The Falklands / The Malvinas - (again?)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on topic;
It looks like all of South America and the Carribean is siding with Argentina on this. Just what help could we expect from our European chums? Would France send a carrier? German / Dutch warships?
It looks like all of South America and the Carribean is siding with Argentina on this. Just what help could we expect from our European chums? Would France send a carrier? German / Dutch warships?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bishops Stortford
Age: 64
Posts: 143
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one thought, and it has nothing to do with aviation.
Deep water oil off Falklands would be at the absolute screaming edge of technology to profitably extract and take to market. Therefore, it will need access to that technology and an acceptance that it will always be expensive to work. If it comes in it will probably be marginal, high cost oil. Which is why the major oil companies are not there in force.
Not exactly Saudi is it...
This whole Falklands oil thing to me is a bad case of two bald men fighting over a comb.
Deep water oil off Falklands would be at the absolute screaming edge of technology to profitably extract and take to market. Therefore, it will need access to that technology and an acceptance that it will always be expensive to work. If it comes in it will probably be marginal, high cost oil. Which is why the major oil companies are not there in force.
Not exactly Saudi is it...
This whole Falklands oil thing to me is a bad case of two bald men fighting over a comb.
Caiman27 - Ah, but check the company registers of the major investors of these mining 'minnows' - BHP-Billiton, Barclays and HSBC. Not the sort of people to enter into whimsical 'punts' on a drop of black gold.
Reckon the MOD will start buying ammunition for the Typhoon guns now?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't look good does it? 1 sub and a shagged T42 with an out dated air defence capability, 4 typhoons, 1 seaking, some ground troops and a malitia. Not that I want to detract from the commitment of these fine people but with that small list of major equipment, if argentina was to throw all its air miltary resources at the islands at once then how long would it take to overcome them? - Not too long I think and certainly less than the 1 week which it took for the Typhoons to get down there in the 1st place. There already testing the sea around the islands and the runway is much more capable of operating fighter aircraft. Assuming that the capured MPA intact then how difficult would it be to retake the islands with a Naval fleet that has no credible air defence and less ships than it had 27 years ago?
During the first go we were going to give you a Carrier (probably one of the Iwo Jima Class LHA's) but the RN realized they could not man it and such support would have caused the USA lots of problems with the South American governments less Chile.
The sad truth I think is the British Military has been cut back to the point there is no realistic way to ward off an Argie takeover of the Malvinas by force.
I doubt they really want to try again and are just rattling some sabers about the place making some noise. As long as they have Jughead from Venezula in the mix.....who knows what could happen?
He has been cozying up to the Russians, Chinese, and Cubans of late. Maybe he has seen the way our two countries have declined in both capability and national leadership and thinks the time is right to start acting up.
We have the forces and ability to handle that militarily....but politically is another story with Barry Boy at the helm.
The sad truth I think is the British Military has been cut back to the point there is no realistic way to ward off an Argie takeover of the Malvinas by force.
I doubt they really want to try again and are just rattling some sabers about the place making some noise. As long as they have Jughead from Venezula in the mix.....who knows what could happen?
He has been cozying up to the Russians, Chinese, and Cubans of late. Maybe he has seen the way our two countries have declined in both capability and national leadership and thinks the time is right to start acting up.
We have the forces and ability to handle that militarily....but politically is another story with Barry Boy at the helm.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
althenick et al
CALM DOWN dear, its only a spot of tubthumping!
Argentina can not even repeat the invasion of 1982
they have no aircraft carrier to use as an LPH and they have no landing ship, both have been cut up for razor blades with no replacement
their fast air consists of 1950's vintage Mirage 3/5's, etandards and skyhawks with limited upgrades and no BVR capability their only AAR is the same 2 KC130's as last time
The Argentine government has a pathlogical distrust of their own armed forces and thus refuse to consider a military solution and refuse to give their armed forces the kit to do the job
As an aside the US's position is entirely reasonable. Why take sides in a dispute that is currently handbags at 50 paces
to quote Ronald Regan
"While we have a policy of neutrality on the sovereignty issue, we will not be neutral on the issue involving Argentine use of military force."
