New Falklands War Brewing

[Cyber Bob]

Vera Lynn was heard to be 'Gargling' !!!

Could this be a sign.................

[glojo]

Good morning Orca,
Please do not think for one second I was in disagreement with your valid points, I submitted that post to corroborate your very valid point.
IMHO only a complete moron would argue that Argentine forces should have been granted freedom to manoeuvre in any location at all, let alone in the South Atlantic. Again, only my opinion but only the extremely naive would argue that hostile forces, engaged in, or supporting, the occupation of British sovereign territory should not be engaged due to their location relative to a circle of arbitrary size based on a fairly arbitrary lat/long. The Admiral in Command of the Belgrano Battle Group also agrees with you. To me this issue is simply trying to open up wounds that are best left were they belong and as you rightly say, we should respect all those of both sides and let by-gones be by-gones. RESPECT

As Brian Clough so eloquently summed up the silliness of a clause in the off-side law in football....
If a player is not interfering with play then he shouldn't be on the pitch.Or to translate,
Any warship or military aircraft that belongs to an opposing force should always be fair game unless there are extenuating circumstances. Could that 200 mile exclusion zone possibly have been a delaying tactic used to make Argentine Forces think twice before getting too close to the islands? (question)

I strongly object to how Great Britain is still being portrayed (or even betrayed) over this situation. To me I like to think that the Falkland islanders have a choice, they can vote to remain how they are governed or become a part of Argentina! Their choice, their decision, but if they opt to still fly the Union Flag then so be it. there choice, not mine, but whilst that flag flies then boo hoo to anyone that dares to interfere.. Is that telling them are what?

Regarding your description of the video clip I posted, if you look at all that 'muck' coming out of the funnel, that highlights the forces at work from that explosion. Just imagine the carnage if those boilers were operating? Steam at a temperature of possibly in excess of 800 degrees Fahrenheit?? and a pressure in excess of 500pounds all being let loose in that explosion. I have given very rough figures but hopefully they are not too far out (do I have history of getting things front to back?)

Bottom line is that a torpedo is going to spoil your day....

Permission to whittle?

I was on exercise looking for a US submarine that was trying to attack us. I was off-watch and on the flight deck talking to a colleague who confidently predicted there would be a successful attack and the torpedo would come from a certain direction.......... Within thirty minutes of that prediction, there we were on the upper deck looking at the trail of a torpedo as it hurtled under our ship and it had come from the exact direction that my colleague had rightly predicted!!

An aircraft we can detect, an incoming exocet we can detect.. We can detect an incoming torpedo but getting out of its path is a whole different ball game and not for this forum.

Hopefully the threat of our silent service will be enough to deter any future unlawful occupation of the Falklands :ok:;)

[LowObservable]

Navaleye - a most interesting observation about under-the-keel torpedoes. Given that the US and Germany had torpedoes intended for UTK fuzing in WW2, which were unreliable, and the RN used the Mk8 in the Falklands because the Tigerfish was not ready/reliable, and reliable UTK came in with the later TF, MK48 ADCAP and Spearfish... that has to be one of the longest pursuits of a specific weapon capability on record.

[Earl of Rochester]

Argentine protesters burn Union flag outside British Embassy in Buenos Aires as tensions rise over Falklands

Militants demand Argentine government severs diplomatic links with Britain
Comes after Cameron accuses South American country of being colonialist

Frenzied Argentine mobs torched Union flags outside the British Embassy in Buenos Aires today in an ugly protest over the Falkland Islands.More than 100 militants marched on the building as they called on President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s government to sever diplomatic links with the UK.Furious demonstrators bellowed insults about David Cameron and held up banners saying: ‘England out of the Falklands’ and ‘Break ties now’.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/20/article-2089504-1162ABC5000005DC-149_634x424.jpg

They took to the streets after the British Prime Minister accused Argentina of being ‘colonialist’ for repeatedly demanding sovereignty over the disputed South Atlantic territory. He was told mockingly: 'You need history lessons.'The spat revived the rhetoric of the 1980s amid growing rifts ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/20/article-2089504-1162ACF0000005DC-855_634x411.jpg

Foreign Secretary William Hague yesterday sought to play down the escalating row during a pre-planned visit to Brazil by insisting the UK was eager to open a ‘new chapter in history’ with Latin America.But he risked inflaming tensions in the region after revealing Prince Harry would attend an event on Rio de Janeiro’s iconic Sugar Loaf mountain in March – the month before the April 2 landmark of Argentina invading the Falklands.

More (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089504/Falkland-Islands-protest-outside-British-Embassy-Buenos-Aires-tensions-rise.html)

Trouble this time is,

a) No Maggie at the helm

b) More Latin American countries now supporting the Argies

c) Our military is now defunct!

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Trouble this time is,

a) No Maggie at the helm

b) More Latin American countries now supporting the Argies

c) Our military is now defunct!

Suggest therefore:

1. We invite Boris Johnson to become the new minister of "Making War on Argentina".

2. We solicit the offices of Barak Obama to lend his political support (while he's in the mood).

3. Item (2) will solve your problem c)!

:E

[ORAC]

2. We solicit the offices of Barak Obama to lend his political support (while he's in the mood). Good luck with that.......

How Obama Thinks (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html)

[ORAC]

Torygraph: The Obama administration knifes Britain in the back again over the Falklands (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100130943/the-obama-administration-knifes-britain-in-the-back-again-over-the-falklands/)

[Torque Tonight]

The Special Relationship. Special indeed. :rolleyes:

[pr00ne]

"Trouble this time is,

a) No Maggie at the helm

b) More Latin American countries now supporting the Argies

c) Our military is now defunct! "


BS!

Reality Check:

a)Don't need Thatcher as it was her complacency and negligence that led to the war in the first place.

b) Nonsense. There are more South American countries that have territorial disputes WITH Argentina.

c) UK military is now ensconced in more than infantry Company strength on the islands and is massively more capable and battle hardened than we were in 82.

[Biggus]

"c) UK military is now ensconced in more than infantry Company strength on the islands and is massively more capable and battle hardened than we were in 82."


No doubt similar things were being said about Singapore in 1941! Complacency and all that...!

[pr00ne]

Biggus,


Fraid not. Contemporary reports include severe concerns that, for example, the majority of Australian troops being sent to Singapore were straight out of very basic training.

[Biggus]

Concerns at what level (tactical, local?), complacency at what level (strategic - political?)

Were there concerns about the siting of the defences, the air assets available, the amount of time available for reinforcement, etc..?



Taking the FI would not be that difficult for a determined opponent who decided to do something a bit more innovative than walk up the beach and march to the airfield....

[500N]

Proone

"c) UK military is now ensconced in more than infantry Company strength on the islands and is massively more capable and battle hardened than we were in 82."

Do you think a Company is enough ?

I agree with Biggus, for a determined enemy, they could do it, although taking the whole might be a bit harder than last time.

The key for the UK is how quickly they could reinforce it safely
and then the logistics !

Would the Govenor surrender as quickly this time or would the Marines and other fight on ?
.

[pr00ne]

500N,


I was making the point that the Falklands were defended in Company strength in 1982, not now.
There was no strategic airfield, no in place logistics, no fixed wing air, no Air Defence infrastructure etc etc etc. All there now and VERY visible!

The UK was also firmly in a Cold War "Central Europe/Battle of the Atlantic" mind set and was not exactly focused on deployable expeditionary warfare.

If you are concerned about a "determined" enemy, just take a look at the Argentinian armed forces. Starved of funding for the last 25 years, very little new equipment and significant attrition of what WAS left after 82.

Biggus,

Concerns at the combat efficiency, training and capability of the majority of infantry.

[Navaleye]

Agree with pr00ne. NP8901 was made up up 80 marines including 15 sailors from Endurance with no backup. We could and should reinforce the current garrison as a precaution however.

[The Old Fat One]

Gotta agree with two of Pr00ne's main points:


1982 Falklands war caused by neglect and lack of intelligence (both military and intellectual).
Invasion much, much harder to do now for a myriad of reasons.
Can't comment on international relations in South America, not my subject area.

Two other points..

Fall of Singapore...primarily military incompetence.

Current vogue for banging on about the vulnerability of the FI...primarily vested interest.

[orca]

This situation is a 'win-win' for everyone in my opinion.

Argentine politicians get to trot out the vote winning desire to re-capture the Holy Land, without ever actually having to do it.

Cameron gets to act the national hero.

RN gets to re-emphasise the fact that should a small, sparsely populated, water bound, distant piece of real estate need defending then a task force did it last time. In the absence of any obvious examples of 'the next one', 'the last one' will do.

RAF gets to hang onto a few more Typhoons and their crews.

The army hangs onto a few more troops, because for every one deployed you need another four in the cycle.

Wills get his OOA.;)

Obviously we quite reasonably think that the Argentines cannot take the FI by force because we have infantry and AD aircraft there. To go completely off track - the question this raises for me is why we insist on maintaining our own amphibious capability if it's so damn easy to defend against?

In fact a reasonable exam question to show how far we've sunk would be to ask the question, could we take the FI back from ourselves?

To summarise, I really don't see hostilities happening because the status quo suits all players bubbling along like it is.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Plonk 6 MLRS on the airfield, job jobbed.

[orca]

A periscope overtly driving up and down the 12 mile limit would no doubt be seen as being in very poor taste and somewhat inflammatory - but I bet it would work. We could always argue that if we set it up in a North-South figure eight it was never actually sailing towards Argentina...ship's/ boat's head apparently matters a great deal in those latitudes.

[Always a Sapper]

Move some of the Infantry training regiments there and use the place for all phase two infantry training. Come to that stick the all arms phase one training there as well and toughen up the recruits abit.... :E

[Heathrow Harry]

on the thing that bugs me is that we have no medium or long range AA missiles

10 km range with a Rapier seems aking for trouble

a couple of Patriot batteries (150km range) on W Falklands would surely be a reasonable investment

[Courtney Mil]

Harry,

Surface-to air-missiles, Mate. Typhoon have reasonable air-to-air or anti-aircraft missiles. I agree that Patriot might not be a bad addition, but I probably wouldn't put them on West Falkland, that would just mean a detour to stay outside the MEZ. Better at more local air denfence, I think.

Of course, we'd have to make sure they had the Mode 4 sorted out!

Then we need some decent air-to-surface and surface-to-surface hardware to ward of the naval armada.

[ghostnav]

Have I missed something or have the Argentine's suddenly revamped their military? Last time I looked they couldn't sail out of port let alone invade somewhere.

[Navaleye]

Ghostnav,

Fully agree, they don't have the capability to engage/invade the islands as far as we know, this is just sabre rattling. I think we should deploy Astute with a full warload of Tomahawks and Spearfish, that will shut them up. A gentle up scaling of land forces can be done without too much notice. The Typhoons at MPA are more than capable covering the local airspace. They only have two Herc tankers after all. This is what stopped them mounting mass attacks in 30yrs ago. The fleet, though far smaller is much better equipped. Two T45s appropriately deployed would make them fish food.

[Yankee Whisky]

The Falklands are populated by British descendants who do not wish to be ruled by the Argentinians.

In Democracy, they have, therefore, the right to declare themselves either an independant country OR a part of the British Common Wealth.

What on earth have certain Argentinians (100 demonstrators by last count) in mind ? Become a dictator of the Islands, exploit its resources (?). Should this problem not be solved in the World Court ?:ugh:

[Navaleye]

Solve What? It was decided 30 years ago when they tried to steal it and were sent home in international disgrace. The UN charter determines that the right of self determination is above all other claims. I look forward to seeing the films of their pathetic eviction once again in April. Months after they were always referred to in the Navy as "Enemy". They still are. 6 months later we were still cleaning up after them. We took anything useful that still worked, put the the rest in an RFA and dumped it in the sea. All the best kit they had, we had. Some of it was good, most if it was rubbish apart from a few exceptions which we had fun with until Management said we should stop.

Remember HMS Desire discovered it in 1592 and claimed for the Crown. That predates ANY other claim.

[t43562]

What would happen if some more capable allies decided to help the Argentinians in return for a cut of the oil? e.g. Venezuela.

[The Old Fat One]

Then we need some decent air-to-surface and surface-to-surface hardware to ward of the naval armada.


Showing your AD roots there old chum. You know what wards off a naval armada down there....SSN times one. Kinda an established fact.

Enjoyed reading your web/blog thingy BTW. My bestie was caught up in that stooshie over allowances in Italy :ok:


A periscope overtly driving up and down the 12 mile limit would no doubt be seen as being in very poor taste and somewhat inflammatory - but I bet it would work



Take your point orca, but they'ed never see it. Big Black Beast would have to surface, fire flares, and have the band on deck playing "Don't Cry For Me Argentina before they would make a detection.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

TOFO,

And we are in exactly the same state!

Duncs:ok:

[Jabba_TG12]

SSN x 1 is, IMVHO, being a tad optimistic. One had better hope that Argentia doesnt receive any assistance, either practical or otherwise from other nations in finding out where said SSN x1 is... otherwise SSN1 could end up having to run all over the South Atlantic trying to stay hidden. And, given Astute's recent few days on a sandbank, I'm inclined to venture she's not ready yet. Likewise, sticking a solitary T45 anywhere near the area on its own is chancing it a bit, particularly with its SAM systems not exactly being, er proven... Plus, SSN x1 can only do so much, particularly if the plan detailed in the Sunday Times is the one that is used, or something like it, like the Woodward plan (ie, keep the Typhoon's occupied on the fringe of the FICZ for long enough for the commando party to start knocking over the airfield).

As said before, the best idea is not to lose them in the first place and to reinforce sooner rather than later. All well and good that the forces are more "embedded" than they were in 82, but that is besides the point. Not enough infantry, not dispersed enough, not enough of a naval presence, not enough aircraft, no carrier, no Apaches, not an effective enough airbridge, a SHORAD system way past its best...

Im afraid I share the same opinions as Julian Thompson and Sandy Woodward. Lose MPA and you've lost the Islands. And, with our levels of capability being what they are now and going forward, that would be that. Any attempt at re-taking the Islands would be a futile waste of life. Best hope would be for the FIDF to make a thorough nuisance of themselves running a guerilla campaign, but that would only realistically last so long.

