Continued Argentine intimidation of the Falklands
 

It seems Plastic Face is up to her old tricks, see below

Argentina wins wider Falklands blockade - UPI.com

Its time to retaliate and teach these people who have no honour or respect a lesson.

I have some ideas, but what are yours? Here's a clue, why not make any Argentine flagged ships sailing into UK waters, first get diplomatic clearance from UK authorities in the Falkland Islands.? It will hurt them more than it hurts us. Papers stamped, cargoes searched etc. What about air traffic?

Debate on

Didnt maggie do something similar when a foreign nation was choosing to charge UK citizens only entry into their country? Something that hurt them far more than it hurt us?

I think ICAO may have views on that.

On your main point; that is the threat we need to deal with. As I keep saying until I'm blue in the uniform, they don't need to try taking the Islands back.

Indeed so, so lets give them some of their own medicine. Any Argentine ship sailing westbound through the Channel is within UK territorial waters. Unless that ship has first put into Port Stanley and issued with the appropriate clearance it should be seized. Tit for tat. The journey home outside UK waters is a long and expensive trip. Squeeze where it hurts.:O

I am surprised Chile would be a part of it or have I missed something ?

Seizing any Argie ship in UK waters and giving them the once over
everytime would cost them a few $ is downtime.

Stick a "Trafalgar" class sub 0.1 nm outside Argie territorial waters... and tell them that it's there :ok:

Argentina has already abused the free traffic rights into Puerto Arenas in Chile, claiming the waters to be their own, despite being as free as the English Channel. Lets to do same to them. There is far more Argentine traffic coming to Europe than anything going to the Falklands. If you want to sail into our waters then HM Customs has to issue you a permit in Port Stanley. Protected by the Royal Navy of course while they are in Falklands waters.

What's with all this mucking about....

In the not so distant future we are pretty likely to have some fairly noisy fireworks lying around a dockyard ....

Now we have had this bang stuff for a few years now and having never used them in anger we really don't know if they actually work, do we?

So..... before we finally lay up the delivery systems why not celebrate the next Guy Fawks night (or Trafalger day cos it's closer) over 'there'

WinWin situation if you really think about it, we get to try em out at last having dragged the things all over the gaff in a boat for the last decade, we won't have to try and hide the haz waste from them and 'they' get to go into glass making big time....

AaS,

I'm not sure that is what you would call a measured response :} :mad:

Navaleye,

Just scribble the length and circumference on said objects, that would qualify as a "measured response".

fltlt,

Agreed. Of course we do have the enemy within called the Foreign and Commonweath Office and I'm not sure given their treachery and cowardice over recent decades i doubt anything will happen. That said, I have huge respect for William Hague and I hope I'm wrong.

"Protected by the Royal Navy of course while they are in Falklands waters."

Given the experiences of Paul and Rachel Chandler, I'm sure that will fill any sailors full of comfort...... :E

Considering UNASUR is formed of the main South American nations and their eventual intention is a supranational organisation along the lines of the EU, this could take interesting turns along the way. Especially as the Chileans are also members. The article says:

"UNASUR's 12 member countries agreed in principle to follow Argentina and deny Falklands-bound shipping any facilities at their ports. Ships leaving the Falklands similarly will be denied docking and fuel, UNASUR announced after the leaders met in Guyana."

Not good for trade for South America, depending on how much they actually do with the Islands. Seems more a case of blockading their ports against FI registered and bound vessels rather than what we would normally consider to be a blockade of the Islands themselves. This is obviously more of a political blockade than a military one, with the intention of ratcheting up the "buggeration factor"... it does not commit them to using or risking any military assets or building up to the point where there could end up being a flash point. Any such real blockade, where you end up with UNASUR naval units sitting outside the FICZ/FIPZ hassling shipping is a different matter; personally, IMHO, theres probably quite a few more rungs on the ladder that they'll have to climb before that becomes a real possibility.

