Harley

glojo was saying why a submarine wasn't any use in the scenarios he was posting about.

I was thinking laterally. We have helicopters on the Falklands, one on HMS Dauntless and probably others on other warships, all with a range well past the 12 mile exclusion zone or wait until inside the 12 mile exclusion zone.

The RM who are more than capable of conducting a boarding party from the air or sea.



glojo
We both posted at the same time. Yes, I realise you are asking questions as well as providing answers, have no problem with that.


Re boarding civilian merchant ships, we had a situation here where a North Korean ship was "up to no good", the police from 2 states and customs tried to get it to stop and tried to board it but they couldn't / didn't have the expertise to do it so the Federal Gov't called in the Defence forces (Navy, SAS and Commandos) and the ship was boarded in very rough seas from the air and sea and controlled in a very short while. The North Koreans were armed.

If the Gov't thinks a ship is up to no good, they have a right to board and stop it.

(Australia has a (bad) habit of boarding Civilian registered merchant ships and doing things they shouldn't with them but the storm normally blows over after a few days or weeks. Taking over one Civilian registered merchant ship helped one Gov't get re elected !!!)

FODPlod:

Clearly I would have to be the PM... :ugh:

I take it you are all for using civilians as shields for the military then. Because, by allowing these hypothetical, (because, after all, this is what they are in this conversation), ten passenger ferries who are traveling with civilians aboard as a group at high speed towards sovereign territory refusing to acknowledge even when fired upon that is exactly what you are doing.

Why do you believe it to be anyone but the foreign government's responsibility if their civilians die when they are used as shields for their military?

MLRS is a grid square remover and would make short of any landing party.
It would also be an ideal location to use UAVs for targeting info and other intelligence.

I'm still trying to get my head round where these ferries are supposed to come alongside, and where the landing facilities are for them exactly?
Also, what cargo is going along with them too, as otherwise you've got 10 ferries worth of lightly armed infantry and nothing else.

I don't want to sound patronising, but if you go and look at the worlds amphibious fleets, you'll see a lot of very specific ship types, and a lot of investment in C2, and a lot of investment in logistics to get kit ashore. You do not see a lot of investment for 10 high speed ferries that have no means of actually putting their troops ashore when they reach their destination...

Will this effect the filming of the next series of the Total Wipeout gameshow fronted by Richard Hammond?


Actually, with a title like that the final round could be interesting...

but he never goes on site- all the local filming is done by that Irish girl

Personally, I don't think its beyold the realms of possibility that the Argentinians might have another go.

Certainly the statement that they are committed to peaceful means only cannot be given any credence. If I were in her shoes I would keep banging on about that right up to the point my forces went into action. Maintenance of surprise and all that.

Do I think they are particularly likely to suceed? No idea. Been out of it for too long. I would have thought that with a little judicious spending, rallying of allies, and the willingness to try some 'irregular methods' they could have a damn good go. It might be a really bad idea, but all it needs is the wrong combination of perceived political capital to be gained and optimistic subordinates.

But that's not really why I have posted. Seems to me the Argentinan government is showing its hand as bullying. I refer to the banning of FI registered vessels from Mercosur ports (and air overflights). Given that we are at peace I do not see how this can be justified.

Accordingly I think we should push back. How about we ban Mercosur registed vessels and aircraft from UK airspace and territorial waters for 48 hours. Let that send a message... do you really want to F*** with us?

This woman is dangerous. Better we bop her on the nose with counter-sanctions than end up having to kill more of the poor sods.

pb

I agree, why have the UK not banned Argentinian vessels from UK waters or something similar, even for a short time ?

Al Jazeera
 

Here is how Al Jazeera are reporting

Al Jazeera

A big improvement on the article that someone had written very early this AM. It was factually incorrect, full of lies, and obviously written by someone who hates the UK. It was very rude to the UK, and basically said that Britain had forced the Argentinians out of "The Malvinas", and stolen it from them.

Pious Pilot,

We would require sufficient MLRS, ammnition resupplies, fuel, spares, etc, as well as UAVs in theatre. Also require adequate current intel and comms; plus sufficient separation of opposing forces from friendlies and civvies.

Edit... Also need lots of small arms ammunition

Hugo Chavez , President of Venezuela has pledged that his armed forces would fight alongside Argentina in any conflict with Britain. The Venezuelan militarry, after a purge, are loyal to Chavez.

President Chavez has been upgrading Venezuelas military forces quite consdierably. Purchase are from countries including Russia, China, Spain,

These chaps have some useful assets.

"No South American nation has the stomach, appetite or desire for a military conflict with the UK"

Maybe so. But as a lot of posters are realising, there is no need for a prolonged conflict with the UK. Play their cards right and there's no conflict to be had beyond taking the airfield. Its really that simple. If you lose MPA, you've lost the islands.

The T45 and the SSN are indeed, very useful assets, although I am somewhat concerned about whether, if it came to it that the T45 is truly ready enough. Given the things that have happened over the last few years when the RN couldnt even prevent a couple's yacht being hijacked when they were sat virtually right on top of the damned thing, given the fun and games with HMS Cornwall in the Gulf with the Iranians, I seriously think that unless the Islands and the airfield in particular are reinforced adequately that its going to be a matter of when, not if.

The one scenario that would be ruled out as being possible for an enemy (and therefore not prepared to be countered) is probably the one they will think of and use. I believe the Woodward/Thompson scenario to be totally possible. All it is going to take is to distract the Typhoons elsewhere in the FICZ for long enough. Plus, the SSN, should she be located (not necessarily by the Argentine, but with other nations with access to assets that are capable and who are more pre-disposed to Mercosurs position), will have to spend more time trying to remain hidden than being effective on station.

That would leave the T45 as a sitting duck. Not sure I'd be completely happy relying on the promises in BAe's sales brochures if theres a whole bunch of AM39's heading in her direction.

We shall no doubt see though, over the coming months. Rattling a sabre makes an awful lot of noise. Drawing it does not.

Are all of the Islanders (civilians) armed?

Are they trained as a militia?

If not, why not?

If you want to stay free from foreigners, as the Islanders apparently do (seeing the Argentines as foreigners) then you sometimes have to fight for your freedom.

Are they willing to fight?

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.

just a tiny amount of research, even just reading this thread and you would know about the FIDF!

Falkland Islands Defence Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lonewolf,

as we see in Syria, having an armed population doesn't help much when the enemy has Artillery.

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.

Jabba...
Those 2 situations were ROE related, not capability - even if the RN do cry about having their iPods taken off them :E

so would you say the Falklands are on a sticky wicket?:p

Too many Saturday afternoon quarterbcks thinking they could do better. The Royal Navy does amazing work with the resources available and working within the ROE. Come up with something better to criticise.

We are well prepared to hold fortress Falklands and Argentina know it. If they thought otherwise, they and their friends would be doing more than just whinging about it.

It looks like the USAF is getting rid of five squadrons of A10's. Maybe we should purchase a few squadrons.