforcement plan starts and all bets are off. Yes you could put a patrol ashore, but to do that requires an SSK (of which Argentina has 3) and at best you could put a platoon ashore. This platoon then has to tab to the airbase and take up covered positions to present a MANPADS threat, which it would need to do in darkness on extremely hard going boggy ground with no shelter. They will be limited in what they can carry too, as they will be marching with everything they own.

The moment they fire a missile at a jet, then not only has Argentina effectively declared war on the UK, but also they have exposed their intent and all bets are off.

So we keep going back to the following problem for the Argentines - how do you land a force, and deny the airbase and air defence radars while maintaining the element of surprise for long enough that the reinforcement plan doesnt begin till too late and you have established air superiority?

I'm not saying it cant' be done - however, its not like 1982. There isnt a nice Moody Barracks to bomb and off you go. There is now a very challenging set of tactical problems to deal with, and you've only got one shot at getting it right.

In summary - Argentina does not now possess the ability to land troops and occupy the Falkland Islands. It would take several years to reacquire this capability. Any such move would be identified and UK posture adapted as requried. Any effort to take the islands is a very high risk operation with numerous points where it could fail or lose the element of surprise. Yes we need to remain wary, but the islands are well defended by good people from all 3 services and MPA remains an incredibly formidable nut to crack.

[taxydual]

Why do I get visions of Capt Mainwaring and his platoon defending the area between The Marigold Tearooms and The Novelty Rock Emporium?

The Argentinians no longer have to live under a Military Junta that had to bolster it's popularity with a show of 'Military Force' ie The Invasion.

We no longer have to live under a Prime Minister who had the guts to defend the British people.

Either way, both we and the Argentinians (if the 'event' came to Round 2) would be "'doomed", "doomed, I tell yer".

As for the rest of us 'armchair warriers', "don't panic, don't panic".

[Pontius Navigator]

I suppose one answer is an air assault a la Entebbe.

[TEEEJ]

Stilton wrote

Four Typhoons is all the RAF has at Mount pleasant ! ?

It was a straight swap for four Tornado F.3s.

RAF News - Great teamwork getting Typhoons to Falklands (http://www.rafnews.co.uk/readstory.asp?storyID=286)

RAF News - Falklands’ first overseas deployment for multi-role fighter (http://www.rafnews.co.uk/readstory.asp?storyID=268&page=&departmentID=&categoryID=&search=&returnto=index.asp)

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Military Operations | Typhoons on first operational deployment (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/TyphoonsOnFirstOperationalDeployment.htm)

The four Typhoons that are Falklands based are listed here.

Typhoons Depart for the Falklands | Fast Air Photography (http://www.fast-air.co.uk/raf-coningsby-falklands-typhoon-flight-1435/)

Prior to the Tornado F.3s it was four F-4 Phantoms from the late 1980s.

The Royal Air Force - History Section (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/phantom4.html)

'As tensions between the UK and Argentina eased during the late 1980s it was decided to reduce the number of aircraft permanently stationed in the South Atlantic. By November 1988 only four Phantoms were left and they were named ‘Faith’. ‘Hope’, Charity’ and ‘Desperation’ by the crews.'

TJ

[dctyke]

Having done 3 tours there I would ask anyone (other than the resident infantry at the time) two questions:

How good do you think you would have been at defending the airfield against trained soldiers?

Same again (on a friday night)


one more point:

I was on exercise in germany once in the 80s when less than 30 (really, really good) paras crippled the whole station. And the Stn cdr cried foul because they had dug a land rover access size hole under the perimeter fence!

We should not be so cock sure what the lure of oil can do!

[The Old Fat One]

JimLad

You are wasting your breath mate. Way too many peops (including, so it seems some ex VSO) long since gave up on reality where this one is concerned.

As for the MPA being essential to Falklands Security...

I was there, in an MPA, Apr 82 to Jun 82. I know what we did do and what we didn't do; what we could do and what we couldn't do.

We helped...a little bit. On one occasion we also hindered, quite a lot.

But we were not, in any sense, mission critical.

[Jabba_TG12]

TOTD:

Yes, my tongue was lodged extremely firmly in my cheek when I wrote that. :}

I'm certainly not saying that its going to happen anytime soon and certainly take on board the points about the Argies amphib capability and also their political situation and how different things are from 82 in that respect.

But in my very humble opinion Woodward's scenario has some credibility.