Might be a better idea, depending on how much hassle it is, if the FI vessels depend on trade with UNASUR members to re-register their vessels to a different flag. I concede though that this may not be practical.

Is this going to affect any of the Far East/South East Asian squid/fishing fleets who operate around there? Anybody aware of any ramifications?

Navaleye is right to say that the FCO ought to get off their butts and deal with this diplomatically. Hague has gone missing recently, god knows what he's up to. Malcolm Rifkind appears to be doing the F.O. rounds quite a bit more recently as a coalition spokesman for some reason. Maybe not a bad thing, as for all his rhetoric, Hague isnt exactly the most dynamic and effective F.O. SecState we've ever had. Not the most blundering either, Miliband had that prize sewn up after Mumbai.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Personally, post-SDSR, it might pay someone to blow the dust off the reinforcement plan and bring it up to date... just as a precaution. :suspect:

As Argentina has no military 'solution' to the FI, this is the chosen path. South America is emerging as a significant economic power house and we are on our knees. Make life difficult economically and, hence, politically. Get Brazil on side and game over really. Chile will have to do as it's told or Argentina will turn its lights off (literally).
The next 'war' has kicked off and is an economic one. We have little to fight with.
What next? An air embargo? No Casevacs allowed to land? No Diversions?

This will test 'call me Daves' political muscle. My money's on South America.

Although I think Chile might abstain from any anti British moves led by Argentina, life will become "interesting" should they decide to align. We only have the one CLYDE and the whole support concept was for Upkeep in places like Chile. It's a long treck to the currently friendly S'Afrika, especially for a deep DED.

It's about a 10 day hop over to Simonstown, so very do-able if inconvenient. Any vessel capable of getting to the Falklands and operating there should be up for it.

Desire Falkland Oil Find May Fan U.K., Argentina Feud - BusinessWeek

With the very good news of a second oil strike in the Islands, we need figure out how we get our oil off the islands and back to Britain. The answer is simple. The islands have a perfect deep water harbour at San Carlos Water. We just to establish an oil storage facility there and send tankers into it to ship our oil to friendly refineries.

From an aviation point of view, just imagine the traffic going into and out of MPA to support this. The Falklands would become the richest nation in the world per capita.

Don't cry for me Argentina :{:{

But borrow their charts first- ours seem a bit suspect!

CG

If foreign trawlers round the islands were "Sunk by an Argie sub" things might get interesting politically dragging other far-flun nations in to the row.

Not that this would happen of course.

Let's send Ark Royal and some Harriers down there....

Talking of lessons not learned... Oops.

Navaleye. You are indeed right; about 10 days to Simonstown, with a serviceable ship. For a DED, though, it's a hell of a tow; even after we arrange sufficient tug power.

Can any offshore drilling experts comment upon the need for storage in FI? Is a Single Point Mooring solution for VLCCs an option?

rather more effectively lets send another four Typhoons, four GR4's and a pair of E-3's. unlike a carrier we can do that indefinately, and like a carrier it shows - unlike four Typhoons - that we are serious.

the other SA countries are willing to back Argentina (to whatever degree and however seriously) because they see the current UK force on the Islands as not being an indication of our seriousness on this issue.

regardless of the actual effectiveness and military logic of four typhoons, politically four fighters says 'meh' - and the decision to back Argentina is a political one.

Cokecan

That's a mighty big ask of one ageing Tanker........:eek:

I'm with ShyTorque on this one. I was around for the last "last colonial war". That was about four years after I was in Portsmouth with my school on a careers week, and I watched our last proper flat top being cut up into razor blades. At least Argentina had the decency to wait a few years that time before kicking off about the Falklands. Looks as though this time they're not even going to bother. Oh well in the spirit of Entente Frugale - quelle surprise, at least we can rely on the French eh!

Maggie,the last politician we had with guts,harriers the Ark,Invincible,et al,Imagine the frogs helping us,if need be?

That would be good if the French helped. I think we might need them looking at what has gone on. I think they might come to England's aid. I wouldn't rely on the US.

