The Falklands / The Malvinas - (again?)
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought that the Falkland Islands are much, much better defended against air attack than they were in 1982?
A seaborne troop carrier is relatively slow moving and requires an air defence and anti-submarine escort with up to date detect and destroy capabilities. Does Argentina have this kind of equipment, is it state of the art?
I can't believe they would be stupid enough to try the military option again. Could be wrong!
A seaborne troop carrier is relatively slow moving and requires an air defence and anti-submarine escort with up to date detect and destroy capabilities. Does Argentina have this kind of equipment, is it state of the art?
I can't believe they would be stupid enough to try the military option again. Could be wrong!
yes but it depends how determined the attacker is, yes they could go by sea, but wouldn't a para assault make more sense?
As for the air defences, you could think more WW2 big wing tactics, and the limited number of defenders are to overcome, afterall they carry a finite amount of weapons, and can only be in one place at a time. If you have 8 AA missiles and 16 attackers? Yes you would be sacrificing aircraft, but with the potential for several billion $ in oil revenue, the costs are fairly low.
Likewise we know that the odds favour the defender on the ground, but if they have neutralised the airborne defence, then they are free to shuttle more paras as required. How many sorties can they fly in a 24 hour period? Could they deploy sufficient SAMs to prevent us from flying in reinforcements, without taking the airfield? Then it becomes a siege mentality.
As ever it depends how desperate the enemy is, and what is at stake.
As for the air defences, you could think more WW2 big wing tactics, and the limited number of defenders are to overcome, afterall they carry a finite amount of weapons, and can only be in one place at a time. If you have 8 AA missiles and 16 attackers? Yes you would be sacrificing aircraft, but with the potential for several billion $ in oil revenue, the costs are fairly low.
Likewise we know that the odds favour the defender on the ground, but if they have neutralised the airborne defence, then they are free to shuttle more paras as required. How many sorties can they fly in a 24 hour period? Could they deploy sufficient SAMs to prevent us from flying in reinforcements, without taking the airfield? Then it becomes a siege mentality.
As ever it depends how desperate the enemy is, and what is at stake.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Normandy
Age: 62
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ex TEV Canberra Engineer that photo of the Bogey at Gadana beach is soooo sad.
Reference getting troops down there (or anywhere else!) by ship. As others have referred to there are no British companies left, Cunard has not been British owned for years however P&O was always a British Government "golden shares" company to ensure that ownership could never pass abroad for reasons of National security...I could never understand how that was allowed to change.
Incidentally with the exception of the QM 2, modern cruise ship design is vastly different form the line voyage days of the Canberra and Black Pig (even if she was a complete wreck and deemed too unreliable to actually go near the Falklands!) Would be interesting to see a modern ship trying to keep the revs up in a big sea if it was deemed necessary.
Reference getting troops down there (or anywhere else!) by ship. As others have referred to there are no British companies left, Cunard has not been British owned for years however P&O was always a British Government "golden shares" company to ensure that ownership could never pass abroad for reasons of National security...I could never understand how that was allowed to change.
Incidentally with the exception of the QM 2, modern cruise ship design is vastly different form the line voyage days of the Canberra and Black Pig (even if she was a complete wreck and deemed too unreliable to actually go near the Falklands!) Would be interesting to see a modern ship trying to keep the revs up in a big sea if it was deemed necessary.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have the Steyr AUG. Hansard noted in Mar 2008 that
The main role of the FIDF is to assist in the defence of the Falkland Islands. The Force also provides an armed Fisheries Protection capability, mountain rescue and general search and rescue services, and assistance to the civil and military communities. The FIDF maintains company strength with a membership in early 2008 at 75 volunteers plus two full-time staff: a CO and a loan Permanent Staff Instructor (PSI). Based in Stanley, FIDF trains weekly to maintain Sniper/Recce, machine gun, close combat, amphibious and logistic support units, armed with Steyr AUG, GPMG and HMG. For transport, they have Landies, quad bikes and rigid raiders.
The Falkland Islands Defence Force (FIDF) is a locally maintained volunteer defence force unit, funded by the Falkland Islands Government, working alongside the UK military units based at Mount Pleasant, to ensure the security of the islands. Falkland Island nationals, British citizens, British overseas citizens and Commonwealth citizens aged between 17 and 55 are eligible to apply to join the FIDF. According to the 2006 Falkland Islands census, approximately 1,600 men and women may have been eligible to apply to join the FIDF, subject to medical clearance and selection procedure.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sweden
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Political engineering
I don’t often entertain conspiracy theories, but you can call me a cynic if you like or go and read a few history books, That Sweet Enemy, is one I would thoroughly recommend.
