Biggus,


Fraid not. Contemporary reports include severe concerns that, for example, the majority of Australian troops being sent to Singapore were straight out of very basic training.

Concerns at what level (tactical, local?), complacency at what level (strategic - political?)

Were there concerns about the siting of the defences, the air assets available, the amount of time available for reinforcement, etc..?



Taking the FI would not be that difficult for a determined opponent who decided to do something a bit more innovative than walk up the beach and march to the airfield....

Proone

"c) UK military is now ensconced in more than infantry Company strength on the islands and is massively more capable and battle hardened than we were in 82."

Do you think a Company is enough ?

I agree with Biggus, for a determined enemy, they could do it, although taking the whole might be a bit harder than last time.

The key for the UK is how quickly they could reinforce it safely
and then the logistics !

Would the Govenor surrender as quickly this time or would the Marines and other fight on ?
.

500N,


I was making the point that the Falklands were defended in Company strength in 1982, not now.
There was no strategic airfield, no in place logistics, no fixed wing air, no Air Defence infrastructure etc etc etc. All there now and VERY visible!

The UK was also firmly in a Cold War "Central Europe/Battle of the Atlantic" mind set and was not exactly focused on deployable expeditionary warfare.

If you are concerned about a "determined" enemy, just take a look at the Argentinian armed forces. Starved of funding for the last 25 years, very little new equipment and significant attrition of what WAS left after 82.

Biggus,

Concerns at the combat efficiency, training and capability of the majority of infantry.

Agree with pr00ne. NP8901 was made up up 80 marines including 15 sailors from Endurance with no backup. We could and should reinforce the current garrison as a precaution however.

Gotta agree with two of Pr00ne's main points:

• 1982 Falklands war caused by neglect and lack of intelligence (both military and intellectual).
• Invasion much, much harder to do now for a myriad of reasons.

Can't comment on international relations in South America, not my subject area.

Two other points..

Fall of Singapore...primarily military incompetence.

Current vogue for banging on about the vulnerability of the FI...primarily vested interest.

This situation is a 'win-win' for everyone in my opinion.

Argentine politicians get to trot out the vote winning desire to re-capture the Holy Land, without ever actually having to do it.

Cameron gets to act the national hero.

RN gets to re-emphasise the fact that should a small, sparsely populated, water bound, distant piece of real estate need defending then a task force did it last time. In the absence of any obvious examples of 'the next one', 'the last one' will do.

RAF gets to hang onto a few more Typhoons and their crews.

The army hangs onto a few more troops, because for every one deployed you need another four in the cycle.

Wills get his OOA.;)

Obviously we quite reasonably think that the Argentines cannot take the FI by force because we have infantry and AD aircraft there. To go completely off track - the question this raises for me is why we insist on maintaining our own amphibious capability if it's so damn easy to defend against?

In fact a reasonable exam question to show how far we've sunk would be to ask the question, could we take the FI back from ourselves?

To summarise, I really don't see hostilities happening because the status quo suits all players bubbling along like it is.

Plonk 6 MLRS on the airfield, job jobbed.

A periscope overtly driving up and down the 12 mile limit would no doubt be seen as being in very poor taste and somewhat inflammatory - but I bet it would work. We could always argue that if we set it up in a North-South figure eight it was never actually sailing towards Argentina...ship's/ boat's head apparently matters a great deal in those latitudes.

Move some of the Infantry training regiments there and use the place for all phase two infantry training. Come to that stick the all arms phase one training there as well and toughen up the recruits abit.... :E

on the thing that bugs me is that we have no medium or long range AA missiles

10 km range with a Rapier seems aking for trouble

a couple of Patriot batteries (150km range) on W Falklands would surely be a reasonable investment

Harry,

Surface-to air-missiles, Mate. Typhoon have reasonable air-to-air or anti-aircraft missiles. I agree that Patriot might not be a bad addition, but I probably wouldn't put them on West Falkland, that would just mean a detour to stay outside the MEZ. Better at more local air denfence, I think.