Maybe a few Exocet's (or current version thereof) sent into Agentinian's Navy
- or whatever they have left of it.

... As much as I am (a) anti-Crab and (b) Pro FAA/AAC I have to agree 100% with this statement. And in view of the fact that a wheem of airbases are about to close it makes perfect sense to ease the strain on the bases that are left in Blighty and put a full squadron of Typhoons and GR4's down to MPA.

just my 2d's worth

Do you think that the BBMF Lancaster could be fitted with a refuelling boom and be sent on a long range mission to MPA once it has been overrun?

SilsoeSid Do you think that the BBMF Lancaster could be fitted with a refuelling boom and be sent on a long range mission to MPA once it has been overrun?

Probably easier to create the original Black Buck missions with XH558 - now that's a private/public partnership I could get behind!

althenick. I think the smiley thing must have dropped off the end of your Post.

Has anyone else noticed, generally, how many people write Posts that clearly suggest that few of the previous Posts have been read?

People not reading threads before posting?

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Maybe this should be merged with this: So how vulnerable are the Falklands now ?

GBZ

What is a DED?

Also: WikiLeaks: US concerned over Falklands military action

gunbus

Pity then that she led a Government whose Defence Review in 1981 suggested a lack of interest in defending British interests outside the narrow NATO area. The subsequent Foreign Policy disaster caused by the Falklands War cost Lord Carrington his job. More importantly it then took the lives of over 300 servicemen to restore both the Falklands to British rule and the reputation of Mrs T.

Story was on news of the Falkands invasion Mrs T asked if the Navy would despatch Ark Royal, the one that paid off in 1978. :ugh:

Why not lay up the Ark and her Harriers THERE instead of HERE?

They could load enough stores to last for a while . . . then there's always the airbridge . . . whoops, no aircraft.

HMG has mentioned nothing about storage. Ark Royal will be scrapped or sold. Either Illustrious or Ocean will run on as a helicopter carrier with the latter coming out of refit soon and the latter in need of one.

Choices? Well HMG could store some Harriers "just in case" and run on Illustrious but cancelling Oceans sceduled refit would cause employment issues at Devonport. My guess is this will go ahead with Illustrious taken out of service just as soon as Ocean is available again.

We then hope that PM Cameron is right and that we can do without a fixed wing capability at sea until the new carrier(s) arrive.

255 lives to be more precise, but your point is well made

As you don't specify whose servicemen, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to include the 655 dead Argentine servicemen either. Victims of Mrs T's actions and their Junta's reaction as much as our own dead.

P.S. Not servicemen, but three Falkland Islanders died in the conflict too.

Mechta
 

Not to be too pedantic but I think you'll find it was the Junta's actions and Mrs T's reactions, rather than the other way around!

Think the Argies are more concerned about the 30,000 people that went 'missing' about the same time.

WE Branch Fanatic. DED; Docking Essential Defects. I can't find what category of Fleet Time maintenance it's probably become now.

Responsibility?
 

Erm, possibly Nott? Long-regarded as the other villain of the piece, the-then Defence Secretary tendered his resignation at the same time as Lord Carrington, but the ‘Iron Lady’ didn’t accept it. Maybe a guilt reaction as historian Piers Brendon records it was herself rather than Nott who “plucked ‘the Red Plum’ of Antarctica”, HMS Endurance, to save c.£3 million per year, allegedly referred to the ice-patrol vessel as, “a military irrelevance”, vehemently supported the savings and briefed against her fellow Cabinet member as being too timid.

That signal, amongst others, had much to do with the junta’s subsequent actions. By comparison, the present shameful acts re Ark Royal and the Harriers must look like a gift-wrapped invitation to reach for the old 1982 amphibious landing files and have another go? In their shoes I’d wait til the cutting torches have completed the rest of the RN Fleet downsizing exercise and then kick-off. As ever, should it happen, it won't be the politicians who'll pay with their lives.

Send her a postcard of a UGM-109 with the GPS co-ordinates of the Casa Rosada on the back?