Relations between UK and Argentina have been improving over the years
The Argentinean population needs galvanizing to perhaps divert civil unrest
Argentina will probably default on its loans
It could really do with it own natural resources outside of the rain forest
We are likely to have the backing of the UN, unconditional surrender and all that
The US will be on our side but will push for a peaceful resolution
The Labour party, whatever today’s polls show are heading for a fall, how big?
What saved Maggie’s government in the 80’s
What also saved the forces and re-justified to a skeptical public and cabinet in the need for investment in the forces
What frankly put the great back in Britain, temporarily anyway from the doldrums of the 70’s
Rising tensions, motions to war at the public’s and our level anyway, but all calm at the top, even arrogance displayed by the UKGov.
If Brown can rescue this i.e. saving face and the lions share now without spilling blood whilst appreciating his short comings in defence planning and then his Argentinean opposite number has ‘come to an agreement’ over his loans, ‘bigging up’ Brown again and got concessions over oil revenues, having got all the right noises from South American leaders with little to lose anyway.
“Whilst not appreciating the negotiating tactics used, we understand difficult times call for difficult measures, boot other foot etc and therefore no amount of oil is worth a single drop of our forces blood!” can they then say or that “its not all about oil”
Then what a brilliant piece of political engineering!
Who said that politicians were good at quoting history but so bad at learning from it? Might have been me and I hope I was wrong!
If I was right, then how will the RAF feel about going up against the Flankers? No specific details needed!
Relations between UK and Argentina have been improving over the years
The Argentinean population needs galvanizing to perhaps divert civil unrest
Argentina will probably default on its loans
It could really do with it own natural resources outside of the rain forest
We are likely to have the backing of the UN, unconditional surrender and all that
The US will be on our side but will push for a peaceful resolution
The Labour party, whatever today’s polls show are heading for a fall, how big?
What saved Maggie’s government in the 80’s
What also saved the forces and re-justified to a skeptical public and cabinet in the need for investment in the forces
What frankly put the great back in Britain, temporarily anyway from the doldrums of the 70’s
Rising tensions, motions to war at the public’s and our level anyway, but all calm at the top, even arrogance displayed by the UKGov.
If Brown can rescue this i.e. saving face and the lions share now without spilling blood whilst appreciating his short comings in defence planning and then his Argentinean opposite number has ‘come to an agreement’ over his loans, ‘bigging up’ Brown again and got concessions over oil revenues, having got all the right noises from South American leaders with little to lose anyway.
“Whilst not appreciating the negotiating tactics used, we understand difficult times call for difficult measures, boot other foot etc and therefore no amount of oil is worth a single drop of our forces blood!” can they then say or that “its not all about oil”
Then what a brilliant piece of political engineering!
Who said that politicians were good at quoting history but so bad at learning from it? Might have been me and I hope I was wrong!
If I was right, then how will the RAF feel about going up against the Flankers? No specific details needed!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Berks, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall that we had some kind of agreement in place with Argentina about resources in the South Atlantic, however Argentina withdrew from it fairly recently - last year or the year before? (Kirchner, either male or female).
What would this agreement have meant for Argentina? Have they already walked away from an agreement that perhaps gave them access to some of the oil revenues or sharing drilling resources or something? Have they already cut their nose off to spite their face? Or did the agreement not cover anything like that? (May have to look that up if I get a chance, but there is an outside chance someone here has already done it...)
What would this agreement have meant for Argentina? Have they already walked away from an agreement that perhaps gave them access to some of the oil revenues or sharing drilling resources or something? Have they already cut their nose off to spite their face? Or did the agreement not cover anything like that? (May have to look that up if I get a chance, but there is an outside chance someone here has already done it...)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arranged between John Major and Carlos Menem and concluded in Washington, the 1995 agreement aimed to remove political uncertainties arising from sovereignty claims to the area by both countries which could dampen foreign interest in exploiting potential oil reserves. Nestor Kirchner cancelled the agreement in Mar 2007.
The Hydrocarbons Agreement was signed on 27th September 1995 between the British and Argentine Governments, with active participation by the Falkland Islands Government. Agreed to designate part of the South West Atlantic as an Area of Special Co-operation, and to co-operate through the establishment of a Joint Commission in order to encourage the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the South West Atlantic by the offshore gas and oil industry.
Is it just me or does anyone else find the title of this thread objectionable?
The Falkands war was fought and won to prevent the Argentine name being used and all which that implies. It's inappropriate, even if intended in irony.
We should not even recognise it. I request it be changed or a new thread titled 'The Falklands, (again?)' started and merged.