I've also seen the counter argument that these guys are stuck in the past, the Argentine people and the Islanders dont think like that anymore and that these old warriors need to make such utterances as self-justification or are too heavily stuck in their old ways. This, to me, serves to act as the required "pinch of salt".

But by the same token, as any of us who have served there post-82, there are potential weakspots, quite bad ones, if my memory serves me well. And if the islands have any strategic importance to us, complacency about establishment levels and reinforcement must absolutely be avoided.

We seem to have developed a remarkable knack of shooting ourselves in the foot over the last 10-15 years and to my mind there are few things more galling than seeing some of our mates make the ultimate sacrifice for something that is either subsequently given away or carelessly lost.

Maybe I'm being a tad melodramatic but... :E

[Grumpy106]

Jimlad is spot on with his assessment.

I have spent a lot of time in the FI and I can assure you that the focus down there is well and truly on Argentina and her potential actions. Does anyone seriously think that they could spring a total surprise attack with sufficient force to take the islands? The whole 'Friday Night/Sat Morning' scenario is a red-herring. If there was the slightest sniff of an escalation in the threat the bars would be closed. And I'd also like to point out that the AD radars and QRA Force are manned 24/7 and the Duty personnel obviously remain sober, despite what some people might think. The only way Argentina will get any sort of foothold in the FI again is by negotiation.

Woodward is out of touch and was just scaremongering to try and defend his former Service.

[alfred_the_great]

WEBF - 7 Astutes. Extra one ordered in order to ensure SM drumbeat continues until SSBN(F) is confirmed (or otherwise).

[Jabba_TG12]

Grumpy:

The Q force is indeed at readiness, 24/7 and the AD picture, compiled and supplied by the external sites, is monitored 24/7, that much is indeed true. That is not the whole story though and if you're as regular a visitor to the islands as you imply, you'll know that too.

Whether the bars would be open or not is completely irrelevant. Thats implying that the defence of the islands rests on whether the detatched personnel are permanently p*ssed or not and I think they deserve a bit better than that. Not all of us carried out our four month tours in an alcoholic haze.

I would hope to share your optimism about getting enough warning (if the capability to deliver any threat eventually existed). However, not finding those WMD, losing track of four geezers with rucksacks on the tube and other such intel-led squirm-a-thons, I would guard against blithe complacency.

[Mechta]

All the scenarios discussed so far assume that this would be a purely Argentina vs UK match.

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons, has anyone considered if the Argentines came to an agreement with a well-armed, but oil-poor nation (not necessarily a near neighbour) for assistance with an amphibious assault, in return for a preferential deal on the future oil reserves? They would have to do a good job of hiding the movement of some pretty big hardware, but only a fool would only consider the most obvious scenario.

After all, it wouldn't be the first time a couple of countries ganged up on another to get their hands on some substantial oil reserves... :E

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Woodward is out of touch and was just scaremongering to try and defend his former Service.

I would suggest that Adml Sandy was not "scaremongering" but exposing a real threat to the National good. I believe, though, that he mistakenly tried to phrase it in terms that the home grown ballot box fodder might understand.

The threat isn't to the Islands: it's against their offshore assets. If we are to seriously reap the mineral assets, it will take equipment, facilities and infrastructure. Imagine running OFFSHORE TAPESTRY and the "cod war" at that range from the UK or with the capacity the Islands have?

Argentina and any allies doesn't need to expend material and effort it doesn't have on taking the Islands. It just needs to use the material and effort it does have to harass the operation of the offshore facilities and the supporting traffic. I think you would find that the UN would not oppose that as the sea area is a disputed asset.

[cazatou]

In World War1 Argentina stayed neutral - although it did make a lot of money in selling grain to the Allies.

In World War2 Argentina leapt to the assistance of the United Nations on March 27th 1945, declared war on Germany and immediately dispatched one merchant vessel carrying grain in the next available Convoy bound for Europe. The cynical have suggested that the entry to the war at that time was purely to ensure a seat at the Inauguration of the United Nations Assembly.

The demise of democratic Government meant that overseas investment in Argentina fell dramatically and living standards fell also. It was against that background that the Junta made the decision to annex the Falkland Islands. One can almost be certain that the British Antarctic Territory would have been next on the list if UK had acquiescsed in respect of the Falklands.

Sabre rattling by right wing elements in Argentina will doubtless continue - but that is a long way from mounting an invasion against a well prepared professional Military Force which has had some 28 years to hone its Defence plans.