CALM DOWN dear, its only a spot of tubthumping!
Argentina can not even repeat the invasion of 1982
they have no aircraft carrier to use as an LPH and they have no landing ship, both have been cut up for razor blades with no replacement
their fast air consists of 1950's vintage Mirage 3/5's, etandards and skyhawks with limited upgrades and no BVR capability their only AAR is the same 2 KC130's as last time
The Argentine government has a pathlogical distrust of their own armed forces and thus refuse to consider a military solution and refuse to give their armed forces the kit to do the job
As an aside the US's position is entirely reasonable. Why take sides in a dispute that is currently handbags at 50 paces
to quote Ronald Regan
"While we have a policy of neutrality on the sovereignty issue, we will not be neutral on the issue involving Argentine use of military force."
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 55
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deep water oil off Falklands would be at the absolute screaming edge of technology to profitably extract and take to market. Therefore, it will need access to that technology and an acceptance that it will always be expensive to work. If it comes in it will probably be marginal, high cost oil. Which is why the major oil companies are not there in force.
Not exactly Saudi is it...
Not exactly Saudi is it...
Personally, if I were in number 10, UK forces in afghanistan would be packing up already. I'm sure we could place a battalion of troops, a squadron of armour, a couple of ships and a few more jets at MPA
We could wring our hands about wanting to help, but our forces are needed elsewhere to protect the UK. Start an immediate withdrawal and do so as fast as possible.
We can then send some GR4s and more Typhoons, troops and maybe some armour to the Falkland islands, once there it wouldn't cost as much as Afghanistan is costing, so we benefit again. Maybe we could send more submarines(ensure that they are spotted at more than one location at the same time) and perhaps a T45 with PAAMS capable of tracking and engaging many targets at once(well at least we can find out if it works, if not we can stop building the carriers it is designed to protect).
That should deter ideas any South American country or group of countries have about reclaiming something which was never theirs!
Meanwhile the rest of NATO can argue amongst themselves as to who is going to send more troops to Afghanistan.........
SASless wrote
The decision to support the Mauser on RAF Typhoon was taken in 2006.
Typhoon wins gun dogfight - Telegraph
'The service has decided to issue ammunition to future Typhoon squadrons and train pilots in using the fighter's single German-made 27mm Mauser cannon, reversing its cost-cutting edict.'
Green Flag - XI Squadron fired Mauser - 2008
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Typhoon proves its air-surface capability
RAF Typhoons conduct Mauser BK-27 test firings, EUROPE
RAF Typhoons conduct Mauser BK-27 test firings - Jane's Defence Weekly
TJ
Reckon the MOD will start buying ammunition for the Typhoon guns now?
Typhoon wins gun dogfight - Telegraph
'The service has decided to issue ammunition to future Typhoon squadrons and train pilots in using the fighter's single German-made 27mm Mauser cannon, reversing its cost-cutting edict.'
Green Flag - XI Squadron fired Mauser - 2008
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Typhoon proves its air-surface capability
RAF Typhoons conduct Mauser BK-27 test firings, EUROPE
RAF Typhoons conduct Mauser BK-27 test firings - Jane's Defence Weekly
TJ
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief! My fellow mods have been busy. The thread has been severely culled to remove the troll trash and the wildly off topic rubbish. I have never known such a load of venting, which was supposed to pass for interesting on topic posts.
Gents. If this thread is to survive you will have to do better than this. It is one helluva mess and no fewer than 40 posts have been deleted, either through being way off topic or the posts that followed had no relevance to anything. It will need to get back on topic.
This is a case of live or let die. Its up to you.