I've been saying it for a while, but it really wouldnt surprise me if it went off in the next couple of years, sad to say. More heat than light at the moment, but it doesnt mean its always going to be that way...

[orca]

But surely every boy and girl down there is current at CCS?

[Mike7777777]

Is there anything in South America that could find an SSN if the SSN did not want to be found?

[orca]

A fairly well charted sand bar on the edge of a fairly well charted navigable channel should draw the beggars in.

[Rob Courtney]

How much does the fact that we can target quite a lot of the mainland with TLAMs at very short notice affect things? The mere threat of a Vulcan strike frightened the living daylights out of them in 82 (even though it wasnt really practical)

[Not_a_boffin]

No it didn't. What it did (allegedly) force them to do, was to move their better AD aircraft north to cover BA, thereby having a valuable dilution effect on what was available to face the Task Force.

A TLAM warhead is capable of taking out most high-value targets. However, set against that is the open source knowledge that the UK has a limited number of the weapons and that the similarly limited number of boats we have can only carry a limited number of missiles themselves.

There's a slight difference between the potential for nightly Vulcan raids (potentially of multiple aircraft) sustained for weeks and a very painful, but highly intermittent salvo of TLAM every couple of weeks.

[Rob Courtney]

There's a slight difference between the potential for nightly Vulcan raids (potentially of multiple aircraft) sustained for weeks and a very painful, but highly intermittent salvo of TLAM every couple of weeks.

Likewise the other side knew the limitations of our Vulcan force and knew we couldnt put any more than 2 in the area at a given time (even that was pushing it)

A TLAM is far more accurate than a Vulcan could ever be so you wouldnt need too many warheads to achive the required outcome with little or no risk to the delivery craft

No it didn't. What it did (allegedly) force them to do, was to move their better AD aircraft north to cover BA, thereby having a valuable dilution effect on what was available to face the Task Force.

Hence it scared the living daylights out of them:E

[WillDAQ]

There's a slight difference between the potential for nightly Vulcan raids (potentially of multiple aircraft) sustained for weeks and a very painful, but highly intermittent salvo of TLAM every couple of weeks.

Ultimately if it was decided that the Argentine National Congress building wasn't on fire enough for MoD, that could be rectified at a date and time of the UKs choosing. I'd say that's a more potent capability than the Vulcan provided.

[Rob Courtney]

Ultimately if it was decided that the Argentine National Congress building wasn't on fire enough for MoD, that could be rectified at a date and time of the UKs choosing. I'd say that's a more potent capability than the Vulcan provided.

With tha added bonus of being able to pick what window you wanted to "post" it through:E

[Not_a_boffin]

That assumes the targeteers let you go after "non-military" targets in what would almost certainly be an RoE constrained environment.

Back in 82 there was also a lot less freely available int on capabilities - particularly wrt Vulcan / Victor numbers. More "unknown" to be afraid of.

There's also a difference between being scared sh1tless and identifying a military threat and moving your forces to counter it.

TLAM is a very good weapon, but only game changing when employed in sufficient numbers to cause permanent loss of capabilities. We can do that when Uncle Sam and his skimmers crammed with TLAM are with us. Different story if we're on our tod.

[taxi_driver]

This should liven things up a bit, and change the dynamic..


AN AMERICAN energy giant with links to the Pentagon is poised to spend at least £1billion on the British oil rush in the FALKLANDS.

The US giant's board of directors include Kevin Chilton - a former commander of US Strategic Command. Another, Preston M "Pete" Geren III, was in the US Department of Defence for much of the last decade.
If the deal goes ahead, American involvement would be a hammer blow to Argentina, a huge coup for David Cameron and change the lives of the Falklands' 3,000 islanders.

US firm's £1bn for Falklands oil | The Sun |News|Sun City (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/4077559/US-firms-1bn-for-Falklands-oil.html)













[/URL][URL="javascript:;"] (javascript:;)

[Rob Courtney]

There's also a difference between being scared sh1tless and identifying a military threat and moving your forces to counter it.

As I remember there where no military targets I BA in 82 except for the people who make the decisions just like now so your first point is at odds to the one above

TLAM is a very good weapon, but only game changing when employed in sufficient numbers to cause permanent loss of capabilities. We can do that when Uncle Sam and his skimmers crammed with TLAM are with us. Different story if we're on our tod.

Depends what the target is and how hard you want to hit it

[Not_a_boffin]

I said allegedly - part of the multiplier effect claimed by the RAF. Whether it did or not is independent on our RoE of the time, which I suspect were a lot looser than they would be today.

Play targeteer all you want. I'm only trying to make the point that one boat load of TLAM ("X" warshots) ain't all that, particularly against a dispersed force structure.

[Lonewolf_50]

Jabba, I respectfully disagree.

UAV's can do local patrol. You have other assets for further out detection of a move towards the Islands.

[Landroger]

And we are in exactly the same state!

Duncs

Not quite, sadly. We don't have Sir Anthony Parsons any more. :sad: I can't find the quote, only various obituaries, but he was responsible for the best quote of the century, never mind the eighties.

As I recall, the US Ambassador to the UN - Parsons 'opposite number' - Jean Kirkpatrick, had become tired with the various exchanges before the fighting started and rather carelessly tried to get Great Britain to abondon the Falklands. She suggested; "You (Britain) just give the islands back."

I can't quote verbatim, but Parsons said something very like;

"If that is to be a generalised policy Madam, then I suggest you will have to give Louisiana back to the French, Alaska back to the Russians and the rest of it back to the Indians.":D :ok:

Collapse of stout party - I'll get me coat.

Roger.

[Donna K Babbs]

UAVs based from where, and with what maritime search capability?

[ICBM]

IMHO, any 'engagement' to protect the F.Is would absolutely require Uncle Sam's support. The Royal Navy can barely catch the drug runners (and a bloody good job they do too btw:ok:) let alone amass a formidable task force to protect our assets down there and the few Typhoon there would be virtually useless against any decisive land invasion from Argentina.

Sure we have options but the USA would have to be on board.

Again, this is all supposition for now

[cokecan]

ICBM.

not true - even a limited reinforcement of air assets would make any potential tussle waaay out of Argentinas league. the problem at the moment is that it appears much more evenly matched, and therefore potentially 'doable'.

with only 4 Typhoons on the Islands even 99% servicability means that only three Typhoons are available - and three Typhoons with no AWACS and only one tanker can be chased around the sky until they are run ragged. when they are run ragged they are vunerable.

if the force were increased by four Typhoons, another tanker, four GR4's and a pair AWACS the Islands couldn't be taken if all of Latin America joined in...

[Mike7777777]

Not 'doable' by any stretch of the imagination if you factor in an RN submarine. Dreadnought (1977), Conqueror (1982),

[cokecan]

why is it that the crabs fail to understand that the absolute crux of the FI defence is air power?

they don't need to invade, they just need to close the airhead to incoming traffic. we would be unable to use ships to get supplies in once air cover is gone - submarines won't be much use in that little tussle. once the FI is unsuppliable then we'll simply have to 'negotiate'. it will be over.

this must be the first occasion in the history of the world where the RAF is waay behind the Army and RN in understanding that the RAF is the centre of the world...

[500N]

cokecan

Why would subs be so useless ?

They could stop any Argy ships (or sink them), drop off SF troops with AA missiles that could cause all sorts of hurt to any Argie planes or even light a few fires on the mainland if it came to that, enough to make them re think what they are doing anyway.

I think subs would be a part of any defense of the FI.


Question
Where would Chile sit on this now ?
.

[November4]

Thankfully the Dear Leader is no longer in power or it would have been all over with Argentinian pledging to support us over something. Never mind what the locals want....

Blair signed 'secret deal' to hand over Gibraltar to Spain and end UK's 300-year control
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090845/Tony-Blair-signed-secret-deal-Gibraltar-Spain.html)

[Mike7777777]

why is it that the crabs fail to understand that the absolute crux of the FI defence is air power? Air power is certainly important

They don't need to invade That's probably correct

They just need to close the airhead to incoming traffic. we would be unable to use ships to get supplies in once air cover is gone - submarines won't be much use in that little tussle. once the FI is unsuppliable then we'll simply have to 'negotiate'. it will be over.
If it reaches the stage where the "Enemy" is threatening to sink one or two supply ships then the British need to threaten to sink lots of the "Enemy's" ships. SSNs are efficient at sinking ships

[Donna K Babbs]

That's on the assumption that the runway isn't targeted - not easy but not impossible if you are prepared to accept losses.

[Ken Scott]

why is it that the crabs fail to understand that the absolute crux of the FI defence is air power?


Cokecan: what evidence do you have for your rather inflammatory statement? I think the RAF have a pretty good idea that air defence is the crux which is why there's an airfield plus Typhoons down there which can be reinforced should the need arise. Presumably you'd like more but you can't ship a significant portion of the RAF FJ force down there, with all the problems of support & personnel rotation, for an unspecified period based on an undefined threat.

The RAF has suffered huge cuts in FJ numbers and it wouldn't be tenable to base a load more aircraft in the FI just to ward off a bit of shouting from Argentina, not to mention the accusations of escalation.

[Airborne Aircrew]

That's on the assumption that the runway isn't targeted

Time to unwrap the Harriers? http://www.hqrafregiment.net/images/smilies/fishing.gif

[cazatou]

AA

Naughty Naughty - WEBF is doubtless composing another episode of his diatribe.

[ROC man]

If Venezuela became involved it would be easier for Uncle Sam to justify the lone to us of B2 to be flown by a suitably qualified RAF exchange pilot. Flown from Ascension I guess most of South America could be covered by one refueling for Black Buck VIII?

[MAINJAFAD]

Question

Where would Chile sit on this now ?

Anwser

With the large number of Chilean contractors on the Islands, very on our side.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Just recently we were told by Brigadier Aldridge that the FI's were safe from attack (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9046418/The-Falkland-Islands-await-the-Duke-of-Cambridge-as-British-commander-says-they-are-safe-from-Argentina.html).

Today, Gen Sir Michael Jackson tells us:

"The Falklands will be lost forever if Argentina invades again, one of Britain's senior military figures has warned"
While Argentine President Cristina Kirchner vows to "reclaim" the Malvinas adding that Britain is a "Crass colonial power in decline." Video here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8581788/Argentina-President-Britain-is-a-crass-colonial-power-in-decline.html).

On that last point she may be right!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Mike Jackson thinks we're stuffed

Ex-Army chief in Falklands warning - Yahoo! (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ex-army-chief-falklands-warning-111214028.html)

[Mach Two]

We have a large international-sized airfield to allow for very rapid reinforcement by air, should circumstances so require. But I suppose I have learned in life, never say never. What if an Argentinian force was able to secure the airfield? Then our ability to recover the islands now would be just about impossible.

Not only would it deny us our airhead and sole operating base, it would mean the bad guys have two air bases on the islands. What oposition would Fuerza Aérea Argentina face if they had an interational sized airfield to operate from and we had none. Not even a flat top?

Sir Mike is seldom wrong.

[pr00ne]

Mach two,


Purely hypothetical fantasist nonsense!

Look at the current capabilities of the Argentine armed forces and then compare to what is permanently present on and around the Falklands.

The chances of a successful assault on MPA would appear to be absolute zero.

Add in some moderate reinforcement, or even the THREAT of reinforcement, and it becomes a joke.

[ZH875]

The chances of a successful assault on MPA would appear to be absolute zero.

Add in some moderate reinforcement, or even the THREAT of reinforcement, and it becomes a joke.



The chances of War between Britain and Germany in 1939 was ZERO, the Prime Minister had a piece of paper proving that fact.


World War 2 never happened did it?

[Wizzard]

World War 2 never happened did it?

I have it on good authority that WW2 was started by Vera Lynn's agent :ooh:

[Milo Minderbinder]

drop a few missiles or shells from a ship on the fuel dump at Ascension,and the threat of reinforcement becomes negligible. Add a prolonged period of winter gales or fog and the reinforcing aircraft would have to divert to Argentina

[Mach Two]

pr00ne,

Purely hypothetical fantasist nonsense!

Thank you for your kind words and reasoned argument.

You are probably half right in that Sir Mike was putting forward a hypothisis. I suspect that his wisdom and experience places him in a position of authority to do so on matters such as this. Although I'm sure you know the disposition of Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina better than he.

What we don't know is what that will be in a few years time. We are getting a pretty good idea of what ours will be.

Never say never.

[Finningley Boy]

I've read General Jackson's interview, he seems to think that otherwise, the smallness of our Armed Forces today is no problem, that we'll get sufficient advanced warning of a pending conflict with, shall we say, an industrialised enemy state. If that's the case what's everyone bleating about, as pr00ne says, the military hardware in the Falklands presently makes them a tough proposition for them to invade successfully.

Do the Argentinian's still have a serviceable aircraft carrier by the way?:confused:

FB:)

[500N]

" Do the Argentinian's still have a serviceable aircraft carrier by the way?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif"


Or enough protection, if any to stop it ending up at the bottom of the Ocean
before it even gets close to the Islands ?

[knowitall]

" Do the Argentinian's still have a serviceable aircraft carrier by the way?"

nope cut up for razor blades in 1999

Their amphibious fleet consists of a t42 minus the sea dart on which they can get 2 sea kings and 2 large rib inflatables carrying a re-enforced company and 3 amphibious freighters (round table class minus the beaching capability)

they'd struggle to repeat 1982 never mind dislodge what's on the islands now

this is quite amusing and recognisable..........

Refighting The Falklands War Threads - ARRSEpedia (http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Refighting_The_Falklands_War_Threads)

[BEagle]

Do the Argentinian's still have a serviceable aircraft carrier by the way?

Although the Argentine carrier Veinticinco de Mayo was retired in 1997, the naval air forces of Argentina do still maintain at least a basic level of shipborne operating skills, through co-operation with the Brazilian navy.....

...and with the USN. Although with the USN, operations are limited to practice approaches and touch-and-go landings only.

