New Falklands War Brewing
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.
"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.
(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.
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 and has an annual budget of ₤400, 000.[3]
The FIDF is organised as a 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, a Royal Marines Warrant Officer 2 is seconded to the Force as a Permanent Staff Instructor.
Two permanent soldiers from the islands are employed as the Force's Commanding Officer, ranked as a Major, and as the senior non-commissioned officer, ranked as a 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.
The FIDF is organised as a 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, a Royal Marines Warrant Officer 2 is seconded to the Force as a Permanent Staff Instructor.
Two permanent soldiers from the islands are employed as the Force's Commanding Officer, ranked as a Major, and as the senior non-commissioned officer, ranked as a 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.
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.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th Feb 2012 at 21:19.
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.
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.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
HELICOPTER Carrier Leaving On Monday
Full steam ahead !!!
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.
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.”
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.
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 !!!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...........
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.
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...........
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.
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
And he did pretty well helping the Paras.
Thanks for the insights. 
Best to prevent the landing, of course ...
Best to prevent the landing, of course ...
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
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.
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
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
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
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?
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?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
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.
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?
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?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
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!
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!
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SilsoeSid
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
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
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?