[Postman Plod]

Hell, "out of touch" simply means "disagrees with the official assessment of the situation, and needs to be dismissed and put in his place" - it doesn't mean he doesn't have a clue what the potential risks and likely scenarios are! Maybe his is protecting his service, but given that his task force lost a significant number of lives and ships trying to recover the islands, I'd imagine he wouldn't want to see the UK in the same situation again!

Who cares about oil-poor nations - there are enough oil-rich South American countries rushing to support the Argentine claim - some of them with large, well equipt and expanding militaries!

As GBZ says, who needs a conflict when a blockade or port and airspace restrictions (potentially across much of South America?) would be enough to make life very difficult for resource exploitation?

[The Helpful Stacker]

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons, has anyone considered if the Argentines came to an agreement with a well-armed, but oil-poor nation (not necessarily a near neighbour) for assistance with an amphibious assault, in return for a preferential deal on the future oil reserves?

Yeah, I've read that book too (Patrick Robinson - Ghost Force?)

Maybe we can hire some super-mega-whoppa-tron re-modelled B52s from a privately-owned airforce operating out of a mysterious airbase in the US to defend the Falklands.

Both are equally realistic.:ugh:

[Wrathmonk]

Funny old world isn't it. A former super power routinely 'probes' our defences and yet people of a certain colour cloth cry 'get rid of Typhoon' (our only AD fighter) in favour of the Harrier/Carrier. Whereas a broke, militarily inferior nation, has shown no interest in repeating its operations of 28 years ago but nevertheless the world will stop spinning unless we have carriers, harriers, subs, destroyers etc etc etc to repel the "threat". If the Falkland Islands were at that much threat of a no notice invasion (or the intel is really that bad not to see one coming) then shouldn't we have the entire Fleet (whats left of it after its been sold off to pay for the 1 or 2 carriers;)) parked in the FI Territorial waters just in case? Together with any infanteer or marine not involved in AFG. After all, how long would it take to sail a task force south bound versus reinforcing the FI by Air? By then the Argies could be well dug in ...

Or perhaps we could just look at the facts and accept that what we have there, backed up with what we could have there, is sufficient to deter.

Fully expect to get flamed by the usual suspects :ugh:

[Two's in]

Funny old world isn't it. A former super power routinely 'probes' our defences and yet people of a certain colour cloth cry 'get rid of Typhoon' (our only AD fighter) in favour of the Harrier/Carrier. Whereas a broke, militarily inferior nation, has shown no interest in repeating its operations of 28 years ago but nevertheless the world will stop spinning unless we have carriers, harriers, subs, destroyers etc etc etc to repel the "threat".

Fully expect to get flamed by the usual suspects Well you shouldn't, as long as your point is effective Defence planning is a structured and inclusive exercise, not a knee jerk reaction driven by politicians seeking votes or military leaders trying to keep pet projects alive (or afloat in this case) through hyperbole and emotion without using rationale or logic to support their arguments. It cuts both ways.

[Mechta]

Yeah, I've read that book tooI'd not heard of the book (Ghost Force), and having looked at a couple of reviews I can't see me reading it either.

I do recall glancing through an Old Moore's Almanack some years ago and laughing off the idea that we would be fighting in Afghanistan in the not too distant future... It's probably as good a prediction of where we will be fighting future wars as any other though.

[thowman]

Looking at google earth, what type of RN ship is tied up at Mare Harbour?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

alfred_the_great

I thought that the long term SSN number was intended to be eight, when did it get dropped to seven? So basically you're saying that without SSBN(F) being delayed we only would have got six? Less of them means that there is less chance of them being down South, in the same way that less frigates means that the APT(S) commitment is likely to be gapped from time to time.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but wasn't one of the first Argentine acts in the 1982 war the illegal landing of troops pretending to be scrap metal workers on South Georgia?

[MAINJAFAD]

RN warship in Mare Harbour on Goggle Earth seems to be a Castle Class offshore patrol vessel, means the photo is not new as the RN don't operate them any more.

[Jimlad1]

WEBF - the long term SSN figure has been 7 since about 2004.

The difference is relatively small between 7/8 as the newer boats will need less time in dock (theoretically) for refuelling and the like. As such, I believe the idea is that 7 A boats can deliver the same amount of time at sea as 8 S/T boats (allegedly).