Whereas the UK has no fixed wing assets capable of shipborne operation and is unlikely to have any organic naval air power for a decade - unless things change pretty dramatically. But I doubt whether Argentine interest in the Islas Malvinas will be the catalyst.

[corsair]

I like this from ARRSE:[t+0:45:00] The RAF turn up late and point out that the four Typhoons at RAF Mt. Pleasant mean that the Argie air force would be able to "recover their downed pilots from the middle of the South Atlantic by the light of the burning ships of their invasion force".:D

[The Old Fat One]

:D:D:D

I commend the ARRSE thread to everyone.

Far wittier that this thread. Significantly better informed and much more insightful.

Hopefully the last word on the subject for a few years...but I doubt it.

[Finningley Boy]

I commend the ARRSE thread to everyone.

Far wittier that this thread. Significantly better informed and much more insightful.

Hopefully the last word on the subject for a few years...but I doubt it.
Not a current or ex Army chap at all are yew sir?:suspect:

FB:)

[Milo Minderbinder]

That threads a load of bull
Anyone who suggests Christana is worthy of MILF status obviously has a warped / twisted mind
She's ugly.

[Canadian Break]

Milo, me dear chap, you need to "think out of the box". The tool for accomplishing the F in the acronym could easily be a piece of 2" x 4"! CB :ok: (On the noggin I hasten to add)!

[The Helpful Stacker]

Gentlemen - Remember who the primary users of Arrse are.

Hippocrocapigs are generally well regarded by the average squaddie, indeed often their married quarters are awash with them.

[hval]

Before writing anything more about invasion I believe that we have to start with asking questions: -

“What are Argentinas aims, what are the aims of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and what are the aims of those who hold power in Argentina? The aims of each one of these may be the same, similar or different to varying degrees.

For instance President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner may want to go down in history as the person who gave Argentina the Malvinas & South Georgia. She may want to be seen as the President who tried to give the Malvinas to Argentina, whilst knowing that she can’t get them.

Do Argentina see the fact that there are islands close (ish)to their shore line that are owned by a foreign power? Think of Cuba and the USA.

Argentina have shown an interest in the Falkland Islands since the Great Britain owned them.

We know about the oil and fish. The fact that oil might be present was know by both the Uk and by Argentina before 1982 (Geological survey carried out in 1973 to 1975). This survey was carried out at the time of the oil crisis.

The President at the time, Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri Castelli, was also a General used the invasion to help take away political issues back home in Argentina. Anti-junta demonstrations were replaced by patriotic demonstrations in support of Galtieri.

Next we have to look at why do Argentina get from owning the Malvinas?
When Spain owned Argentina (which didn’t exist at the time, it was called Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata and comprised Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and part of Bolivia) Spain did own the Falkland Islands for a while. When Argentina became a nation of Argentinians, after Civil war, they felt they should own the Falkland Islands.

Do Argentina strategic, political or economic desires over the Falkland Islands?
I would have to say yes to all of them.
We now need to look at how could Argentina get control of the Falkland Islands. There are three main ways, or a combination of these: -

1/ Political means, which they are being quite successful at
2/ Invasion by Sea
3/ Invasion by air

Someone wrote that it would be possible to retaliate against any invasion very quickly. This is not necessarily true. An invasion by sea may not be detected for some time; after all they are very empty islands. The weather may not be very kind and may not allow transport of assets to the location of invasion. The troops and assets may not be in the correct location for a quick pick up and scoot. By the time sufficient forces were gathered, they may not be able to prevent the invasion. Submarines are a deterrent and are quite effective at hunter killing so this may not be an effective solution; if in the right place at the right time.

Invasion by air. It is possible. Even if all Typhoons work they could be overwhelmed by sufficient aircraft. There is no point in saying that Argentina don’t have sufficient, or enough aircraft. Do you know how many they have? They may borrow from other friendly South American countries, or Russia or? Another tactic might be to land civilian aircraft full of troops on to Mount Pleasant. Would a Typhoon shoot them down? How would it look in the press? The Uk could then be forced to hand over the Falkland Islands. The aircraft could land as a scheduled aircraft even. Defending Mount Pleasant would be extremely difficult. There are not that many troops there who are armed and/ or sufficiently trained to be able to prevent that form of invasion.

I have not written everything down, and what might actually happen could be entirely different

What ever happens we can not expect support from Europe, the USA or even the UN. Europe dislikes us, Hilary Clinton has shown support for Argentina on a number of occasions now. Also I don’t believe Argentina would work alone this time.

[racedo]

Also I don’t believe Argentina would work alone this time.

And it doesn't even have to be their neighbours...........lots of ways to make threats to require support.

A substantive threat across a number of different zones could have Typhoons withdrawn...................:sad:

Given the stretching of forces Argentina only has to wait for a year or two.

[rh200]

Anyone who suggests Christana is worthy of MILF status obviously has a warped / twisted mind

Would'nt be the first time I have been accused of being warped and twisted:E

[MAINJAFAD]

drop a few missiles or shells from a ship on the fuel dump at Ascension,and the threat of reinforcement becomes negligible. Add a prolonged period of winter gales or fog and the reinforcing aircraft would have to divert to Argentina

I'm quite sure that the US Goverment would galdy loan us a couple of CVN Battle groups after said attack on a US owned facility. That's the carrier shortage dealt with. As for the divert there are a few Airfields in Chile that can handle Typhoons and tankers. Read this (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/417239-typhoon-vc10-divert-chile-3.html).

[Harley Quinn]

MAINJAFAD, I did read the thread again, my interpreation is less bullish than yours

Great teamwork getting Typhoons to Falklands

Senior RAF officers have paid tribute to squadrons across Britain following the successful deployment of four Eurofighter Typhoons to the Falkland Islands.
Following one of the largest peacetime logistical missions of its kind in the Service’s history, codenamed Operation Typhoon Tempest Trail, four of the latest jets touched down in the South Atlantic after travelling 9,000 miles across the globe.

The aircraft, from 11 Squadron RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, replace the Tornado F3 fighters from RAF Leuchars, in Fife, which have completed 17 years’ service protecting UK interests on the other side of the world.
The touchdown at Mount Pleasant airbase marked the completion of months of planning and hard work.

“The extent of the challenge should not be underestimated,” said Squadron Leader Pete Morgan, an air-to-air refuelling specialist working for 2 Group at Air Command – the controlling authority for the operation.

“Not only was there a real requirement to deploy the Typhoons to replace the shortly-to-be-retired Tornado F3s, but the UK was also keen to demonstrate its continued ability to force project air power over strategic distances.”
Typhoon Tempest Trail involved 10 support aircraft from four squadrons flying 280 hours backed by 95 personnel, in addition to the fighters and their aircrews.

In a two-stage operation the aircraft were trailed by tankers to Ascension Island, using the Canary Islands as a staging post. From Ascension, they were trailed again to the Falkland Islands without any outside assistance.
Sqn Ldr Morgan said: “As a result, a complicated air-to-air refuelling plan was required with the Ascension to Falkland Islands leg being by far the most challenging.
The Typhoons were accompanied by a TriStar aircraft throughout, whereas the other air-to-air assets provided fuel at various stages before returning to Ascension; in all, each Typhoon was required to refuel seven times.

“The Falkland Islands-based VC10 aircraft was on hand to provide a final top-up of fuel if required and to enable the Typhoons to divert to the South American mainland had the weather deteriorated unexpectedly during the nine-and-a-half hour transit.”

In addition, Hercules and Nimrod aircraft provided Search and Rescue cover for the long sea transits, and were equipped with survival equipment and spare life rafts that could be dropped to any survivors in the water in the event of an incident that necessitated the Typhoons ditching.

Originally posted on RAF website. (Currently being updated)

To me this was/is a very fragile stance to rely upon rapid reinforcement, especially during the capability holidays we are taking.

hval, surely no modern honourable country would use such a Trojan horse to start an invasion? The only proper means to begin an invasion would be highly publicised massing of manpower, equipment and naval forces to raise the morale of the population. Perhaps an inspection by a visiting head of state would allow the British Intelligence Services to spot something was happening and instigate the formation of a task force to reinforce the garrison...

[hval]

Harley Quinn,

surely no modern honourable country would use such a Trojan horse to start an invasion?

You may be right. My point is supposition. there may be better ways of Argentina getting what they want.

[The Old Fat One]

Not a current or ex Army chap at all are yew sir?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif



Good lord no! Got my time in Donnie Nursing College :E

[Harley Quinn]

hval, sorry, I was agreeing with your general thrust, all's fair in love, war and acquisition of territory.

[Nomorefreetime]

The time to worry will be when a SA Airbridge lands back home full of dependents. I'm sure HMG would leave them there if there was a real threat.

[Mike7777777]

Thin pinstriped offers interesting comment via AARSE. Is not the primary issue "Does the UK want to retain influence over the Falklands?" I find it difficult to believe that the US would undermine us (Brits) on this, given our support for the US over the last 10+ years.

[500N]

If it's in the US's interest, i think they would. Such as currying favour or regaining influence in South America.

[Harley Quinn]

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

It really doesn't matter how chummy we've been, it depends on who the Americans think will offer them the better deal.

I think it used to known as Realpolitik, something the White House has engaged in in the past.

[Jimlad1]

"Thin pinstriped offers interesting comment via AARSE"

That would be me - glad to know you think its quite interesting take. Am pleased with the response to my FI links. Annoyingly I cant crosspost here due to the system deleting reference to a certain blogging website when links are posted.

[manccowboy]

BBC News - Destroyer ship HMS Dauntless set for Falklands (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16810417)

No doubt sent to wind the Argies up a bit more :)

[Lonewolf_50]

Harley, you observations in re Realpolitik are well made.

[ex-fast-jets]

If the Navy doesn't see the need for an Air Force, why does it spend so much of its budget on Air Defence Destroyers????

Am I missing something??

[Not_a_boffin]

I'll bite then.

It does see the need for an airforce, preferably one that is available to a maritime force when required - ie organic. The fact that some in capability world are unable to recognise both the validity of and requirement for complementary capabilities is a source of constant frustration, frequent mistakes and the laughable "capability holidays" (aka "capability exiles").

It's a bit like saying because the Pongos have trucks they don't need helicopters or APCs, or that the RAF doesn't need E3 because it has a fixed radar chain.

[WillDAQ]

If the Navy doesn't see the need for an Air Force, why does it spend so much of its budget on Air Defence Destroyers????

Am I missing something??

Because MPA can't be parked 12km off the Argentine shore.

[Capt P U G Wash]

which bit of the 4989km shoreline would that be?

[Neptunus Rex]

However, MPA can be running along the 'n' kilometre line. In numbers, and for a long time. (If we had them!)

[hval]

The important bit

[Churchills Ghost]

Would this not perhaps be an ideal opportunity to colonise Argentina!

[Milo Minderbinder]

The Welsh tried that around 140 years ago, but the Catholics bred quicker than the Methodist ./ Baptist Welsh did, so eventually outnumbered them

[Anthony Supplebottom]

The Mercosur countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Paraguay) have announced they will ban ships sailing under the Falkland Islands flag from docking at their ports.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/31/article-2094347-11893619000005DC-621_634x854.jpg

HMS Dauntless now southbound for the Falklands

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/31/article-2094347-1188DF6C000005DC-116_634x332.jpg

ps: Observe the capable journalism of the Daily Mail in their spelling of 'Falklands Maritime Zone' in the key to the map image but then again .. most PPRuNers can't spell either! And - just exactly how many ports does Paraguay have anyway?

[sisemen]

My tardiness, but that's the first pic that I've seen of the 'new' destroyer.

The tactic of sending her down to the South Atlantic is bound to frighten the Argies to death - particularly with the big Dalek on board. EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE :E

[airborne_artist]

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/captions/cameron_argies2.jpg

[glojo]

We are all saying what we have not got when it comes to protecting the rights of the people who actually live on the Falklands, but has Argentina the assets to put words into actions?

[SCAFITE]

The Former First Sea Lord West got it in one on the news last night. Military it is simple, defend the Islands with what we have which in his view was OK, but be slack and lose it and without Carriers, Harriers and all the other ships the Navy has lost, not a chance of taking it back. So the ball is in our court.

Is it me or does the new HMS Doutfire or what ever its call look a bit like the KMS Graf Spee, another ship with South Atlantic links

Link to the old ship, it also has a bit of a Dalek going on.

Redirect Notice (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=kms+graf+spee&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=842&tbm=isch&tbnid=Vzbqne_Le_oomM:&imgrefurl=http://www.militaryfactory.com/imageviewer/shp/pic-detail.asp%3Fship_id%3DKMS-Admiral-Graf-Spee%26sCurrentPic%3Dkms-admiral-graf-spee_2.jpg%26sCurrentDescriptor%3DHigh%2520forward%2520view% 2520of%2520the%2520KMS%2520Admiral%2520Graf%2520Spee%2520Ger man%2520pocket%2520battleship&docid=ojp9GVtNfkv7JM&imgurl=http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/imgs/kms-admiral-graf-spee.jpg&w=800&h=622&ei=Nx4pT97jHcWA8gP3y6nOAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=603&vpy=72&dur=168&hovh=198&hovw=255&tx=129&ty=95&sig=112658555555039547179&page=1&tbnh=149&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0)

[cokecan]

Glojo,

depends who you listen to, and depends on whether you think their concept of operations has to fit in with the assets we've got on the islands.

personally, i think that if they gave themselves 6 months, hit the credit card and went on the international spares market they could produce a 20 aircraft fast jet force that could run the Typhoons ragged and prevent reinforcement of the air assets on the Islands. how long they could keep that up for is a matter of debate. you'll notice however that Argentina doubled its defence budget two years ago and didn't buy any big ticket items...

unless the RN could then put at least two fully armed and operational Type 45's next to the islands i don't see how the arial stranglehold could be lifted. that said, i don't doubt that a pair of Typhoons under ground direction would make a right mess of an incoming Argentine formation.

my concerns are threefold - a) that in any conflict they will get the first punch in at a time and place of least convenience to us, b) that we have a history of being surprised when our enemy fails to adhere to our plan of how to defeat him, and c) that we confuse our military planning with the enemys political thought process.

i could of course be wrong - sadly however thats not something you'll hear from those who say 'no problem here, nothing to see - move along now'. the fact that such people are usually responsible or concerns (b) and (c) is of course completely coincidental...