Of course, we'd have to make sure they had the Mode 4 sorted out!

Then we need some decent air-to-surface and surface-to-surface hardware to ward of the naval armada.

Have I missed something or have the Argentine's suddenly revamped their military? Last time I looked they couldn't sail out of port let alone invade somewhere.

Ghostnav,

Fully agree, they don't have the capability to engage/invade the islands as far as we know, this is just sabre rattling. I think we should deploy Astute with a full warload of Tomahawks and Spearfish, that will shut them up. A gentle up scaling of land forces can be done without too much notice. The Typhoons at MPA are more than capable covering the local airspace. They only have two Herc tankers after all. This is what stopped them mounting mass attacks in 30yrs ago. The fleet, though far smaller is much better equipped. Two T45s appropriately deployed would make them fish food.

Falkland Islands
 

The Falklands are populated by British descendants who do not wish to be ruled by the Argentinians.

In Democracy, they have, therefore, the right to declare themselves either an independant country OR a part of the British Common Wealth.

What on earth have certain Argentinians (100 demonstrators by last count) in mind ? Become a dictator of the Islands, exploit its resources (?). Should this problem not be solved in the World Court ?:ugh:

Solve What? It was decided 30 years ago when they tried to steal it and were sent home in international disgrace. The UN charter determines that the right of self determination is above all other claims. I look forward to seeing the films of their pathetic eviction once again in April. Months after they were always referred to in the Navy as "Enemy". They still are. 6 months later we were still cleaning up after them. We took anything useful that still worked, put the the rest in an RFA and dumped it in the sea. All the best kit they had, we had. Some of it was good, most if it was rubbish apart from a few exceptions which we had fun with until Management said we should stop.

Remember HMS Desire discovered it in 1592 and claimed for the Crown. That predates ANY other claim.

Chavez?
 

What would happen if some more capable allies decided to help the Argentinians in return for a cut of the oil? e.g. Venezuela.

Showing your AD roots there old chum. You know what wards off a naval armada down there....SSN times one. Kinda an established fact.

Enjoyed reading your web/blog thingy BTW. My bestie was caught up in that stooshie over allowances in Italy :ok:


Take your point orca, but they'ed never see it. Big Black Beast would have to surface, fire flares, and have the band on deck playing "Don't Cry For Me Argentina before they would make a detection.

TOFO,

And we are in exactly the same state!

Duncs:ok:

SSN x 1 is, IMVHO, being a tad optimistic. One had better hope that Argentia doesnt receive any assistance, either practical or otherwise from other nations in finding out where said SSN x1 is... otherwise SSN1 could end up having to run all over the South Atlantic trying to stay hidden. And, given Astute's recent few days on a sandbank, I'm inclined to venture she's not ready yet. Likewise, sticking a solitary T45 anywhere near the area on its own is chancing it a bit, particularly with its SAM systems not exactly being, er proven... Plus, SSN x1 can only do so much, particularly if the plan detailed in the Sunday Times is the one that is used, or something like it, like the Woodward plan (ie, keep the Typhoon's occupied on the fringe of the FICZ for long enough for the commando party to start knocking over the airfield).

As said before, the best idea is not to lose them in the first place and to reinforce sooner rather than later. All well and good that the forces are more "embedded" than they were in 82, but that is besides the point. Not enough infantry, not dispersed enough, not enough of a naval presence, not enough aircraft, no carrier, no Apaches, not an effective enough airbridge, a SHORAD system way past its best...

Im afraid I share the same opinions as Julian Thompson and Sandy Woodward. Lose MPA and you've lost the Islands. And, with our levels of capability being what they are now and going forward, that would be that. Any attempt at re-taking the Islands would be a futile waste of life. Best hope would be for the FIDF to make a thorough nuisance of themselves running a guerilla campaign, but that would only realistically last so long.

I've been saying it for a while, but it really wouldnt surprise me if it went off in the next couple of years, sad to say. More heat than light at the moment, but it doesnt mean its always going to be that way...