The Falkands war was fought and won to prevent the Argentine name being used and all which that implies. It's inappropriate, even if intended in irony.
We should not even recognise it. I request it be changed or a new thread titled 'The Falklands, (again?)' started and merged.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are absolutely correct, Aeronut.
Clearly there are many here with no sensitivity to the recent history of these islands and, more importantly, to the feelings of those very British people who live there.
Clearly there are many here with no sensitivity to the recent history of these islands and, more importantly, to the feelings of those very British people who live there.
Personally I think Aeronut is being a bit po-faced about this. Its pretty obvious that Grabber was using irony in choosing the Spanish version.
It also points up the fact often missed or ignored by the Argentines that Las Malvinas is just the Spanish for Les Malouines (from St Malo), so called because the original colonisers were fishermen from the St Malo region , so neither Brits nor Spanish! Maybe the fairest thing would be to offer the islands (and the oil) to the French - I'm sure nobody would argue with that!
Dons helmet and retires to a VERY safe distance
It also points up the fact often missed or ignored by the Argentines that Las Malvinas is just the Spanish for Les Malouines (from St Malo), so called because the original colonisers were fishermen from the St Malo region , so neither Brits nor Spanish! Maybe the fairest thing would be to offer the islands (and the oil) to the French - I'm sure nobody would argue with that!
Dons helmet and retires to a VERY safe distance
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the fairest thing would be to offer the islands (and the oil) to the French
(Tongue in cheek)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falklands defence
While some people might think we may be struck in the Falklands while distracted elswhere/s, frankly one nuclear attack sub even thought to be around will prevent a conventional amphib' invasion - the Argentinians are a sensible lot, and I doubt theyl'd follow a git into war again just for votes, especially regarding the state of their forces.
Plus there are a lot more ground based defenders, AFAIK now to deterr paratroopers and a lot else,let alone the signicant ( everyone likes to take the P', but who would actually choose a fight with them ? ) air defence forces.
This of course remains an opportunity to tar & feather all the political arses ( inc' military ) who objected to an AMRAAM equipped Seajet / Harrier 2+...
Falklands 2 ain't going to happen - fingers crossed for the brave people at the sharp end on both sides !
Plus there are a lot more ground based defenders, AFAIK now to deterr paratroopers and a lot else,let alone the signicant ( everyone likes to take the P', but who would actually choose a fight with them ? ) air defence forces.
This of course remains an opportunity to tar & feather all the political arses ( inc' military ) who objected to an AMRAAM equipped Seajet / Harrier 2+...
Falklands 2 ain't going to happen - fingers crossed for the brave people at the sharp end on both sides !
Last edited by Double Zero; 23rd Feb 2010 at 19:41.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vernon99/Viszla - Your negative comments surprise me. Does that mean that there are no Rapier units based in the Falklands now? No RN ship with sea to air capability in the area? No ground based air defence radar unit? Just these three items would amount to a very significant improvement on the air defences of pre invasion 1982.
Double Zero - You sound more optimistic!
Not sure who mentioned an airborne landing but you would have to pick a calm day otherwise half your force would end up in the sea and the other half would have broken bones after being dragged across the LZ! Para units travel light and are shock troops, you would still need a sea tail to back them up, arriving within hours of the drop, assuming any transports were left in the sky and able to drop.
Double Zero - You sound more optimistic!
Not sure who mentioned an airborne landing but you would have to pick a calm day otherwise half your force would end up in the sea and the other half would have broken bones after being dragged across the LZ! Para units travel light and are shock troops, you would still need a sea tail to back them up, arriving within hours of the drop, assuming any transports were left in the sky and able to drop.
And while I'm at it, this is what Dr Johnson said about the Falklands in 1770 when we took it from Spain.
"We have maintained the honour of the crown and the superiority of our influence. Beyond this, what have we acquired? What, but a bleak and gloomy solitude, an Island thrown aside from human use, stormy in winter and barren in summer: an island which not even the southern savages have dignified with habitation: where a garrison must be kept in a state that contemplates with envy the exiles of Siberia: of which the expense will be perpetual and the use only occasional: and which, if fortune smile upon our labours, may become a nest of smugglers in peace, and in war the refuge of future buccaneers".
"We have maintained the honour of the crown and the superiority of our influence. Beyond this, what have we acquired? What, but a bleak and gloomy solitude, an Island thrown aside from human use, stormy in winter and barren in summer: an island which not even the southern savages have dignified with habitation: where a garrison must be kept in a state that contemplates with envy the exiles of Siberia: of which the expense will be perpetual and the use only occasional: and which, if fortune smile upon our labours, may become a nest of smugglers in peace, and in war the refuge of future buccaneers".