[tyne]

Is that shot of the ship actually leaving or a stock pictrue? She hasn't got CIWS. Daring has it, but one would have thought that we'd not have deployed a Daring without fitting it. Phallanx was bought after Falklands war losses.

Or perhaps it is a message to Argentina - look, she is so good she doesn't need Phallanx to deal with your threat.

Its not as though we don't have enough spare Phallanx sets knocking round - 3 off Ark, and braces from Newcastle Glasgow, Cardiff, Nott, Exeter, Southampton, Manch, and Gloucester. That's around 20 units.

[FlapJackMuncher]

Looks like I'm the first to make a connection between sending HMS Dauntless and HRH Wales going down for a 6 week depolyment.

Would a SeaKing need the protection of the most advanced ship in the Navy?

[Milo Minderbinder]

I thought 'twas the other way round: the ships needed the protection of the Sea Kings to act as Exocet decoys. Isn't that what his uncle Uncle Andy did during the war - and how the missile got decoyed away from Illustrious onto Atlantic Conveyor?

[Jimlad1]

"you'll notice however that Argentina doubled its defence budget two years ago and didn't buy any big ticket items..."

The increase was there to cover pay and pension costs and not capital equipment expenditure.

[cokecan]

well at least we're absolutely sure where every single penny in the Argentine defence budget goes - thank you, you've restored completely my faith in the omnipetence of MI6 and the far-seeing wisdom of all involved at the highest levels of UK defence planning.

not that my faith needed restoring of course, what with us not having royally fcuked up, ever.

[FODPlod]

"Is that shot of the ship actually leaving or a stock pictrue? She hasn't got CIWS. Daring has it, but one would have thought that we'd not have deployed a Daring without fitting it. Phallanx was bought after Falklands war losses."

The photo shows HMS Dauntless entering Portsmouth harbour for the first time in Dec 2009 (link (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2755399/Giant-warship-dwarfs-town.html)).

[glojo]

My thoughts are you can never have too much weaponry, was the Doubtless the lead ship regarding the testing\evaluation of Viper? Could it be that complacency dictates that the system is so good it does not need CIWS? Viper may well be the all singing, all dancing latest, state of the art system but Murphy's Law will always out trump your best hand and when you need a viper to send a message, Mister Murphy will intervene and that to me is when you NEED CIWS secreted up a sleeve.

Other posts have suggested this ship deploy just off a coast to be the most effective!! I am of a different generation but to me warships working close to a coastline are possibly not playing to their strengths.. Look no further than the Falklands, brave men that knew they were putting themselves into harms way.

[hval]

It would appear that H.M.S. Daring was fitted with Phalanx during summer 2011. H.M.S. Diamond was also getting it fitted last year.

[Not_a_boffin]

Daring and Diamond both have Phalanx fitted. Currently Dauntless is still waiting for hers as posted yesterday before someone removed the post in a fit of misplaced OPSEC. Open source pictures from January show her without the fit, but she is due soon.......

[hval]

@ Not A Boffin,

Doesn't the fit look ugly. Almost as if it were an after thought - even though the Type 45 went through a design phase in 1999 and 2000 where it was designed to have Phalanx.

[Lonewolf_50]

I did a quick read through at wikipedia on Daring class
The Daring class have often been considered to be the most powerful air-defence warships in the world.
I'd be interested in seeing a one for one comparison with Flight III* and later Burke class DDG's. (Those have embarked helicopter capabiliy, which earlier Burke's didn't.)

Good thing the Phalanx is fitted.

Then again, I recall back in my various deployments during the 80's that a variety of hardware and software problems in CIWS operations led to the acronym being pronounced as
"Christ, It Won't Shoot!" rather than
"Close In Weapons System."

I understand from my black-shoe friends that those issues got sorted out (more or less) in the mid to late 80's.

* = sorry, I meant Flight IIA. :O

[Not_a_boffin]

@Hval

No the fit doesn't look too bad once you realise what they're trying to do. The ship however looks like a slapped @rse, it's only saving grace is that it is nowhere near as stomach churning as the Spanish F100, which fell out of the Ugly Tree and hit every branch on the way down, Fdump, Fdump, Fdump!

[hval]

Agree with you on the F100.

Still think the wee "pods" the phalanx sit on look like an afterthought and deface the angled sides. Mind you, I also think that when you look at the side profile of the ship that it looks like 15% is missing at the stern

[racedo]

My thoughts are you can never have too much weaponry, was the Doubtless the lead ship regarding the testing\evaluation of Viper? Could it be that complacency dictates that the system is so good it does not need CIWS? Viper may well be the all singing, all dancing latest, state of the art system but Murphy's Law will always out trump your best hand and when you need a viper to send a message, Mister Murphy will intervene and that to me is when you NEED CIWS secreted up a sleeve.

The story of the Repulse and Prince of Wales in the fall of Singapore bear this in mind as the belief was they were unsinkable.............Japan figured otherwise.

Complacency always a bad place to start from.

[Neptunus Rex]

FlapJackMuncher

Looks like I'm the first to make a connection between sending HMS Dauntless and HRH Wales going down for a 6 week depolyment.

Would a SeaKing need the protection of the most advanced ship in the Navy? Doubtful. However, I'll wager that the Dauntless Wardroom shall be well prepared for a Right Royal Guest Night!

RPC HRH, Regrets Only.

[knowitall]

This is an interesting article Giving some background information as to the motivation behind this latest bout of sabre rattling.

The New Falklands War — MercoPress (http://en.mercopress.com/2012/02/01/the-new-falklands-war)

It's not just the oil it appears Argentina's recent economic success may not be all it's cracked up to be and they've been caught cooking the stats!

[500N]

What a surprise, so back to 1982 again, using the Falklands to deflect from criticism of the Gov't (then military junta).

Last time Gov't criticism to patriotic flag waving over night, this time
maybe not so lucky !!!
.

[CYPR]

Thanks Knowitall, this article was very concise and took a weight off of my mind.

[alwayzinit]

See in todays DT that Argentina are probably going to cancel LAN Chile's overflight clearance to MPA thus stuffing up the only commercial flight to the FI.

They really have not heard that you catch more flies with honey:ugh:.

Might I suggest that HMG leases a Boeing 777LR to circumvent this silliness. It could fly London - MPA direct and still hold 2 hours of island holding fuel.

Rather like SAA flying around the whole of Africa to access Europe during the bad old days.

Where there is a will there is a way..............

[FlapJackMuncher]

OK.
It seems my scepticism may be wrong, it's happened before. :8:O

HRH is leaving soon, the ship wont be there for a good few weeks, even if it leaves this week.

Will they overlap? Who knows?

[racedo]

Will they overlap? Who knows?

What you mean like the need to have the Typhoon down there to replace existing ones that just happen to coincide...........:E

I don't believe in coincidences.

[furnace rats]

I've thought long and hard about the Malvinas and can not help but be on the side of the Argentinians. Just because the Falklands belonged to Britain before Argentina even existed does not matter one bit. The Argentinan leadership is quite correct to denounce colonialism and insist that historical boundaries are respected. I for one can't wait for Argentina to be given back to the indigenous tribes and the current colonists to **** off back to Spain! Cheers!

[Airborne Aircrew]

back to Spain

Come now... You forget Nazi Germany... :E

[glojo]

I've thought long and hard about the Malvinas and can not help but be on the side of the Argentinians. Just because the Falklands belonged to Britain before Argentina even existed does not matter one bit. The Argentinan leadership is quite correct to denounce colonialism and insist that historical boundaries are respected. I for one can't wait for Argentina to be given back to the indigenous tribes and the current colonists to **** off back to Spain! Cheers! :D:D

http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/%7Egekas/me/bite.gif

[Churchills Ghost]

Furnace Rats, I am inviting you to the Officer's Mess where my son is stationed for a pint where you can broadcast your point of view!


Navy sources have warned Buenos Aires that its entire air force would be wiped out if it tried to attack.

Now that's the kind of talk from the British government I like to read about in the morning!

*Argentina’s foreign ministry has suggested the Duke has arrived as a “conqueror”.

*Speaking on Argentina’s La Red radio station, Mr Boudou was also asked about reports that Buenos Aires has put pressure on Chile to stop weekly flights to the Falklands, which pass over Argentine airspace. He said there had been “a very firm response from all the countries in our region” over the issue.

*As Prince William began a six-week tour of duty with his RAF Search & Rescue Squadron, Argentina’s vice-president made a proclamation in which he claimed that his presence was an act of “bravado” to detract attention from Scotland’s bid for independence. http://smileydatabase.com/smilies/532.gif

[cokecan]

CG, did you actually read Furnace's post?

[Widger]

UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has denied that the deployment of Prince William to the Falkland Islands is provocation towards Argentina.
Speaking in Brussels, he insisted it was a routine deployment

Routine tour my armpit. If it was routine, it would be for 6 months not six weeks and he wouldnt be given permission to go home for his granny's party either. I thought he wanted be treated the same as everyone else?


:E there goes my knighthood!

[ukmil]

all aircrew posts in MPa are 4/6 weeks, so he is no different:ok:

[cokecan]

loathe as i am to defend a crab (or guardsman when he wants to wear a uniform that doesn't look like its from Primark...), is it not the case that SAR crabs only do 6 weeks down there as a matter of routine?

[Jumping_Jack]

The Daily Mash - William to appease Argentina with Nazi uniform (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/william-to-appease-argentina-with-nazi-uniform-201202034853/)

:D

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

CG, did you actually read Furnace's post?

Civilians nearly always struggle with service humour :E

[Widger]

Okay,,I stand corrected but, 6 weeks is not a deployment but a detachment! The hotels in MPA are obviously not up to the mark!



































:E

[Kreuger flap]

Sooo when does a detachment become a deployment?

[glojo]

SIX WEEKS?? I bet Krueger Flap has spent more time on one wave when he deployed on his small frigate. .:ok:

En-route to the Falklands ;)

[Widger]

Thread drift.....Brilliant!

[AR1]

Just when I've got used to glugging on a decent Argentinian at mealtimes... They go and remove the facade of being a decent modern country with the recent pictures of the 'Protests' against HRH's penguin spotting. Police stand idly by, as masked men - all of a 'certain age' deface british businesses. - are people still fooled by this 'mock outrage' nonsense? Grow up.

Mind, It's one step up from the Invincible photograph that the kids crayoned in for the News broadcasts about 30 years ago.

[Jumping_Jack]

.....glugging on a decent Argentinian....:eek:

Are you trying to tell us something? ;)

[hval]

I am beginning to come around to believing that there could be an attempted Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands.

The Argentinian political system appears to be putting itself in to a situation where there will be no option but to attempt an invasion of the Falklands. I also see that Argentina is building up the Falkland Islands as not being Argentina v The Falkand Islands / The UK, but South America v The UK.

Has President Cristina Kirchner already started the war, via politics? She is certainly bullying the Falkand Islanders, with the assistance of neighbouring countries. There are/ were plans of a "fisherman's invasion", where fisherman plant flags on the Falklands & South Georgia apparently.

Argentina may not have the military might, but then that depends on what has been happening behind the scenes.

The other problem is that if Argentina are seen as the aggressors will they lose out politically? I suspect that in South America they will not. I also suspect that the USA will not care one way or the other politically. Globally how ever how will it be perceived? Most nations, I suspect will be glad that "perfidious Albion" will have been put in its place.

Will the USA provide the UK with any support this time around?

[pr00ne]

hval,

"I am beginning to come around to believing that there could be an attempted Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands."

How? No amphibious assets, a cash strapped military, a military that is not popular with the Govt and has not significantly re armed since 1982, a Govt that has also repeatedly said that it will only pursue peaceful means. It would attract very unwelcome attention from the IMF, the last thing it wants with the state of its economy, and the UN has come out firmly in favour of self determination.

No South American nation has the stomach, appetite or desire for a military conflict with the UK.

[hval]

pr00ne,

I agree with you; totally.

However (I know, I know, never start a sentence with however), if you look at the press reports in Argentina and the the press in surrounding countries, plus the economic blockades, I feel Argentina are putting themselves in a situation where they will have no option but to attempt an invasion.

There are reports of a proposed fishermen "invasion" for political gain. How the Falkland Island police manage this situation would also provide Argentina with political ammunition. It wouldn't matter how the situation would be managed the UK would still come out looking bad.

I am also able to think of a few ways that Argentina could make an invasion, without the use of their navy.

[Navaleye]

I can only agree with Pr00ne. An SSN and a T45 trumps anything Argentina can do.

[cokecan]

Hval,

i think you are correct - if anyone were to actually look at the spiral of government action/rhetoric, media coverage, and public demonstrations, this only going one way. nobody in Argentina is saying 'hang on', its all a viscous circle on incitement and can only have some type of military action as its end state.

the Argentine government is going to find itself in a position - self caused - where it has to have some kind of pop at the FI in order to stay in office. now, losing that pop may well result in it losing office, but that is less certain than the fact that it will get kicked out if it drives Argentina to the precipice and then saying 'nah, we told proone that we'd stick to peaceful means...'

who the fcuking hell believes what foreign governments - particularly ones who claim UK territory - say anyway?

[hval]

Navaleye,

It would look bad if the UK sank some fishing boats, or a cruise ship etc. Also, do we have sufficient assets to detect potential invasions from all directions - including the air?

I believe that Argentina are extremely unlikely to succeed, which is why I believe it to be foolish to even attempt an invasion. One thing on their side is the fact that the very few assets that we have are currently focussed else where.

I do feel that Argentinian politicians may not have any option though.

[Harley Quinn]

Turn the situation round, how would one put troops on an island to disrupt/sabotage the defence Command and Control? It is a big coastline with plenty of inlets/creeks.