Gents. If this thread is to survive you will have to do better than this. It is one helluva mess and no fewer than 40 posts have been deleted, either through being way off topic or the posts that followed had no relevance to anything. It will need to get back on topic.
This is a case of live or let die. Its up to you.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Trap 3
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's REvive........
.......and thanks, by the way!
So it was survive! I'll get my coat.
.......and thanks, by the way!
So it was survive! I'll get my coat.
Last edited by anita gofradump; 27th Feb 2010 at 19:50. Reason: No-one likes a smart arse!
I think Pop meant to write survive, in his haste.
Incidently, I currently work for the drilling contractor that did the initial exploration. Desire offered the guys shares at an attractive rate. Few, if any, took them up on the offer - I haven't heard any of them cursing their misfortune. Read into that what you may.
Incidently, I currently work for the drilling contractor that did the initial exploration. Desire offered the guys shares at an attractive rate. Few, if any, took them up on the offer - I haven't heard any of them cursing their misfortune. Read into that what you may.
Last edited by diginagain; 27th Feb 2010 at 08:10.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, back in the mid 80's, I was acting the part of the casualty for a 78 Sqn Seaking mountain sits training exercise on Pleasant Peak.
"Get somewhere really inaccesible" was the brief "Make it difficult for the winchman".
I did as I was told and lay under a rocky outcrop out of sight. When eventually 'rescued', I discovered my immersion suit legs were covered in a black oily gunge.
Going back to the outcrop, sure enough, there weeping out of the rock was the said gunge. For some reason the theme tune to The Beverly Hillbillies came to mind.
Make of it what you will.
"Get somewhere really inaccesible" was the brief "Make it difficult for the winchman".
I did as I was told and lay under a rocky outcrop out of sight. When eventually 'rescued', I discovered my immersion suit legs were covered in a black oily gunge.
Going back to the outcrop, sure enough, there weeping out of the rock was the said gunge. For some reason the theme tune to The Beverly Hillbillies came to mind.
Make of it what you will.
I rather suspect that it is not a matter of if but when there will be a commercial oil/gas find in the Falklands basins. Most of the pieces of the puzzle are there as searches on "Falklands basin oil prospectivity" make obvious:
Falklands oil dream taking flight - Investors Chronicle
Falkland Islands Goverment Department of Mineral Resources - North Falkland Basin, play
What the industry is looking for is an 'easy' field that gets enough basic infrastructure into the area to then go after the more serious stuff. The easy field need not be that large and would ideally be water drive or low GOR gas drive (i.e. flare the associated gas) processed via a floater (probably a semi, maybe a ship-shape) and buoy off-loading to tanker. The only land-side infrastructure would be logistics in nature.
They will typically go through exploration cycles that run in low but rising oil prices. This allows for the lower rig rates and higher availabilities. The lag in availability tends to mean that you can't explore in Falklands in low but falling oil prices, and in high oil price periods the rigs are priced out of the Falklands market.
It is a myth that Falklands oil/gas must necessarily be in very deep water. Whilst the first commercial field may be, it may not be. It just depends on who gets lucky first and where. It is perfectly possible - but logistically & operationally tricky - to develop & operate fields in these sorts of isolated areas. An analogue is the NZ fields.
As the oil/gas price trends upwards then at a certain point the finds will cross the economic threshold and bingo things will start happening.
As I am sure the realists amongst you all know the Argentine driver is always domestic and then trigger the LatAm mood music. Having said that the sheer indoctrination of the Argentines into the "las Malvinas son Argentinas" mindtrack has to be seen to be believed even in otherwise thoughtful intellectuals. I have only known a few Argentines who had bothered to find and think through the real history. This has seeped into the whole of Latin American consciousness in the same way that the Brits tend to assume that they are "better" trained soldiers/sailors/airmen than (say) the US without always taking a hard look at the facts. (Not wanting to be controversial but am trying to find an example that will make the Brits squirm a bit).
