The Falklands / The Malvinas - (again?)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosmic Comet
Welcome, and good for you for putting your point of view on here - you'll not get much agreement (except perhaps on the point that both of our countries could do with improvement).
On the serious strategic point, the reality is that the UK wants to retain the Falklands / Malvinas, then we need to defend them with something credible. This means air defence and anti-shipping strike, as far as I can see.
S41
Welcome, and good for you for putting your point of view on here - you'll not get much agreement (except perhaps on the point that both of our countries could do with improvement).
On the serious strategic point, the reality is that the UK wants to retain the Falklands / Malvinas, then we need to defend them with something credible. This means air defence and anti-shipping strike, as far as I can see.
S41
Can't really see much chance of the cruise boats being used as auxiliary transport should the need arise, seeing as how Cunard is now US owned. I don't think that there's a UK based cruise fleet with the fashion for flags of convenience in the late '80s and '90s to cut costs & allow for cheap crews.
Can't honestly see the need for all this posturing and sabre rattling in any case, but then again, that would need politicians to stop squabbling, act like adults and admit that there might be some problems that their particular policies either can't fix or are the root cause.
Can't honestly see the need for all this posturing and sabre rattling in any case, but then again, that would need politicians to stop squabbling, act like adults and admit that there might be some problems that their particular policies either can't fix or are the root cause.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 50
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BZ Roadster, anybody else think a pre-emptive Naval task force would fit the bill. If they don't land you won't be needing to drag the kitchen sink all the way down there, we're not after the cure, just not the cold in the first place!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Behind you all the way!
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosmic Comet
Nice photos! Are they drones?
There's a lot of 'Cold War Warriors' & vets' of Operation Corporate on here.
As a schoolboy during the 1982 ruck & avid follower of the history of the Islands plus fortunate enough to have operated on the AirBridge until recently, I'd like to know what the 'Old School' & 'Newbies' think there should be guarding the Islands, realistically what the Argies could do & I just thought I'd toss an unpinned grenade into the room- Is it likely Hugo Chavez could 'fan the flames'?
Discuss.
Nice photos! Are they drones?
There's a lot of 'Cold War Warriors' & vets' of Operation Corporate on here.
As a schoolboy during the 1982 ruck & avid follower of the history of the Islands plus fortunate enough to have operated on the AirBridge until recently, I'd like to know what the 'Old School' & 'Newbies' think there should be guarding the Islands, realistically what the Argies could do & I just thought I'd toss an unpinned grenade into the room- Is it likely Hugo Chavez could 'fan the flames'?
Discuss.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that we have a perfect platform for patrolling the area to keep an eye on shipping in the area. Could there be a reprieve for the MR2, just like the Vulcan? Or is it a case the Nimrod is a bad word for the politicians and they wont use common sense to keep an eye on UK interests down south.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cosmiccomet
Nice photo's
both 1950's vintage designs with limited upgrades, and no BVR capability wouldn't fancy my chances vs typhoon
if your government coughed up for a few dozen flankers an the other hand......
and what would you land the troops from, the nearest thing you have to an LPH is a T42 with a widened hangar so it can take a 2nd sea king
like i said tub-thumping if for no other reason than the kircheners are even less willing to give their countries armed forces the kit they need to do the job than gordon brown!
Nice photo's
both 1950's vintage designs with limited upgrades, and no BVR capability wouldn't fancy my chances vs typhoon
if your government coughed up for a few dozen flankers an the other hand......
and what would you land the troops from, the nearest thing you have to an LPH is a T42 with a widened hangar so it can take a 2nd sea king
like i said tub-thumping if for no other reason than the kircheners are even less willing to give their countries armed forces the kit they need to do the job than gordon brown!
Anti-ship capability - get the gun out (only kidding)
I miss-ID'd the ALARM for a HARPOON/EXOCET - so you are quite right. However, there is a plan to integrate the PENGUIN ASM onto Eurofighter.
(only kidding)I miss-ID'd the ALARM for a HARPOON/EXOCET - so you are quite right. However, there is a plan to integrate the PENGUIN ASM onto Eurofighter.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Skyland
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys!