Hvals use of 'civilians' could also prove very difficult to deal with, would the RN be able to justify sinking bunch of trawlers especially if there were some cameras on hand? Indeed depending how spread out they were how would the RN deal with effectively intercepting them?

[Green Flash]

I wonder what the status of the FIDF would be in any fisticuffs? Are they fully under the C&C of UKBF, with the same RoE's? And don't FIDF have a gunboat too? Not saying they could see off Ms Kirchners boys singlehanded but they do know the area rather well and who knows what off the ball tackles they could put in?!

[hval]

I do also hope that the oil platforms are defended sufficiently.

There are an awful lot of ships not declaring who they are of the coasts of the Falklands.

800 miles of coastline? Lots of minor islands? 4,700 square miles? And how many effective troops? What does that make per square mile?

What targets are important? What targets could directly or indirectly influence an attack? What about South Georgia? Targets don't have to be on the Falkland Islands.

Denial of ports & airfields are a good start.

[hval]

Greenflash,

Take a look here (http://www.falklands.gov.fk/Police.html)

Might find your answer

[Airborne Aircrew]

How? No amphibious assets, a cash strapped military, a military that is not popular with the Govt and has not significantly re armed since 1982, a Govt that has also repeatedly said that it will only pursue peaceful means.

The problem with the weak is that they rarely see just how weak they are until they commit to something they shouldn't have...

[Harley Quinn]

The problem with the weak is that they rarely see just how weak they are until they commit to something they shouldn't have...

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but to which side of this dispute do you apply it?

[glojo]

I'm reading some posts that suggest we might torpedo any Argentine ships that entered the territorial waters belonging to the Falklands and all I can say is.. 'Would we?'

Do we honestly believe that the commanding officer of one of Her Majesty's warships would fire upon a foreign flagged vessel without authorisation from on high?

I have NO idea what any ROE may or may not instruct but to fire a torpedo at an unarmed ship without any declaration of war is possibly a step too far. Would those rules be so black and white that the commanding officer has a clear duty to fire, or would they be wishy washy and leave the final act down to the discretion of that poor soul? Would the ship definitely be carrying an invading force or could it be a group of school children studying sea-life, fishing and the history of those islands??

Are we back to the 12 mile territorial waters? From experience it gets embarrassing when a ship refuses to stop or turn away from their port of destination and getting authorisation to act is not going to happen straight away and that 12 miles is going to be covered way before the decision goes all the way up the chain of command.

My thoughts are if you want to see how indecisive our politicians are then just put two types of toilet paper in their private ablutions.... 'Soft or smooth?'... 'Smooth or soft?'

By the time any decision is made that ship will have entered port, unloaded its cargo and no doubt returned from whence it came.

We are all good kids sat in front of our computers saying how we should do one thing or the other but I am not so convinced the World is so black and white.

Air cover
If we are being honest and I suggest we should not be, so being totally dishonest.... On a really bad day when aircraft are being serviced and those due to fly suddenly develop problems how many typhoons could we expect to put up to defend the islands? Aircraft breakdown, aircraft need servicing and perish the thought we also get bad weather.

I am in the corner that believes there will be no conflict this week, this month and maybe not for the next six months, but it is a fool that really believes there will be no conflict within our lifetime!!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSAIACw7hJ37BwvL_NUoLH2Xex402ug4Vq2Rja24S7 zdNKqKEVj

[Milo Minderbinder]

If the Argentines invade they'll have to use commandeered civilian ferries. Assuming 600 men / ship then I guess they would need at least ten for an attacking force? Is one submarine really going to be able to stop ten ships? Especially civilian ones whose purpose may not be clear until too late?
If the Argentines were to use the 40-knot Seacat type vessels that cruise the River Plate (they may have to borrow some from Uruguay) they could run to Stanley from Buenos Aires in less than 30 hours. From somewhere closer like Ria Gallegos it would be around 6-7 hours.
Assuming they could keep the mobilisation of men and ferries secret, then theres not much time for one submarine to get in the way of a fleet of 40 knot vessels

And if anyone believes using catamarans is unrealistic, then think of the examples of Jervis Bay and Joint Venture. And also remember that Catlink 5 managed the eastbound Atlantic crossing at an average of 41.2 knots

[aw ditor]

As per Mr. Punch:- "Thats the way to do it"!

[knowitall]

"If the Argentines were to use the 40-knot Seacat type vessels that cruise the River Plate (they may have to borrow some from Uruguay) they could run to Stanley from Buenos Aires in less than 30 hours."

Where would they unload them?

Do the islands even have the facility to unload RO-RO vessels?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Especially civilian ones whose purpose may not be clear until too late?

Might I suggest that even a Navy officer might, when confronted by ten ferries in open water rather than their usual coastal haunts skimming along at 40 kts towards the Falkland Islands from the general direction of South America, come to the conclusion that something is amiss. But then, maybe, my confidence in Naval officers is misplaced. :}

[Milo Minderbinder]

its possible to unload via pontoons attached to the ramp, , or through a roll-on platform angled diagonally from the rear ramp platform to the quay. Small vehicles only, but heavier stuff could follow on later - same as last time
Joint Venture was fitted with a folding diagonal ramp which allowed unloading anywhere - but there wouldn't be time to engineer that, so something makeshift would have to do.


PS - I think my earlier post may have misrepresented the situation. . On checking the current whereabouts of the Incat boats there aren't so many down south- certainly not ten. So maybe just two or three - followed by a conventional ferry fleet.

[dat581]

Incat ferries are quite large and especially wide so would they make easy meat for strike aircraft. Could the Typhoon handle this at it's present level of capability?

[Harley Quinn]

I think many are missing the point about the 4 Typhoons down there; they are, as I understand things, a deterrent only.

Tranche 1 aircraft were declared as multi-role in Jul 2008, gaining the designation FGR4 (T3 2-seat variant), fielding the Litening Laser Designator Pod and Paveway 2, Enhanced Paveway 2 and 1000lb freefall class of weapons. Only a handful of F2/T1 aircraft remain, these will be upgraded to FGR4/T3 by the end of 2012. Tranche 2 aircraft deliveries commenced under the 4-nation contract in 2008, in the air-to-air role only. These aircraft were deployed to the Falkland Islands to take-over duties from the Tornado F3 in Sep 09. Currently, upgrades to Tranche 2 continue as part of the main contract, with air-to-ground capability expected in 2012.

The above was taken from here (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm) and indicates to me that the FI aircraft are AD only.

[glojo]

Might I suggest that even a Navy officer might, when confronted by ten ferries in open water rather than their usual coastal haunts skimming along at 40 kts towards the Falkland Islands from the general direction of South America, come to the conclusion that something is amiss. But then, maybe, my confidence in Naval officers is misplaced. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gifI did not want to get involved in this debate as I feel it is getting into the realms of fantasy...

Firstly how many times are we going to read about so called friendly fire incidents where a church or mosque is bombed and then we discover the occupants of those places were innocent men women and children attending a perfectly innocent wedding... I'm sorry but to me that is not an accident...

To assume merchant ships, flying a civilian flag and possibly registered in a state\country of convenience are carrying solely armed soldiers from a country intent on attacking British sovereign soil might be acceptable to some BUT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to the Royal Navy. Would we be operating under the terms and conditions of a United Nations Resolution or would we be operating solely on our own and using our own rules of engagement?

The MINIMUM either of these authorities (UN resolution or ROE) will possibly demand is that the British warship contacts the ship via VHF and demand they divert or stand to and be boarded.

Not a task for a submarine..

If these merchant vessels refuse to comply then the next stage will be to possibly contact the country of registration, so take your pick from any country of convenience but this is what will most definitely be required to establish what is being carried by that merchant or civilian vessel.

No matter the time of day the most stringent methods MUST be used to contact the owners of that ship and all the time these vessels are steaming toward their destination.

If after the most exhaustive methods have failed to locate the owners then the warship MIGHT get permission to fire shots across the bows.... How close are we now to the shores of Port Stanley?

Again this will rule out our submarines and getting close enough to use 'small arms' is a ridiculous non starter.

If these vessels have failed to answer their radio, and we have failed to contact the owners of the ship, and they have also failed to stop after having shots fired across the bows then the stakes are raised. The wires between the warship ship and MOD will be red hot... The wires between the MoD, Foreign Office and possibly the Prime Minister will now be glowing and who is going to make the next decision?

Send a boarding party!!!

Again that rules out the submarine..

Sending a boarding party to a fast moving, high sided merchant ship that is being uncooperative is not for the faint hearted and once more..

This rules out the submarine.

If those merchant ships have not reached their destination we are now looking toward our politicians that usually can never make an important decision without first asking just about everyone and their dog for advice

'How will this look on the front pages?

Will this win me votes?

What coloured suit should I wear?

Once all these and other less significant questions are answered like possible loss of innocent lives, then and only then might the warship get permission to possibly put live round or rounds into the bridge!!!

Why am I suggesting such caution?

You tell me there are NO CHILDREN on that ship...

You tell me with ONE HUNDRED PER CENT certainty what the intentions of those ships are!..

It is a high possibility that someone could load these ships with young children, the old, the infirm, ordinary families all being offered cheap holidays just to see the 'Malvinas'.

Their government had NO intention of any invasion they just want to exercise their right of free passage and of course to get World publicity to highlight their cause. They could also be 'cheating' and have all these passengers PLUS thousands of soldiers stowed away below decks. Woe betide any GUNG HO idiot that thinks its clever to kill first and ask questions later.

Apologies if this post is too long

Apologies if I am wittering, but make no mistake..

I am British, I am proud to be British, I am proud of the way we protected the rights of those that have voted to live the way they want. I am proud of our military for their professionalism, the manner in which they removed those that wanted to force a different lifestyle on those that live in the Falklands and I will be the first to vote for a second conflict if it is deemed necessary, but we have to exercise caution and not engage trigger before engaging brain...

You do not blow up merchant ships that may well be flying the Panamanian or any other South American flag of convenience just because you think they might be carrying soldiers... It would not matter if those civilian ships were flying the flag of Argentina, as long as they are civilian registered then due diligence has to be carried out. The cargo has to be checked, the occupants have to be checked and if not then we must stick to any mandates or rules of engagement

If they were seconded to the military and they flew the correct military flag then that might well be a different scenario!

Military flag
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Flag_of_Argentina.svg/96px-Flag_of_Argentina.svg.png

Civilian Flag
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Flag_of_Argentina_%28alternative%29.svg/94px-Flag_of_Argentina_%28alternative%29.svg.png

Subtle differences, but differences of significance. Military ships that enter the territorial waters of another nation without permission are being 'very naughty' and there may well be consequences for that act of aggression!

[500N]

"Sending a boarding party to a fast moving, high sided merchant ship that is being uncooperative is not for the faint hearted and once more.."Then use a Helicopter as well to drop a boarding party on board.

Interesting post anyway.


Couldn't you mine the harbour and approaches and then cover them with other fire to stop any Argie mine hunters ?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Glojo:

Interesting and informed post but surely what you are saying is that as long as they do not respond they will be allowed to simply drive right up to the Falklands and disgorge 6000 troops.

Logically, after all the measures taken including popping shots in front of them, it is quite reasonable to assume that there are few, if any, women and children aboard and when they cross the 12 mile limit it is not at all an unreasonable act to open fire on them. It's a decision I would not hesitate to make because I owe it to the serving men and women on the islands to not allow a superior force to attack them. My duty would not be and my loyalty is not to civilians of another country but to the serving men and women of the British Armed Forces and the civilians they are there to protect. Argentina would be entirely responsible for sending their civilians into harms way to make a political or public relations point and I have zero sympathy whatsoever for those that sent them or those that were sent.

[Ken Scott]

Yes, but just look at all the fuss that was made when we sank an Argentinian cruiser during the '82 war just because it may have been pointing in one direction rather than another.... In my opinion we were at war & the Belgrano was an enemy ship and therefore a legitimate target but popular opinion did not agree so the reaction to our sinking a civilian registered vessel might not be very positive.

[FODPlod]

Heaven help us from bloodthirsty armchair warriors.

...it is not at all an unreasonable act to open fire on them. It's a decision I would not hesitate to make because I owe it to the serving men and women on the islands to not allow a superior force to attack them. My duty would not be and my loyalty is not to civilians of another country but to the serving men and women of the British Armed Forces and the civilians they are there to protect. Argentina would be entirely responsible for sending their civilians into harms way to make a political or public relations point and I have zero sympathy whatsoever for those that sent them or those that were sent.What position are you holding when you make this decision that contravenes the Hague Convention and leaves you open to indictment for war crimes? The Prime Minister, the C-in-C, the CO of the ship or the sailor with his finger on the trigger who is "just obeying orders"?

During the First World War, as Germany waged submarine warfare against Britain, the ship was identified and torpedoed by the German U-boat U-20 on 7 May 1915 and sank in eighteen minutes. The vessel went down eleven miles (18 km) off the Old Head of Kinsale, Ireland, killing 1,198 of the 1,959 people aboard, leaving 764 survivors. The sinking turned public opinion in many countries against Germany, contributed to the American entry into World War I and became an iconic symbol in military recruiting campaigns of why the war was being fought.Athenia, under Captain James Cook, departed Glasgow for Montreal on 1 September 1939, via Liverpool and Belfast, carrying 1,103 passengers, including more than 300 Americans, and 315 crew. She left Liverpool at 13:00 on 2 September, and on the evening of 3 September was 60 mi (97 km) south of Rockall (250 miles/400 km northwest of Inishtrahull, Ireland), when she was sighted by the German submarine U-30 (1936) commanded by Oberleutnant Fritz-Julius Lemp around 16:30. Lemp later claimed that the fact that she was a darkened ship steering a zigzag course which seemed to be well off the normal shipping routes made him believe she was either a troopship or a Q-ship or an armed merchant cruiser. U-30 tracked the Athenia for three hours until eventually, at 19:40, when both vessels were between Rockall and Tory Island, Lemp ordered two torpedoes to be fired. The first struck home and exploded, while the second misfired. Athenia began to settle by the stern...