On the military side I am sure you all know it is not just a matter of comparing ship or aircraft counts and snap cards factoids. But do not underestimate the professionalism of the Argentine armed forces - like the Brits they are a serious bunch that have been let down by their politicians for a very long time. I hope that all will realise there is more that connects us than that separates us.
The irony is that successful finds in the Falklands will also tend to trigger much more and much better informed equivalent work in the offshore continental shelf areas that are indisputibly Argentine and where there has been very patchy exploration work going back thirty years or more as this article alludes to:
Dispute Shows Argentina?s Lack of Oil Exploration - NYTimes.com
Shell old hands have been through cycles of high cost exploration in Argentine waters which has disillusioned the local onshore folk. I have been told about similar experiences at YPF Repsol .
Hope that helps.
Falklands oil dream taking flight - Investors Chronicle
Falkland Islands Goverment Department of Mineral Resources - North Falkland Basin, play
What the industry is looking for is an 'easy' field that gets enough basic infrastructure into the area to then go after the more serious stuff. The easy field need not be that large and would ideally be water drive or low GOR gas drive (i.e. flare the associated gas) processed via a floater (probably a semi, maybe a ship-shape) and buoy off-loading to tanker. The only land-side infrastructure would be logistics in nature.
They will typically go through exploration cycles that run in low but rising oil prices. This allows for the lower rig rates and higher availabilities. The lag in availability tends to mean that you can't explore in Falklands in low but falling oil prices, and in high oil price periods the rigs are priced out of the Falklands market.
It is a myth that Falklands oil/gas must necessarily be in very deep water. Whilst the first commercial field may be, it may not be. It just depends on who gets lucky first and where. It is perfectly possible - but logistically & operationally tricky - to develop & operate fields in these sorts of isolated areas. An analogue is the NZ fields.
As the oil/gas price trends upwards then at a certain point the finds will cross the economic threshold and bingo things will start happening.
As I am sure the realists amongst you all know the Argentine driver is always domestic and then trigger the LatAm mood music. Having said that the sheer indoctrination of the Argentines into the "las Malvinas son Argentinas" mindtrack has to be seen to be believed even in otherwise thoughtful intellectuals. I have only known a few Argentines who had bothered to find and think through the real history. This has seeped into the whole of Latin American consciousness in the same way that the Brits tend to assume that they are "better" trained soldiers/sailors/airmen than (say) the US without always taking a hard look at the facts. (Not wanting to be controversial but am trying to find an example that will make the Brits squirm a bit).
On the military side I am sure you all know it is not just a matter of comparing ship or aircraft counts and snap cards factoids. But do not underestimate the professionalism of the Argentine armed forces - like the Brits they are a serious bunch that have been let down by their politicians for a very long time. I hope that all will realise there is more that connects us than that separates us.
The irony is that successful finds in the Falklands will also tend to trigger much more and much better informed equivalent work in the offshore continental shelf areas that are indisputibly Argentine and where there has been very patchy exploration work going back thirty years or more as this article alludes to:
Dispute Shows Argentina?s Lack of Oil Exploration - NYTimes.com
Shell old hands have been through cycles of high cost exploration in Argentine waters which has disillusioned the local onshore folk. I have been told about similar experiences at YPF Repsol .
Hope that helps.
Today's IBD Editorials
This is one view of the situation....and as you can see is not that of the Obama Administration....and sums it up in a pretty straight forward manner.
Falklands Fallacy
Diplomacy: The U.S., which backed Britain when Argentina invaded its Falklands in 1982, has suddenly gone neutral on who has sovereignty over the islands. This is much more than a bad slap to our best ally.
Remember April Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq who infamously told Saddam Hussein in 1990: "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." To Saddam, that was a green light from the U.S. to invade his tiny neighbor.
Today, we hear similar language from the U.S. on another territorial dispute that may take us down the same road.