I was born in Argentina, so I am closer to cosmiccomet than to you...
but I want to point you some "special" things. First of all, we grew up with the idea that Malvinas(Falklands) belongs to Argentina but are eventually occupated by UK, and that´s very difficult for being change. I know that, these islands(and others near them) were forgotten by the UK for many many years, and the 82 war give a place on the map to the people who live there(said by them). On the other hand we have that Argentina hasn´t got an excellent economic situation, and that means that if a selfdetermination proccess takes place the Falkland population will always vote UK! but what about if the situation were the opposite? Do you think that people who were named as "kelpers" will have any problem for changing their goverment?
Talking about the attacking forces, please realized that Argentina will never be at the same level as UK. We will never have Typhoon´s, we buy second-hand airplanes! But one thing must be said, with that oldfashioned technology our pilots did their job. Obviusly noone here cheers blood bleeding, but a war is about that, and our two countries did what they have to.
And for those guys that are talking about if the Atlantic Conveyor were a civilian ship or not, if it was legal or not it´s strike, just remember where an UK submarine(sorry, I don´t remember the name) sunk the Belgrano. A war zone was dicted by UK(200Nm from Port Standley I think) and this ship was out from there...
And, as somebody wrote, let´s talk like gentlemen!
P.S.: Sorry about my english, I did as good as I could.
P.S.2: I wrote everything without shouting or using CAPS!!!! Cheers for me!!! Jaja
I was born in Argentina, so I am closer to cosmiccomet than to you...
but I want to point you some "special" things. First of all, we grew up with the idea that Malvinas(Falklands) belongs to Argentina but are eventually occupated by UK, and that´s very difficult for being change. I know that, these islands(and others near them) were forgotten by the UK for many many years, and the 82 war give a place on the map to the people who live there(said by them). On the other hand we have that Argentina hasn´t got an excellent economic situation, and that means that if a selfdetermination proccess takes place the Falkland population will always vote UK! but what about if the situation were the opposite? Do you think that people who were named as "kelpers" will have any problem for changing their goverment?Talking about the attacking forces, please realized that Argentina will never be at the same level as UK. We will never have Typhoon´s, we buy second-hand airplanes! But one thing must be said, with that oldfashioned technology our pilots did their job. Obviusly noone here cheers blood bleeding, but a war is about that, and our two countries did what they have to.
And for those guys that are talking about if the Atlantic Conveyor were a civilian ship or not, if it was legal or not it´s strike, just remember where an UK submarine(sorry, I don´t remember the name) sunk the Belgrano. A war zone was dicted by UK(200Nm from Port Standley I think) and this ship was out from there...
And, as somebody wrote, let´s talk like gentlemen!
P.S.: Sorry about my english, I did as good as I could.
P.S.2: I wrote everything without shouting or using CAPS!!!! Cheers for me!!! Jaja
In fact, I take it all back...
The black missile 5th from the right hand side is a Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM). Read all about it here:
Kongsberg test fires Naval Strike Missiles - Jane's Defence News
The black missile 5th from the right hand side is a Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM). Read all about it here:
Kongsberg test fires Naval Strike Missiles - Jane's Defence News
P.S.: Sorry about my english, I did as good as I could
By the way, having flown "A4 Alley" at 500kts+ towards Falklands Sound, I for one do not doubt the bravery of your fast jet pilots of 1982. In fact I had the pleasure of drinking with one of your Commodores, who used to fly A4s, last year. Just like most aviators, we had much in common.
By the way, it was HMS CONQUERER in May 1982 against the Belgrano. You are quite right, my friend, that "blood bleeding" wars are a bad thing and we would not have spilt a drop of Argentinian blood had it not been for General Galtieri's earlier invasion.
Let's hope that madness does not prevail again in the South Atlantic.
LJ
Shameful mis-Id by me...Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm more than a little bemused to see so many here from what I'll call "our" side indulging in what amounts to a dick measuring contest, comparing the state of the art kit possessed by Britain versus the aged kit in the Argentinean inventory.
There might be one other nation apart from the UK which should have a better appreciation of being on the receiving end of a successfully waged asymmetric war. That nation, the US, lost a war 40 years ago to a third world nation, not because it didn't have the ability to win, but because it didn't have the national will to win.
Today, history may well repeat itself if a bunch of mostly illiterate irregulars who don't even represent a nation state are as willing to hang in for the long term as the North Vietnamese were. (Despite the recent optimistic comments by General McCrystal.)
Another set-to in the South Atlantic will be yet another example of asymmetric warfare, and its outcome will have far more to do with the national will of the leaders of both sides than who's got the shiniest jet or ship.