As Athenia was an unarmed passenger ship, the attack was in violation of the Hague conventions and the London Naval Treaty of 1930 which allowed all warships including submarines to stop and search merchant vessels, but forbade capture as prize or sinking unless the ship was carrying contraband or engaged in military activity. Even if this was the case, and if it was decided to sink their ship, it was required that that passengers and crew must be transferred to a "place of safety" as a priority.

[500N]

Ken

It was a good media beat up as usual, would the media have done such a beat up if one of the carriers had been hit. They didn't seem to for any of the other ships.

[Harley Quinn]

FFS, I am glad that most of you posting are not in the military, 'cos frankly your ideas about preventing the loss of the islands with the current UK military capability are total pigs@&t.

500N Then use a Helicopter as well to drop a boarding party on board. totally risible, not many helicopters carried by HM submarines, and as for AA I'm afraid the days of 'crossing the line' or 'reading the riot act' are long gone, whether you like it or not.

[glojo]

Thanks folks for taking my post in the spirit it was meant.

First to answer 500N

Regarding the use of the helicopter, we MUST obviously use all our resources to prevent any invasion. BUT......We also have to be careful we are NOT putting 'hostages' aboard these ships. What I mean by that is if the ship is carrying hundreds of soldiers along with the school children then those few soldiers we put onto the deck of the Merchant ship are possibly up the Khyber without a paddle!!

Hopefully my post MUST is looked at as asking questions as opposed to giving answers. I am NOT saying we cannot do this or we must do that. I am suggesting what may not be possible and what may be considered murder or at least a war crime..

Attacking unarmed merchant ships that are sailing the high seas, and going about their lawful business is not something I for one would want to be associated with, so before getting down and dirty, we must be whiter than white in making sure these vessels are part of an invasion.

Airborne
We are talking about civilian flagged merchant vessels and sadly there will be a very real possibility of these ships sailing unopposed into Port Stanley.

Don't forget I am only talking about civilian flagged ships, I am NOT talking about those vessels flying military flags and in the service of the Argentine government. Once that civilian ship enters the 12 mile limit then I quite like the idea of putting a huge net or rope in the water right across the bows of the ship and let the thing wrap around the propeller.

These issues MUST be sorted out PRIOR to challenging civilian flagged ships and to me the MAJOR problem is when they are flying what we call a 'flag of convenience' You will find a HUGE number of merchant ships being registered in places like the Bahamas which I believe is ranked about the sixth biggest fleet worldwide.

I am playing Devil's Advocate and no doubt folks FAR more clever than myself are giving this issue serious thought but in the meantime we have to accept that things are never black and white. The submarine is an amazing deterrent certain types of target but might not be of much use against others.

I have NO ISSUES with the sinking of the Belgrano, or of course the British losses.

[500N]

Harley

glojo was saying why a submarine wasn't any use in the scenarios he was posting about.

I was thinking laterally. We have helicopters on the Falklands, one on HMS Dauntless and probably others on other warships, all with a range well past the 12 mile exclusion zone or wait until inside the 12 mile exclusion zone.

The RM who are more than capable of conducting a boarding party from the air or sea.



glojo
We both posted at the same time. Yes, I realise you are asking questions as well as providing answers, have no problem with that.


Re boarding civilian merchant ships, we had a situation here where a North Korean ship was "up to no good", the police from 2 states and customs tried to get it to stop and tried to board it but they couldn't / didn't have the expertise to do it so the Federal Gov't called in the Defence forces (Navy, SAS and Commandos) and the ship was boarded in very rough seas from the air and sea and controlled in a very short while. The North Koreans were armed.

If the Gov't thinks a ship is up to no good, they have a right to board and stop it.

(Australia has a (bad) habit of boarding Civilian registered merchant ships and doing things they shouldn't with them but the storm normally blows over after a few days or weeks. Taking over one Civilian registered merchant ship helped one Gov't get re elected !!!)

[Airborne Aircrew]

FODPlod:

What position are you holding when you make this decision that contravenes the Hague Convention and leaves you open to indictment for war crimes? The Prime Minister, the C-in-C, the CO of the ship or the sailor with his finger on the trigger who is "just obeying orders"?

Clearly I would have to be the PM... :ugh:

I take it you are all for using civilians as shields for the military then. Because, by allowing these hypothetical, (because, after all, this is what they are in this conversation), ten passenger ferries who are traveling with civilians aboard as a group at high speed towards sovereign territory refusing to acknowledge even when fired upon that is exactly what you are doing.

Why do you believe it to be anyone but the foreign government's responsibility if their civilians die when they are used as shields for their military?

[Thelma Viaduct]

MLRS is a grid square remover and would make short of any landing party.
It would also be an ideal location to use UAVs for targeting info and other intelligence.

[Jimlad1]

I'm still trying to get my head round where these ferries are supposed to come alongside, and where the landing facilities are for them exactly?
Also, what cargo is going along with them too, as otherwise you've got 10 ferries worth of lightly armed infantry and nothing else.

I don't want to sound patronising, but if you go and look at the worlds amphibious fleets, you'll see a lot of very specific ship types, and a lot of investment in C2, and a lot of investment in logistics to get kit ashore. You do not see a lot of investment for 10 high speed ferries that have no means of actually putting their troops ashore when they reach their destination...

[TheWizard]

Will this effect the filming of the next series of the Total Wipeout (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lpnkd) gameshow fronted by Richard Hammond?


Actually, with a title like that the final round could be interesting...

[Milo Minderbinder]

but he never goes on site- all the local filming is done by that Irish girl

[Capt Pit Bull]

Personally, I don't think its beyold the realms of possibility that the Argentinians might have another go.

Certainly the statement that they are committed to peaceful means only cannot be given any credence. If I were in her shoes I would keep banging on about that right up to the point my forces went into action. Maintenance of surprise and all that.

Do I think they are particularly likely to suceed? No idea. Been out of it for too long. I would have thought that with a little judicious spending, rallying of allies, and the willingness to try some 'irregular methods' they could have a damn good go. It might be a really bad idea, but all it needs is the wrong combination of perceived political capital to be gained and optimistic subordinates.

But that's not really why I have posted. Seems to me the Argentinan government is showing its hand as bullying. I refer to the banning of FI registered vessels from Mercosur ports (and air overflights). Given that we are at peace I do not see how this can be justified.

Accordingly I think we should push back. How about we ban Mercosur registed vessels and aircraft from UK airspace and territorial waters for 48 hours. Let that send a message... do you really want to F*** with us?

This woman is dangerous. Better we bop her on the nose with counter-sanctions than end up having to kill more of the poor sods.

pb

[500N]

I agree, why have the UK not banned Argentinian vessels from UK waters or something similar, even for a short time ?

[hval]

Here is how Al Jazeera are reporting

Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/201223163841602471.html)

A big improvement on the article that someone had written very early this AM. It was factually incorrect, full of lies, and obviously written by someone who hates the UK. It was very rude to the UK, and basically said that Britain had forced the Argentinians out of "The Malvinas", and stolen it from them.

[hval]

Pious Pilot,

We would require sufficient MLRS, ammnition resupplies, fuel, spares, etc, as well as UAVs in theatre. Also require adequate current intel and comms; plus sufficient separation of opposing forces from friendlies and civvies.

Edit... Also need lots of small arms ammunition

[hval]

Hugo Chavez , President of Venezuela has pledged that his armed forces would fight alongside Argentina in any conflict with Britain. The Venezuelan militarry, after a purge, are loyal to Chavez.

President Chavez has been upgrading Venezuelas military forces quite consdierably. Purchase are from countries including Russia, China, Spain,

These chaps have some useful assets.

[Jabba_TG12]

"No South American nation has the stomach, appetite or desire for a military conflict with the UK"

Maybe so. But as a lot of posters are realising, there is no need for a prolonged conflict with the UK. Play their cards right and there's no conflict to be had beyond taking the airfield. Its really that simple. If you lose MPA, you've lost the islands.

The T45 and the SSN are indeed, very useful assets, although I am somewhat concerned about whether, if it came to it that the T45 is truly ready enough. Given the things that have happened over the last few years when the RN couldnt even prevent a couple's yacht being hijacked when they were sat virtually right on top of the damned thing, given the fun and games with HMS Cornwall in the Gulf with the Iranians, I seriously think that unless the Islands and the airfield in particular are reinforced adequately that its going to be a matter of when, not if.

The one scenario that would be ruled out as being possible for an enemy (and therefore not prepared to be countered) is probably the one they will think of and use. I believe the Woodward/Thompson scenario to be totally possible. All it is going to take is to distract the Typhoons elsewhere in the FICZ for long enough. Plus, the SSN, should she be located (not necessarily by the Argentine, but with other nations with access to assets that are capable and who are more pre-disposed to Mercosurs position), will have to spend more time trying to remain hidden than being effective on station.

That would leave the T45 as a sitting duck. Not sure I'd be completely happy relying on the promises in BAe's sales brochures if theres a whole bunch of AM39's heading in her direction.

We shall no doubt see though, over the coming months. Rattling a sabre makes an awful lot of noise. Drawing it does not.

[Lonewolf_50]

Are all of the Islanders (civilians) armed?

Are they trained as a militia?

If not, why not?

If you want to stay free from foreigners, as the Islanders apparently do (seeing the Argentines as foreigners) then you sometimes have to fight for your freedom.

Are they willing to fight?

[500N]

Lonewolf

"Are they willing to fight?"

Wasn't that answered in 1982 by more than a few ?

Well after the war, reading about some of the exploits of some was
inspiring to say the least. The one who was presented with a Para beret
was impressive to me.

[tangoe]

just a tiny amount of research, even just reading this thread and you would know about the FIDF!

Falkland Islands Defence Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Defence_Force)

[cokecan]

Lonewolf,

as we see in Syria, having an armed population doesn't help much when the enemy has Artillery.

do please remember that Argentina is a country that made a habit of throwing students out of helicopters within living memory - this is not some NRA wet dream, its very much more serious than that.

[MFC_Fly]

Jabba...
Given the things that have happened over the last few years when the RN couldnt even prevent a couple's yacht being hijacked when they were sat virtually right on top of the damned thing, given the fun and games with HMS Cornwall in the Gulf with the Iranians
Those 2 situations were ROE related, not capability - even if the RN do cry about having their iPods taken off them :E

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

its all a viscous circle


so would you say the Falklands are on a sticky wicket?:p

[Courtney Mil]

Too many Saturday afternoon quarterbcks thinking they could do better. The Royal Navy does amazing work with the resources available and working within the ROE. Come up with something better to criticise.

We are well prepared to hold fortress Falklands and Argentina know it. If they thought otherwise, they and their friends would be doing more than just whinging about it.

[hval]

It looks like the USAF is getting rid of five squadrons of A10's. Maybe we should purchase a few squadrons.

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf
"Are they willing to fight?"
Wasn't that answered in 1982 by more than a few ?
Well after the war, reading about some of the exploits of some was inspiring to say the least. The one who was presented with a Para beret was impressive to me.

500N: The year is 2012. Old valor may not matter, or may be part of the heritage passed down. I’ve not been there, I thus have no idea, therefore I ask.

tangoe: " just a tiny amount of research, even just reading this thread and you would know about the FIDF!"
Thank you for the link, tangoe, even if your attitude was less than cordial.
Lonewolf, as we see in Syria, having an armed population doesn't help much when the enemy has Artillery.
Not just armed, but trained to the level of a comptent militia, and able to actually fight in small unit formations. (Platoon and company sized)
(Compare and contrast: the undisciplined militia one saw during the latest Libyan thing, who seemed not to get that bit early on).
do please remember that Argentina is a country that made a habit of throwing students out of helicopters within living memory - this is not some NRA wet dream, its very much more serious than that.
Indeed, Argentina, if they come, will mean business. I expect combined arms, deception, radio shennanigans, and a full out political offensive to try and delay/preclude any support from Home Islands.

So, who are they up against, other than the regulars in the Royal Navy and RAF? (Isn't there also a regular Army formation there?)
The Falkland Islands Defence Force today is funded entirely by the Falklands government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Falkland_Islands) and has an annual budget of ₤400, 000.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Defence_Force#cite_note-2)

The FIDF is organised as a light infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_infantry) company. It is manned entirely by the local population, following British Army doctrine, training and operations.
In an agreement with the British Ministry of Defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom)), a Royal Marines Warrant Officer 2 is seconded to the Force as a Permanent Staff Instructor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Staff_Instructor).

Two permanent soldiers from the islands are employed as the Force's Commanding Officer, ranked as a Major (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major), and as the senior non-commissioned officer, ranked as a Sergeant Major (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_Major).

The FIDF operates sniper/reconnaissance, machine gun, close combat, amphibious and logistic support units, co-ordinated by a central command. It has the capability to mount its own armed defence against illegal fishing in Falkland waters. It also fulfills the role of a mountain rescue agency for the archipelago.
A light infantry company does not represent the sum total of the potential capability of a participatory and armed militia. My point of reference comes form old colonial America, and our first century as a nation. The common requirement on the frontier was that all men of sound constitution (age 16 to 60) constitute the Militia, and were to be called up if an emergency arose.

The Argies showing up seems to me to constitute an emergency.

I'll leave it at that.

All the above considered, I sincerely hope that it doesn't come to that.

[cokecan]

me too, because if we get to a stage where we're exchanging small arms fire with them then we've lost.

there's another infantry Coy on the Islands, but what keeps them at arms length is air power and GBFO radars. personally i think we'd defend them far better with more air power - another flight of Typhoons for a start, and a second of GR4's - and less ground force.

i think we also need to be careful about assuming that the force we currently have on the Islands is the deterant we think it is - perhaps what has kept them out so far has not been that they have been scared off by the deterant, but that Argentinas political leaders have not wanted to go down the road of conflict. if that has changed, and i think it has, then we should be less sanguine about our calculations of the effect our current force has on their political/military thinking.

[SilsoeSid]

HELICOPTER Carrier Leaving On Monday (http://inverclydenow.com/news/local/6464-helicopter-carrier-leaving-on-monday)

MASSIVE navy ship HMS Illustrious will leave the Firth of Clyde next Monday.

