But surely every boy and girl down there is current at CCS?

Is there anything in South America that could find an SSN if the SSN did not want to be found?

A fairly well charted sand bar on the edge of a fairly well charted navigable channel should draw the beggars in.

How much does the fact that we can target quite a lot of the mainland with TLAMs at very short notice affect things? The mere threat of a Vulcan strike frightened the living daylights out of them in 82 (even though it wasnt really practical)

No it didn't. What it did (allegedly) force them to do, was to move their better AD aircraft north to cover BA, thereby having a valuable dilution effect on what was available to face the Task Force.

A TLAM warhead is capable of taking out most high-value targets. However, set against that is the open source knowledge that the UK has a limited number of the weapons and that the similarly limited number of boats we have can only carry a limited number of missiles themselves.

There's a slight difference between the potential for nightly Vulcan raids (potentially of multiple aircraft) sustained for weeks and a very painful, but highly intermittent salvo of TLAM every couple of weeks.

Likewise the other side knew the limitations of our Vulcan force and knew we couldnt put any more than 2 in the area at a given time (even that was pushing it)

A TLAM is far more accurate than a Vulcan could ever be so you wouldnt need too many warheads to achive the required outcome with little or no risk to the delivery craft

Hence it scared the living daylights out of them:E

Ultimately if it was decided that the Argentine National Congress building wasn't on fire enough for MoD, that could be rectified at a date and time of the UKs choosing. I'd say that's a more potent capability than the Vulcan provided.

Ultimately if it was decided that the Argentine National Congress building wasn't on fire enough for MoD, that could be rectified at a date and time of the UKs choosing. I'd say that's a more potent capability than the Vulcan provided.

With tha added bonus of being able to pick what window you wanted to "post" it through:E

That assumes the targeteers let you go after "non-military" targets in what would almost certainly be an RoE constrained environment.

Back in 82 there was also a lot less freely available int on capabilities - particularly wrt Vulcan / Victor numbers. More "unknown" to be afraid of.

There's also a difference between being scared sh1tless and identifying a military threat and moving your forces to counter it.

TLAM is a very good weapon, but only game changing when employed in sufficient numbers to cause permanent loss of capabilities. We can do that when Uncle Sam and his skimmers crammed with TLAM are with us. Different story if we're on our tod.

This should liven things up a bit, and change the dynamic..


AN AMERICAN energy giant with links to the Pentagon is poised to spend at least £1billion on the British oil rush in the FALKLANDS.

The US giant's board of directors include Kevin Chilton - a former commander of US Strategic Command. Another, Preston M "Pete" Geren III, was in the US Department of Defence for much of the last decade.
If the deal goes ahead, American involvement would be a hammer blow to Argentina, a huge coup for David Cameron and change the lives of the Falklands' 3,000 islanders.

US firm's £1bn for Falklands oil | The Sun |News|Sun City

As I remember there where no military targets I BA in 82 except for the people who make the decisions just like now so your first point is at odds to the one above

Depends what the target is and how hard you want to hit it

I said allegedly - part of the multiplier effect claimed by the RAF. Whether it did or not is independent on our RoE of the time, which I suspect were a lot looser than they would be today.

Play targeteer all you want. I'm only trying to make the point that one boat load of TLAM ("X" warshots) ain't all that, particularly against a dispersed force structure.

Jabba, I respectfully disagree.

UAV's can do local patrol. You have other assets for further out detection of a move towards the Islands.

Not quite, sadly. We don't have Sir Anthony Parsons any more. :sad: I can't find the quote, only various obituaries, but he was responsible for the best quote of the century, never mind the eighties.

As I recall, the US Ambassador to the UN - Parsons 'opposite number' - Jean Kirkpatrick, had become tired with the various exchanges before the fighting started and rather carelessly tried to get Great Britain to abondon the Falklands. She suggested; "You (Britain) just give the islands back."

I can't quote verbatim, but Parsons said something very like;

"If that is to be a generalised policy Madam, then I suggest you will have to give Louisiana back to the French, Alaska back to the Russians and the rest of it back to the Indians.":D :ok:

Collapse of stout party - I'll get me coat.

Roger.

UAVs based from where, and with what maritime search capability?

IMHO, any 'engagement' to protect the F.Is would absolutely require Uncle Sam's support. The Royal Navy can barely catch the drug runners (and a bloody good job they do too btw:ok:) let alone amass a formidable task force to protect our assets down there and the few Typhoon there would be virtually useless against any decisive land invasion from Argentina.

Sure we have options but the USA would have to be on board.

Again, this is all supposition for now

ICBM.

not true - even a limited reinforcement of air assets would make any potential tussle waaay out of Argentinas league. the problem at the moment is that it appears much more evenly matched, and therefore potentially 'doable'.

with only 4 Typhoons on the Islands even 99% servicability means that only three Typhoons are available - and three Typhoons with no AWACS and only one tanker can be chased around the sky until they are run ragged. when they are run ragged they are vunerable.

if the force were increased by four Typhoons, another tanker, four GR4's and a pair AWACS the Islands couldn't be taken if all of Latin America joined in...

Not 'doable' by any stretch of the imagination if you factor in an RN submarine. Dreadnought (1977), Conqueror (1982),

why is it that the crabs fail to understand that the absolute crux of the FI defence is air power?

they don't need to invade, they just need to close the airhead to incoming traffic. we would be unable to use ships to get supplies in once air cover is gone - submarines won't be much use in that little tussle. once the FI is unsuppliable then we'll simply have to 'negotiate'. it will be over.

this must be the first occasion in the history of the world where the RAF is waay behind the Army and RN in understanding that the RAF is the centre of the world...

cokecan

Why would subs be so useless ?

They could stop any Argy ships (or sink them), drop off SF troops with AA missiles that could cause all sorts of hurt to any Argie planes or even light a few fires on the mainland if it came to that, enough to make them re think what they are doing anyway.

I think subs would be a part of any defense of the FI.


Question
Where would Chile sit on this now ?
.