Someone's said it already. If the Argentinean leadership was willing to commit a small SF force to take the airfield by stealth, the really big question will be whether a British PM of either political persuasion will have the political balls to commit his near(?) bankrupt country to the considerable expense - to say nothing of the considerable expenditure of 'blood, sweat and tears' - to take the islands back. Just as importantly, would the voting (and non-voting) population of the UK be prepared to suffer that economic and personal pain? (Any such move might have the back hand benefit getting quite a few "British passport holders" to leave the country.)
I for one don't think either man likely to be occupying No 10 Downing Street in the next few years has those (forgive the perhaps unfortunate use of Spanish) political cojones to do so.
There might be one other nation apart from the UK which should have a better appreciation of being on the receiving end of a successfully waged asymmetric war. That nation, the US, lost a war 40 years ago to a third world nation, not because it didn't have the ability to win, but because it didn't have the national will to win.
Today, history may well repeat itself if a bunch of mostly illiterate irregulars who don't even represent a nation state are as willing to hang in for the long term as the North Vietnamese were. (Despite the recent optimistic comments by General McCrystal.)
Another set-to in the South Atlantic will be yet another example of asymmetric warfare, and its outcome will have far more to do with the national will of the leaders of both sides than who's got the shiniest jet or ship.
Someone's said it already. If the Argentinean leadership was willing to commit a small SF force to take the airfield by stealth, the really big question will be whether a British PM of either political persuasion will have the political balls to commit his near(?) bankrupt country to the considerable expense - to say nothing of the considerable expenditure of 'blood, sweat and tears' - to take the islands back. Just as importantly, would the voting (and non-voting) population of the UK be prepared to suffer that economic and personal pain? (Any such move might have the back hand benefit getting quite a few "British passport holders" to leave the country.)
I for one don't think either man likely to be occupying No 10 Downing Street in the next few years has those (forgive the perhaps unfortunate use of Spanish) political cojones to do so.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I'm with Fubaar on this.
Whilst not indulging in wilywaving or anything like that or getting into disputes with any of the argentine contributors, who obviously are not their politicians or have the same mind set.
Another contributor mentioned it earlier on as well.
All they've got to do is take MPA.
Once theyve taken the airfield, you're royally fecked. Possession being 9/10's and all that.
What it all boils down to on both sides is political will. Does Argentina think it is worth it to plan and mount a viable assault that may have a good chance of success...
Does the UK Government figure that it is worth it trying to defend the islands or if it came to it, attempt to retake them, as per CORPORATE...
FWIW, I think in the next 5 years or so, I wouldnt be surprised to see something happen. Or come to the brink of it.
Suffice it to say, the UK defence policy at the moment appears to be akin to leaving a sweet shop (tantamount to) unlocked and unguarded next to a school on a sink estate... you just know, deep down, the longer you leave it, the chances are of it being raided go up exponentially... but how long can you leave it?
Brown, for certain would see his worst particular chickens coming home to roost, (as if they havent already). But, considering he's odds on for the boot regardless of who gets in in May/June, thats of not much consequence. Cameron or others on the other hand (or if theres a hung parliament...)... Nah, not sure I can see it. He might talk the talk, but... Cant exactly emulate Thatch if the cupboard is bare, can he?
No. The Brits have neither the capability, the manpower, the resources, nor the political will to attempt another Corporate. Not now. We cant even prevent a middle aged couple on a yacht from being ambushed by a bunch of gung-ho bloody pirates for gods sake, let alone defend/retake a group of islands.
Hopefully, Chavez is just beating his gums because he likes the sound of his own voice.
Should we start seeing Flankers turning up in Argentina, then I'd be seriously worried. Theres only so much a limited number of Typhoons can do.
The next five years are going to be interesting..
Whilst not indulging in wilywaving or anything like that or getting into disputes with any of the argentine contributors, who obviously are not their politicians or have the same mind set.
Another contributor mentioned it earlier on as well.
All they've got to do is take MPA.
Once theyve taken the airfield, you're royally fecked. Possession being 9/10's and all that.
What it all boils down to on both sides is political will. Does Argentina think it is worth it to plan and mount a viable assault that may have a good chance of success...
Does the UK Government figure that it is worth it trying to defend the islands or if it came to it, attempt to retake them, as per CORPORATE...
FWIW, I think in the next 5 years or so, I wouldnt be surprised to see something happen. Or come to the brink of it.