The helicopter carrier, which arrived on Sunday, is at the ammunitioning jetty at Glenmallan, Loch Long taking on stores and ammunition she’ll need before heading much further north for exercises.

HMS Illustrious is heading inside the Arctic Circle for eight weeks of arduous cold weather training which culminates in Exercise Cold Response, a Norwegian-led NATO exercise which will also involve ships from Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden.

http://inverclydenow.com/images/stories/food/illustrious050212in2.jpg

Once that is completed Illustrious will be ready to take over as the UK’s high-readiness helicopter and commando carrier, ready for action anywhere in the world.

During the exercise, she will embark her Lynx and Sea King helicopters along with a company of Royal Marines from Plymouth-based 42 Commando. The Royal Marines will be joined ashore by landing forces from the Netherlands and the United States. Amphibious assault ship HMS Bulwark will also be taking part.

Captain Martin Connell, the Commanding Officer of HMS Illustrious, said: “Last year the government reaffirmed the need for the UK’s armed forces to be capable of responding to a wide variety of potential crises anywhere in the world. Operating and fighting in extreme weather is just one vital part of a global capability and it is important that we exercise it from time to time.

“This exercise inside the Arctic Circle will be a stiff test but it marks a significant milestone in preparing to take over as the UK’s sole high readiness helicopter carrier later in the year.”


Full steam ahead !!!
http://image.dhgate.com/upload/spider/b/022/679/b_8qij9p679022_2.jpg

[WillDAQ]

Full steam ahead !!!

I'm not sure that trolling is necessarily a good strategy for international relations, but Illustrious popping up off the Falklands would certainly be amusing.

[glojo]

Hi Lonewolf,
I personally cringe at the idea of those brave islanders setting up any type of militia that would fight an occupying force. Note I am saying an occupying force and not an invading force.

America is a beautiful country with lots of forests, fauna etc, the Falkland Islands have...........

http://www.falklandislands.com/images/view/727/370/250

http://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/polopoly_fs/there-are-no-supplementary-rations-for-the-sheep-that-graze-on-these-falkland-hills-1.1006084%21image/559915604.JPG_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/559915604.JPG

NO forests, no trees and not many places where groups of militia can comfortably operate from. It would possibly be far too dangerous to hide out in the farms owned by islanders as there would be no place to hide if the occupying force were to search that property.

If you enjoy hiding in a bog!! (Is that a slang term for toilet) or among the rocks or barren heathland then this is the place for you except you might have to live on a diet of raw seal or seagull!! (Would you risk having a bonfire to cook your food)

Forget living off the fruits of the land as that will not happen. forget laying out in the nice warm sunshine as that is also unlikely to happen.

Our highly trained special forces managed to survive but they were well stocked and extremely well trained. A significant number of British soldiers that marched across the Falklands required medical attention for the dreaded trench foot which was caused by the horrible boggy conditions.. How will the militia cope with these conditions and for how long?

I would however like to think that the Defence Force might be able to commit acts of sabotage, spying and of course general non compliance but playing at soldiers once the islands have been captured might be a step too far.

Something that is still a very sensitive topic is the occupation of Guernsey\Jersey during the Second World War, I am in NO position to judge their behaviour just like I am in no position to judge the conduct of those that live under the protection of the Union Flag in the South Atlantic. However whilst they swear allegiance to that flag we MUST be duty bound to protect those islands.

[Courtney Mil]

Yep! That pretty much sums it up, Glojo. The Falklands is no place to live rough off the land whilst trying to be covert. The early settlers sort of did it, but they could light fires and build shelters and we're living in occupied territory.

Last time the Argies came to visit, they declared the FIDF illegal and locked most of them up. I guess they have names and addresses.

Courtney

[500N]

Don't know if Terry Peck was a member but they certainly had names and addresses and one of the reasons he got away was because he was warned by one of the Policeman who was "helping" the Argies.

And he did pretty well helping the Paras.

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, I'm sure he was. He was the guy that faught with the Paras at Longdon?

[500N]

Yes, I just checked, you are correct on both counts.

[Lonewolf_50]

Thanks for the insights. :ok:

Best to prevent the landing, of course ...

[SilsoeSid]

I would however like to think that the Defence Force might be able to commit acts of sabotage, spying and of course general non compliance but playing at soldiers once the islands have been captured might be a step too far.

FFS, René Artois at the Upland Goose!!! I bet the waiting staff are a bit more windswept these days, with thermals instead of stockings. More like Nora Batty than Yvetté.

Mmm. All well and good until you're caught and legally executed as a spy.
At least as uniformed soldiers they are protected by international conventions of war, whether fighting or having surrendered.

Night'awk calling :rolleyes:

[charliegolf]

I offer no military questions or answers- I don't have the knowledge.

But no-one seems to have mentioned the obvious real world problem: the world is nearly bankrupt. Can Argentina retake the islands? 'Maybe', seems to be the answer.

Can they sink the billions upon billions needed to hold them during the subsequesnt 'peace'? Nobody's really beenthreatening the Falklands since '82. How much has the last 30 years cost us to ensure that lack of threat?

Are they that stupid? (Pollies involved, am I that stupid to ask the question!)

CG

[cokecan]

CG, if we lose the Islands, we can't even begin to think about taking them back. the loss of carrier aviation - and i'm talking generally, not specifically about CVS/GR9 - means we have no capability to threaten an Argentine garrison on the Islands.

they wouldn't need to spend billions to keep them, they would be as untouched by UK forces as if they were on the far-saide of the moon. the monetary cost to Kirchner of eternal political popularity and having every town square in Argentina named after her would litterally be however much it cost to re-write the signposts in Stanley in Spanish.

thats it.

we should take that into consideration - as well as remembering that before the loss of CVS/GR9, part of the deterent to Argentina came in the shape of our (probable) ability to retake them should the Argentines manage a successful invasion/seige. that has now gone, yet the force on the Islands remains the same.

you mentioned the stupidity of politicians?

[SilsoeSid]

CG, if we lose the Islands, we can't even begin to think about taking them back. the loss of carrier aviation - and i'm talking generally, not specifically about CVS/GR9 - means we have no capability to threaten an Argentine garrison on the Islands.


I must disagree with that statement.

It might take a while to muster the assets, but we still have the capability to retake the Islands. We can bleat as long as we like about the loss of the Harrier, but it's gone and not coming back. Step up the Apache, war proven, ship operable and with current crews, as are all our helicopter assets.

Technology has advanced somewhat in the lat 30 years and we know what we can do and how we can do it. We have better kit, much better kit. Gortex boots for example, as opposed to the cardboard soled DMS and putties from last time, and I would say that our troops would be well up for a more traditional war. As before, the opposition will fail to have the staying power.

What's needed to fight a war? Air superiority?
Perhaps not if you can control the air with something like Dauntless and effective reconnaissance of anti air targets. We decide what is allowed to fly...step up Apache and SH. It'll all be over by Christmas !


Lets not forget, from the kick off this time, we have a few more feet on the ground than 2 troops of Royals at Moody Brook on changeover.

[cokecan]

Sid,

yes, a combination of Ocean/Lusty and AH-64, with SSN/TLAM and T45 could theoretically be used to attack the islands. given however that the Argentines would have occupancy of MPA, and would doubtlessly be using it to operate some of its 64 fast jets (Mirage III, V, IAI Dagger, A-4AR and Super Etendard) - what kind of casualty rate do you think this 'oxfam' fleet would take before a set of gucci goretex boots walked on the sand?

[SilsoeSid]

For starters cokecan, you forget that in order to occupy MPA and get all those aeroplanes & forces in situ, they will have to overcome the British forces already there. In addition, with Dauntless on the way down, they'd better be quick to launch any sort of offensive, otherwise they will be taken out before they cross the mainland airfields boundary.

As for casualty rates, they'll have to attend the party first. Rest assured that as soon as we show our intent, they'll be to scuttling back to port to watch the next match in the 'Cruiser General Belgrano' football league! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/argentina-football-league-ship-falklands?newsfeed=true)

[cokecan]

Sid,

you were the one who brought up the 'what can we do if they succeed?' topic - it would perhaps therefore be polite/sentient if you cosidered my answer to your question in light of the question you asked. unless, of course, your 'contributions' are so inane that even you can't remember them?

do you know what the infantry/teeth arms strength on the islands is, rather than the total strength, or have you just been reading the Daily Mail?

do you understand that when an RAF tech is shooting at Argentine infantry, he isn't nailing AIM-120's or Paveway IV's onto a Typhoon?

do you know how long Dauntless will be on station for, and how many armed and operational Type 45's we have in service to replace her?

[glojo]

FFS, René Artois at the Upland Goose!!! I bet the waiting staff are a bit more windswept these days, with thermals instead of stockings. More like Nora Batty than Yvetté.

Mmm. All well and good until you're caught and legally executed as a spy.
At least as uniformed soldiers they are protected by international conventions of war, whether fighting or having surrendered.

Night'awk calling :rolleyes:I have no idea what you are trying to say but I fear my choice of words could have been better... For 'spying' read intelligence gathering and if that still causes you concern then please feel free to pm me so that I can further explain what I mean... Hopefully most folks will understand my meanings.

[Harley Quinn]

If I read the disposition of forces correctly, the most high value visible asset is the Type 45 on station (when it gets there). How is it protected from submarine attack?

[Biggus]

HQ,

Dolphins with laser beams.....!













Er, forget I said that, didn't mean to let the cat out of the bag!!!

[Biggus]

While I'm not suggesting that a mass parachute assault will be attempted by Argentina, the German capture of Crete in 1941 illustrates that it is possible to capture an island, despite a strong ground defence, without a large, highly specialist, amphibious capability in your navy.

Courage, daring, the willingness to accept losses and the use of innovative tactics can all ensure that so called "fortresses" can be taken, as has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history since Troy (and probably even earlier).

At the end of the day the defence of the FI rests almost entirely on 4 Typhoons. If the Argentinians can establish and maintain air superiority over the FI the rest has a certain inevitability about it.

4 Typhoons is a pretty thin defence (I know, we will have reinforced by then as we know an invasion will be coming.... Yeah, like that worked the last time!!), which a smart opponent can overcome by a variety of options rather than direct aerial combat....

As for a Type 45 and an SSN, how often will they be down there? We will only have 6 Type 45s, and about 12 FFs, so 2 deployments out of every 3 for surface vessels probably won't be a specialist AAW platform. What price one type 23 against whatever the opposition elects to throw at it? SSNs are also pretty thin on the ground, and I'd be surprised if one was down there on a regular basis.

As for retaking the islands if we lost them, it is not just about military capability, but the political will of the UK PM and government of the day. Will they be willing to take large numbers of casualties, and potentially lose, in what would be a higher risk venture than 1982 without a UK carrier flying fixed wing assets...

[Harley Quinn]

Frickin' genius, Dr Evil

Always knew force multiplier was the way to go

[racedo]

On last occasion RR and Sir Casper aided UK forces because they needed Maggie to support them in Europe against Russkis.

Somehow I doubt BO and Leon Panetta will be offering same help as South America has a lot more trade opportunities.

[SilsoeSid]

...it would perhaps therefore be polite/sentient if you cosidered my answer to your question in light of the question you asked.

I take it you mean the question;
what kind of casualty rate do you think this 'oxfam' fleet would take before a set of gucci goretex boots walked on the sand?

Well, in the scenario you have given, with MPA full of Argentinian fast jets, having taken the Islands by force, downed our fast air and SH, torpedoed any RN ships, destroyed the radar sites and holding prisoners any surviving military or other British Citizens, I guess the answer must be...whatever it may take !


As I said earlier, I don't think they would be able to take the Islands in the first place.
As for force strength and disposition, I suggest you ask your editor if these are appropriate questions to be asking ;)

[TheWizard]

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/images/smilies/snack.gif

[SilsoeSid]

glojo;

I have no idea what you are trying to say but I fear my choice of words could have been better... For 'spying' read intelligence gathering

Yes they could have been. However as I said, your way of describing intelligence gathering is spying and therefore normal rules do not apply!

Edith Cavell springs to mind!

[Milo Minderbinder]

You're talking as if this would be a war between states, with the Geneva Convention rules applying
From the Argentines point of view they would be just reasserting control over a rebel province, the Geneva convention won't apply and any resistance by the locals will simply be criminal behaviour - and treated as such. Possibly through the courts, but as already said, given Argentinian history expect a lot of disappearances, especially from the back door of aircraft over the sea while drugged.
Whether anyone is actively spying or not will be irrelevant - the fact is anyone perceived to be a threat to Argentine rule will be at risk. Under the rule of Miss Piggy, civil liberties seem to be getting a low priority again

[hval]

A few photos from the other day (hope this works).

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7032/6837764421_28208d04c2_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25613355@N00/6837764421/)
HMS Illustrious 138 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25613355@N00/6837764421/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6837750037_e10c9d0b9e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25613355@N00/6837750037/)
HMS Illustrious 6 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25613355@N00/6837750037/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7016/6837761109_3983e8915e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25613355@N00/6837761109/)
HMS Illustrious 107 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25613355@N00/6837761109/)

[cokecan]

Sid,

are you drunk, or perhaps on prescribed medication?

you are incoherant, and making an arse of yourself. please stop.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Are the Apaches fitted with de-icing gear? Last time the green Lynx with their antitank missiles weren't, so couldn't be deployed. This time we have no other attack helicopters - the Lynx missiiles have gone, as have the missile carrying Wessex / Scout / Gazelle - unless a squadron of Gazelles could be scraped together? But they'd have low survivability.

[inputshaft]

Surprised that no one else has picked up on this:

Falkland Islands: Argentina's president to raise stakes in address to nation | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/falkland-islands-argentina-announcement-malvinas)

If the LAN Chile flights are cancelled, it's bad news for us working down here, as well as Chilean workers and Falklanders needing medical treatment in Chile.

[500N]

Re "spying versus intelligence gathering", is what Terry Peck did in 1982, waling around taking photos of the defenses and having the film smuggled out to the UK by contractors spying or intelligence gathering ? He was a member of the FIDF.