But Arturo Valenzuela, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, reinforced the position on Friday. "It's not a matter for the United States to make a judgment on," he said in explaining why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's March 1 meeting with Argentina's president wouldn't discuss the Falklands.
But we smell trouble. The sudden hands-off attitude even when allies are threatened comes as several sinking governments in the region are bringing up old territorial claims to regain their popularity and seize resources such as oil.
It's not just Argentina, whose budget shortfalls, pension confiscations, false inflation data and inability to win back the confidence of investors after a $100 billion default in 2001 leave it in the same sort of mood it was in when it tried to snatch the Falklands from Britain 28 years ago.
There's also Chavez, Argentina's top backer, who has trumpeted his desire to seize territory in Guyana known as the Essequibo on which Venezuela had a 19th-century claim. Chavez has also laid claim in recent months to the Dutch territories of Curacao and Aruba. And then there's Venezuelan military doctrine, which since 2005 declares that Colombia's alliance with the U.S. means it's no longer recognized as a sovereign country.
There's also Brazil's naval buildup, a development linked explicitly to defending its newly discovered oil fields from predators. It obviously thinks the threats are real, and it doesn't intend to rely on international treaties or any U.S. defense.
By curiously declaring a passive neutrality on the Falklands, the U.S. opens the door to all sorts of destabilization efforts. China and Russia have no doubt taken notice with our new stance as they eye Taiwan and remnants of the old Soviet empire.
As for the British, they are understandably aghast at our new position and wonder what the "special relationship" between the two countries now means.
Since World War II, the United States has honored the territorial integrity of nations as they stand.
Now the message is that any territory is up for grabs, with no state's claim any better than any other's, ally or not.
Diplomacy: The U.S., which backed Britain when Argentina invaded its Falklands in 1982, has suddenly gone neutral on who has sovereignty over the islands. This is much more than a bad slap to our best ally.
Remember April Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq who infamously told Saddam Hussein in 1990: "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." To Saddam, that was a green light from the U.S. to invade his tiny neighbor.
Today, we hear similar language from the U.S. on another territorial dispute that may take us down the same road.
But Arturo Valenzuela, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, reinforced the position on Friday. "It's not a matter for the United States to make a judgment on," he said in explaining why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's March 1 meeting with Argentina's president wouldn't discuss the Falklands.
But we smell trouble. The sudden hands-off attitude even when allies are threatened comes as several sinking governments in the region are bringing up old territorial claims to regain their popularity and seize resources such as oil.
It's not just Argentina, whose budget shortfalls, pension confiscations, false inflation data and inability to win back the confidence of investors after a $100 billion default in 2001 leave it in the same sort of mood it was in when it tried to snatch the Falklands from Britain 28 years ago.
There's also Chavez, Argentina's top backer, who has trumpeted his desire to seize territory in Guyana known as the Essequibo on which Venezuela had a 19th-century claim. Chavez has also laid claim in recent months to the Dutch territories of Curacao and Aruba. And then there's Venezuelan military doctrine, which since 2005 declares that Colombia's alliance with the U.S. means it's no longer recognized as a sovereign country.
There's also Brazil's naval buildup, a development linked explicitly to defending its newly discovered oil fields from predators. It obviously thinks the threats are real, and it doesn't intend to rely on international treaties or any U.S. defense.
By curiously declaring a passive neutrality on the Falklands, the U.S. opens the door to all sorts of destabilization efforts. China and Russia have no doubt taken notice with our new stance as they eye Taiwan and remnants of the old Soviet empire.
As for the British, they are understandably aghast at our new position and wonder what the "special relationship" between the two countries now means.
Since World War II, the United States has honored the territorial integrity of nations as they stand.
Now the message is that any territory is up for grabs, with no state's claim any better than any other's, ally or not.
It is amazing how this thread degenerated into blaming the US for all of the ills of the world. I suspect that the current position of Washington has a lot to do with not showing their cards in a way to prejudice relations in Latin America, where I suspect American diplomats are going to be busy for the next few years.