Suffice it to say, the UK defence policy at the moment appears to be akin to leaving a sweet shop (tantamount to) unlocked and unguarded next to a school on a sink estate... you just know, deep down, the longer you leave it, the chances are of it being raided go up exponentially... but how long can you leave it?
Brown, for certain would see his worst particular chickens coming home to roost, (as if they havent already). But, considering he's odds on for the boot regardless of who gets in in May/June, thats of not much consequence. Cameron or others on the other hand (or if theres a hung parliament...)...
Nah, not sure I can see it. He might talk the talk, but... Cant exactly emulate Thatch if the cupboard is bare, can he?No. The Brits have neither the capability, the manpower, the resources, nor the political will to attempt another Corporate. Not now. We cant even prevent a middle aged couple on a yacht from being ambushed by a bunch of gung-ho bloody pirates for gods sake, let alone defend/retake a group of islands.
Hopefully, Chavez is just beating his gums because he likes the sound of his own voice.
Should we start seeing Flankers turning up in Argentina, then I'd be seriously worried. Theres only so much a limited number of Typhoons can do. The next five years are going to be interesting..
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. It’s interesting and worrying that we are expending so much bandwidth on the likelihood/means/intent of Argentina attempting to take the Islands again. The Argentinean Government may be fanatical but it’s not stupid (that’s a compliment amigos). They don’t need to take the Islands. They just need to harass the oil exploration and oil production shipping and other assets. That is very probably within their current Naval capabilities.
2. Harassment and general embuggerance will result in one of two things;
a. we will send Maritime assets (I include Nimrods in that) that either aren’t currently free or no longer available to prevent/deter the harassment.
b. we will negotiate some backdoor deal with Argentina to “share” the wealth.
c. a combination of both (OK, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition)
3. Option “a” will require political will and backbone. It will also require money to regenerate and multiply Maritime (see, I’m being very Purple here) forces and that would be a fraction of the wealth to be “harvested”.
4. Option “b” will require no political will nor backbone. It’s totally affordable; in the short term. Who really cares what the Bennies think (well, actually, I do) and can’t we buy them off quite cheaply anyway (not necessarily)?
5. It’s all good fun playing Trump Cards and thinking like CGS (past and present) but it’s not really addressing the likely threat and the probable true loss of National wealth. Also, we can almost guarantee public apathy because it doesn’t involve singing, dancing, celebrities or sex. It also might need a waste reduction exercise in Health, Education, Benefits and anything else a Mail/Sun reader believes it’s entitled to.
2. Harassment and general embuggerance will result in one of two things;
a. we will send Maritime assets (I include Nimrods in that) that either aren’t currently free or no longer available to prevent/deter the harassment.
b. we will negotiate some backdoor deal with Argentina to “share” the wealth.
c. a combination of both (OK, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition)
3. Option “a” will require political will and backbone. It will also require money to regenerate and multiply Maritime (see, I’m being very Purple here) forces and that would be a fraction of the wealth to be “harvested”.
4. Option “b” will require no political will nor backbone. It’s totally affordable; in the short term. Who really cares what the Bennies think (well, actually, I do) and can’t we buy them off quite cheaply anyway (not necessarily)?
5. It’s all good fun playing Trump Cards and thinking like CGS (past and present) but it’s not really addressing the likely threat and the probable true loss of National wealth. Also, we can almost guarantee public apathy because it doesn’t involve singing, dancing, celebrities or sex. It also might need a waste reduction exercise in Health, Education, Benefits and anything else a Mail/Sun reader believes it’s entitled to.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A simple solution, perhaps?
a. The Falklands are supposedly oil rich
b. Everyone wants to be 'mates' with the oil rich.
So, therefore, the FI become a sovereign, independent state in their own right (perhaps join the Commonwealth). They then join the UN and sign treaty's with all and sundry to come to their aid (really the oil's aid) if they are attacked/invaded.
After all, look what happened when a small, independent, oil rich country (Kuwait) was invaded by it's neighbour.
a. The Falklands are supposedly oil rich
b. Everyone wants to be 'mates' with the oil rich.
So, therefore, the FI become a sovereign, independent state in their own right (perhaps join the Commonwealth). They then join the UN and sign treaty's with all and sundry to come to their aid (really the oil's aid) if they are attacked/invaded.
After all, look what happened when a small, independent, oil rich country (Kuwait) was invaded by it's neighbour.
Last edited by taxydual; 18th Feb 2010 at 09:04. Reason: I spelt country wrong. Doh...