[snowball1]

Rumours grow about CFK's announcement: A weekly flight from Argentina to the islands? - BuenosAiresHerald.com (http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/92134/rumours-grow-about-cfks-announcement-a-weekly-flight-from-argentina-to-the-islands)

Dream on!

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner invited Falklands War veterans and opposition leaders to a ceremony on Tuesday amid renewed tensions with London ahead of the 30-year anniversary of a conflict over the archipelago

http://darkfloor.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SourFacedOldHag1-333x367.jpg
Argentine Presidrnt Cristina Kirchner has said she will make "announcements" about the Falklands

"The president will make announcements" on the Falklands, a government source said ahead of the event at the Casa Rosado, the government palace.
It was not immediately clear what Kirchner would announce but she invited veterans of the 1982 war in the South Atlantic islands, opposition leaders and the diplomatic corps in Buenos Aires.


Argentine president Cristina Kirchner hosting Falklands ceremony - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9067619/Argentine-president-Cristina-Kirchner-hosting-Falklands-ceremony.html)

[Fox Four]

Can we speed up the winter service on 558....

BBC News - Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16939043)

Corned beef off the menu again in our house.

[Easy Street]

You're talking as if this would be a war between states, with the Geneva Convention rules applying
From the Argentines point of view they would be just reasserting control over a rebel province, the Geneva convention won't apply

It doesn't matter what the Argentines' "point of view" is! The islands are recognised in international law as British territory and therefore any conflict between Argentina and Britain in the Falklands would be a state-on-state conflict and the Geneva conventions would most certainly apply. Even if the Argentines overran the islands once again, a state of conflict would still exist and the conventions would continue to apply. The conventions would only stop applying as and when Britain ceded the islands; then, as you say, any Argentine security activity would be 'internal'.

Chances of us ceding the islands without a fight? Zero!

[SilsoeSid]

Are the Apaches fitted with de-icing gear? Last time the green Lynx with their antitank missiles weren't, so couldn't be deployed. This time we have no other attack helicopters - the Lynx missiiles have gone, as have the missile carrying Wessex / Scout / Gazelle - unless a squadron of Gazelles could be scraped together? But they'd have low survivability.

Just wondered what de-icing gear the Scout and Gazelle had and especially how on Earth Lynx manage to operate in the Arctic :confused:

Oh and ref the Apache...yes.

[500N]

So Terry Peck, walking around with a length of drainpipe, which I gather concealed a telephoto lens (and of course a Camera) taking photos of the Argies would be considered espionage, he being a resident and the Argies an invading force ?

I suppose with the Argies background, no excuse needed anyway but he was a bit smart for them in 82.

[SilsoeSid]

Re "spying versus intelligence gathering", is what Terry Peck did in 1982, waling around taking photos of the defenses and having the film smuggled out to the UK by contractors spying or intelligence gathering ? He was a member of the FIDF.

Whatever you wish to call it, Espionage would be punishable in the traditional way.
Setting up an OP and wearing military clothing however, should give a totally different conclusion.


Falklands heroes son becomes Argentine (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8578438/Falklands-heros-son-becomes-Argentine.html)

Falkland Islands Info Portal - History Articles (http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article19.html)


How sad that there is the possibility some of us could be fighting the same soldiers we once served with under the NATO/SFOR flag :sad:

... then there was the Irish Army's St Patricks Day party where we all drank together !


Pointing out the Argentinan flag at Butmir ;)

http://www.nato.int/sfor/indexinf/104/s104p03a/b010112k.jpg

[SilsoeSid]

While you're researching your de-icing answer Milo;

- unless a squadron of Gazelles could be scraped together? But they'd have low survivability.

Surely all the crew need to do is remove the aircrew knife from the immersion suit and they become undetectable to radar :p
:ok:

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

BBC News - Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16939043)

Duncs:ok:

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Castro mocks UK Falklands claim as Argentina accuses Britain of 'militarisation'

Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro has mocked Britain's claim to the Falklands, as Argentina said it would appeal to the United Nations over the UK's "militarisation" of the row.

Full story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9068701/Castro-mocks-UK-Falklands-claim-as-Argentina-accuses-Britain-of-militarisation.html)

We've not heard a peep from Castro in ages and now, when he does say something, its to do with backing Argentina's claim to the Falklands.

Aside from her re-election campaign this can only be an effort by Argentine Presidrnt Cristina Kirchner (aka The Hag) to stake a claim upon the now verified commercially viable oil reserves off the Falkland's cost!

[Lonewolf_50]

In that case, Castro need to piss off to elsewhere, since he is trespassing on sovereign Spanish ground.

In 1835 Cuba was Spain's territory.

Does he now reject the outcome of the Spanish American War of 1898 that released the Spanish colonial bonds from Cuba?

FFS, the 1982 war resolved via a tried and true method, war and bloodshed, who owns what.

The inanity never ends. The only people being imperial in this regard are the Argentines. The residents of the Falklands wish NOT to join Argentina, just as Cuba does not wish to become our 51st state.

[Fox Four]

BBC News - Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN

Duncs

Did I not just say that?

[cokecan]

i think we should be careful about confusing arguments about military capability with those about politics. war and conflict are political acts, they have political drivers, not military drivers

as an example, the Argentine defence minister made a statement in the last few days headlined 'Argentina is ready for war' that was about Argentinas willingness and capability to defend her mainland sovereignty against a British attack on the Argentine mainland.

now, we know that we're about as likely to invade Argentina as we are to invade the moon, but i wonder does the Argentine political class, the media, and the electorate know that? - can we put ourselves in their place and ask ourselves what the reaction of ITN, Sky News, the Sun, Times, Torygraph etc. would be if the UK's SoS for Defence made a statement on the steps of the MOD that the UK was ready and able to repulse any French aggression on UK soil?

the truth is that on hearing such a statement the media, and the public, would go mental - it would be politically impossible, once that kind of cat had been let out of the bag, for any UK government to back down from its most strident and aggressive possible position.

my concern gents, is that whatever the exact correlation of forces, Argentinas government, media and electorate are whipping themselves into a vicious circle state where it will be impossible for any of them to stop escalating the rhetoric over the Islands, and the top of that escalation tree is not making complaints to the UN or banning flights, its war.

they are saying things, and doing so in language and tone that they have not used before - we should be very careful that what we rather dismissively describe as 'sabre-rattling' is not actually a drumbeat for war that the Argentine government could not now turn off even if it wanted to. it is quite possible/likely that Mrs Kirchner started this in the normal way to take the pressure off her government for the normal reasons, and that she had no intention whatsoever for it to get within a thousand miles of fisticuffs - but these things develop a momentum of their own, and she may very quickly get to a point where she cannot retreat and hope to stay in office, or indeed where she comes to believe that war is an inevitability, and the sooner its done the more likely the chances of success.

[Churchills Ghost]

Cokecan: Your final paragraph is, in my view, insightful. Well done.


Aside from her re-election campaign this can only be an effort by Argentine President Cristina Kirchner (aka The Hag) to stake a claim upon the (now verified) commercially viable oil reserves off the Falkland's coast!

I tend to agree and believe that their hope is that even if they cannot realise their dream of taking over control of the Falklands that they would (after benevolent UN intervention) be apportioned a slice of the oil pie.

However, Britain has not done anything to justify any UN intervention and so, war aside, I tend to think that the Argies are going to be a long time waiting for their brand of justice.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Tell Obama that Exxon can have a 50% stake in all oil exploitation projects in Falkland waters, as long as the USA keeps the Argentines under control.
Warn him that as soon as the Argentine military sneezes, then Exxon's stake would be nationalised.
Somehow I think Miss Piggy would be kept very quiet....

[500N]

Churchills Ghost

Do you really believe that the UK will hand over a slice of oil revenues to the Argies. I don't and would hope the UK would tell the UN where to stick it.
.

[Milo Minderbinder]

NO, I'm suggesting that we allow the USA (not Argentina) to take a major part in the exploitation of any oil reserves. They'd still have to front up any discovery and production costs in the normal way - but they would make profits
What I'm saying is that we'd tell the USA that as soon as Argentina made any threats, we'd then nationalise the USA interests. With O'bama being so pally with the Argentine Fuhreress, I'm sure he'd keep her under control. And when the republican gets elected next, he's sure to see the sense
I am not suggesting we route oil money to Argentina through a back door, simply suggesting we give the seppos a reason for knowing who their friends are

[tangoe]

'simply suggesting we give the seppos a reason for knowing who their friends are' :D like your style.

Maybe Ive been in the commercial sector or outside of the UK looking in, too long. This isnt just my opinion, more of a European UK skeptic p.o.v and for the sake of lives I almost hope its true. But doesnt this all look a bit stage managed on both sides.

Where we are in fact heading toward a negotiated settlement? what ever that might be of course!

US didnt back us
Both premiers are seeing a run on their popularity and one certainly needs it more than the other
the Arg want a peaceful settlement
Oil
Closing of ports, air access
Depleted UK mil capability up against several Latin American nations, not just one this time
Yes there is a lot more kit in the Falklands this time and it would certainly give the Arg a bit more than a bloody nose, but a concerted, coordinated effort would probably win the week, then what?

"Due to the last governments mismanagement of the RN in particular and all our other commitments around the globe, we wouldnt be able to seriously consider re-taking the Falklands, but we will go to the UN and demand the wishes of the Falkland islanders are taking into consideration" I can see DC saying with a very concerned look. But more likely and before it got to the stage there will be a negotiated settlement on the oil, as without the ports and support of the Arg, the cost of extraction would be too high, or something like that.

I dont know, there are many imponderables.

Dauntless is routine, there isnt much else to send, Wills is PR but also routine, nuke sub, probably could also be considered routine, probably there as well. But is there anything going down there that isnt routine that signifies we are taking the threats seriously? Like a AEW without which, as history will show, you are b_ggered.

If we are taking it seriously and we are sending something else there, that sends a clear message and negates all this cr_p. If we are taking it seriously and not sending anything extra, it kind of backs it up I would say.

--

On a side note, did you hear the one about Miss Piggy saying that they needed to increase expenditure in intelligence gathering? No, well apparently the head of the military said 'why, we have pprune'!!

T

[cokecan]

Tangoe, while your logic is reasonable, it is - IMO - based on an incorrect political start point.

whatever DC feels personally about the FI, he will know, or at least the grown-ups around him will know, that if Argentina took the FI, and the BG of the day (particularly a conservative government that had undertaken significant defence cuts) was militarily unable to take them back, the government would face a vote of no confidence, which it would lose heavily.

he would be revieled in history, he would be the Chamberlain of 21st century UK politics - he would genuinely face less public and political opprobrium if he was found between the thighs of a nine year old boy.

that is a poltical fact of UK politics that the FI are talismanic - lose them and die.

[pr00ne]

cokecan,

..."the FI are talismanic - lose them and die."


Very true.

It really does make it so ironic that the Prime Minister who came the closest to losing the Falklands was Thatcher.

[tangoe]

cc, I totally agree, but I wasnt clear enough with my point.

Which was that we wont lose the FIs militarily because it wont get to that stage, that its possible this has been stage managed and is leading to a negotiated settlement based on my points and more I didnt have time to mention.

If this wasnt open forum I would say that politicians on the whole, Eton educated doubly so, were self serving barbarians with no regard for history, national identity etc. and would sell there own grandmother for a fast buck, but it is so I wont!

But as I also mentioned, this is from a mostly european, actually CEE & CIS (where I do business) perspective where by default the politicians are expected to be a little shall we say, creative :-) and that this, the FIs, is just business.

For the record Im not saying I agree with this, but its an interesting alternative point which has before been covered.
T

[dagama]

Breaking News: The Argentinian foreign minister has lodged a formal complaint at the UN SC regarding the 'militarisation' of the South Atlantic, by the UK. He will have a meeting with the Sec Gen, Ban Ki Moon, later today.

I wonder if Ban will raise the question of the indiscriminate laying of mines in the FI by the Argies in 1982. Now that was real militarisation!

[Courtney Mil]

the Prime Minister who came the closest to losing the Falklands was Thatcher

She did lose the Falklands. But Maggie and her Armed Forces (that's us) got them back! And we'll do it again if we have to.

Oh, insufficent resources, no carrier, supply chain, ect. But we still would if it happened.

[cokecan]

CM, i bloody hope not!

in the event that we had to try, our concept of operations would be the SSN's/TLAM doing the counter-air mission, Ocean/Lusty with AH-64's doing CAS and interdiction, and every T45 and T42 that was seaworthy providing AD.

in that event we'd be facing every servicable aircraft the Argentines could put at Stanley and MPA, with the happy chance that old Hugo would, in a fit of LA unity, station some of his SU-30's (with AShM's) there as well.

fancy taking a stab at the losses such a force would take, and the chances of its success?

[Rigga]

Just watched the argie presentation to the UN and that nice graffiti painter, Banksey Moon, has asked that it would be awfully nice if we Brits would stop spending all our hard earned and rather scarce money on further militarisation of the islands...

I'm not too sure where he's coming from?

[Courtney Mil]

fancy taking a stab at the losses such a force would take, and the chances of its success?

No, not really.:uhoh:

[cokecan]

Rigga,

''I'm not too sure where he's coming from?''

simple, man's a cnut.

i must admit - despite not reading the Sun or Daily Mail - to getting a little bored of hearing all this crap from our hyper-inflation, throwing-students-out-of-helicopters friends, and yet hearing nothing of substance from our government in reply.

i don't want to hear 'routine', i want to see some stamping on toes - i want to see Argentine military ships and aircraft chased out of the south atlantic by a bulked up Typhoon and Tornado force - and i want to see the BG tell that nice Mr Obama that if he doesn't fancy making a statement about the US's absolute commitment to the right of self determination of the Fakland Islanders, then he can fcuk himself off and find one of his own fcuking divisions to control central Helmand.

i get very bored with us being the quiet, civilised and supportive ones and for those we support to piss on us at every given opportunity.

Cokecan - astonishingly, not drunk...

[TurbineTooHot]

Cokecan.

Top rant fella.

I'll second that. :D