Argentina cannot invade. It lacks amphibious forces for one thing, and the Argentine Air Force is not without it's problems. The Falklands are far better protected than they were in 1982. Argentina cannot generate a force sufficient to defeat the Falklands garrison faster than we can reinforce. I even expect that despite the cuts and overstretch, we could generate and deploy a naval task group quicker than they could.
As for the Sea Harrier, mentioned by BEagle and others, they haven't entirely gone away, and as I've suggested on the Sea Jet thread, could probably get regenerated faster than Argentina's amphibious capabilities. Deterrence is the key, so we must remember to resist attempts to impose cuts that would pose a threat to maintaining these forces, and having reinforcements.
Subject post removed - the comment that was here is no longer valid.
Argentina cannot invade. It lacks amphibious forces for one thing, and the Argentine Air Force is not without it's problems. The Falklands are far better protected than they were in 1982. Argentina cannot generate a force sufficient to defeat the Falklands garrison faster than we can reinforce. I even expect that despite the cuts and overstretch, we could generate and deploy a naval task group quicker than they could.
As for the Sea Harrier, mentioned by BEagle and others, they haven't entirely gone away, and as I've suggested on the Sea Jet thread, could probably get regenerated faster than Argentina's amphibious capabilities. Deterrence is the key, so we must remember to resist attempts to impose cuts that would pose a threat to maintaining these forces, and having reinforcements.
Subject post removed - the comment that was here is no longer valid.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard to believe that the major powers would resort to blackmail but I suppose if the USA stick to their, "nothing to do with us" guns then the UK may have to tell the USA that all our troops in Afghanistan are now required elsewhere. Since we are, at this stage, only seeking diplomatic support from the USA one wonders, what is the problem? Defending one's sovereign territory is the inalienable right of any country, isn't it, USA included?
Our Dear Leader has taken a public position (certainly I hope the private position remains intact from previous years) saying the USA is not going to take sides (a position I do not support) but there are demands for the USA tohonour our "Special Relationship" with the UK.
The Swiss sat out a bunch of wars by claiming to be "Neutral", as did Spain and Ireland in WWII.
Why should the USA not be able to claim "Neutrality" in this issue and do so legitimately?
NATO obligations seem to focus upon attacks on members in the UK and Europe by neighboring countries it appears. Does it require NATO support to the UK in the Falklands, BVI, or in Hong Kong during its day?
As I recall, NATO member nations did not support the UK during the last war in the Falklands but in the end the USA did.
In light of the EU and all the jointness of the European nations and the UK....is there not a "Special Relationship" formed by that? If so....where's all the vocal support from the NATO countries in particular?
Probably the question I am asking is :"How do we define this "special relationship" we all talk about?"
PB.... Do "Friends" blackmail one another to enlist assistance or do "friends" come to the aid of the other when they really need help?
The Swiss sat out a bunch of wars by claiming to be "Neutral", as did Spain and Ireland in WWII.
Why should the USA not be able to claim "Neutrality" in this issue and do so legitimately?
NATO obligations seem to focus upon attacks on members in the UK and Europe by neighboring countries it appears. Does it require NATO support to the UK in the Falklands, BVI, or in Hong Kong during its day?
As I recall, NATO member nations did not support the UK during the last war in the Falklands but in the end the USA did.
In light of the EU and all the jointness of the European nations and the UK....is there not a "Special Relationship" formed by that? If so....where's all the vocal support from the NATO countries in particular?
Probably the question I am asking is :"How do we define this "special relationship" we all talk about?"
PB.... Do "Friends" blackmail one another to enlist assistance or do "friends" come to the aid of the other when they really need help?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 55 degrees north ish.
Age: 53
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB.... Do "Friends" blackmail one another to enlist assistance or do "friends" come to the aid of the other when they really need help?
What's in it for me?
