a bigger risk to China is jeapordising their food IMPORTS. For instance China are the worlds biggest importers of Soy oil, 50% of which comes from Argentina. In 2009 this represented something like $700,000,000 of business. The Chinese alternative is to buy from the USA. The Chinese recently shot themselves in the foot by creating a trade war with Argentina, banning the soy imports: so the Argentines sold it all to India (though at a reduced price), leaving the Chinese with a serious shortfall. When you consider how important Soy oil is to the Chinese, this is a serious issue. Chinese investment in other food production in Argentina is big: major irrigation schemes, railway improvements (to the ports), and purchases of corn, corn oil and other staples.
I'm sure that if the Chinese were given an ultimatum: food for weapons, they'd jump pretty quickly

And don't forget Argentina is well resourced in metals

FODPLod

Absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying your job and I don't see the point of your accident examples in this context. My statement was more aimed at the poster seeming to enjoy the fighting which took place and wishing for it to happen again. Why would anyone in a civilised society want war if other means have not been fully exhausted ? I am not sure that the millions of brave servicemen and women maimed and killed defending our country and our freedoms over the centuries would say that they got enjoyment out of becoming a casualty or suffering the horrors of war. A sense of honour, pride, bravery, righteousness, gratitude .... yes, they could claim all those things, and rightly so with my absolute full support, but enjoyment ? I think not, and anyone who claims so I think is being flippant and disrespectful to those who have made the sacrifices to our people and our nation, even if they were involved themselves. Others have freedom to not agree with me of course, thanks precisely to those who gave their lives.

A close family friend served in the Falklands in command of a Type 42 destroyer, subsequently commanding a Royal Navy mobile airfield and retiring as the crab equivalent of an AVM. When he talks of the conflict, he doesn't talk of enjoyment ... ever. He talks of pride in his crew and our armed forces who faced all sorts of adversity and challenges. He talks of the fear of being potentially attacked 24 hours a day by the enemy in high stress situations with equipment which did not always do what it was supposed to. He talks of the horror of losing colleagues and ships in his fleet and the helplessness he felt at times to prevent those losses. He talks of the deep regret and sadness at his ship downing an AAC Gazelle and killing 4 of our own servicemen in the fog of war, with a visible tear in his eye. He talks modestly of the satisfaction that our forces triumphed and the war was ended as quickly as it could have been with a victory. And he talks more than anything of the relief of coming home to his family and friends, whilst acknowledging that many did not get that chance. He has earned my respect, and he does not find war enjoyable nor glorify it one little bit. His experiences speak volumes for me.


ROG

I'll swing it round if I may. Do you know what Moderator means ?

Some of the meanings are:

1) Presides over a meeting, FORUM, or debate. (we can tick that box)
2) A person who monitors the conversations in an on-line chatroom or Forum for bad language, inappropriate content, etc. (another box ticked)
3) Someone who mediates disputes and attempts to avoid violence. (I'd tick the last part in respect of this debate concerning the call for a war put forward by some posters)

An earlier meaning a few centuries ago was that a moderator was a 'controller' or 'ruler' so I guess that's the day job covered too :ok:

As for getting some time in, I think you'll find that it's not a requirement for a Moderator on a site run principally (but not exclusively) for civil professional pilots, to have any military service whatsoever. Most Moderators on this site haven't and I am no exception. Some have of course, and they provide a degree of balance against us civvies and blunties no doubt. They bring different skills, philosophies, and ideas to the table. Note that I didn't say better skills, just different ones which complement those which other Mods provide. Entirely appropriate for a democratic 'society' which is not an autocratic military regime I'd say.

SASless

Maybe what I see as flippancy is a serviceman's defence mechanism of the horrors they went through. Only those that served will know if that is the case for them as individuals, and they have PPRuNe as at least one channel to enlighten everyone else about it and increase our understanding if indeed it is the case. But if I see it coming across as disrespectful, which is my current opinion and of course up for challenge, then I won't simply keep quiet. I'll ask the question and not be scared of the outcome. It's permitted in the civvy world to challenge and be challenged and the sign of a healthy democracy and freedom.

Indeed, my hat is permanently off to our servicemen and women, even in those wars whose political motives and subterfuge I disagree with. It is after all ''Older men who declare war, but it is the youth that must fight and die''.

Never assume. I won't apologise for thinking about the sacrifice made by our young men and women and won't refrain from questioning someone who I interpret or perceive as, in my opinion, making light of war and it's consequences. If they clarify what they really mean and my interpretation is wrong, then I am happy to see their point of view and acknowledge that. We'll accept that we have differing opinions and move on.

Other than my title on the info box left of here, I didn't make any comment as a Moderator, or attempt to provoke anything. I come as a poster who believes that those who gave up their lives should be treated with respect and talk of going to war should be treated with gravitas and careful reflection. I can accept that the Forces have their banter and their sense of humour is black and very different from many of us in the mainstream of society. I just don't find anyone wishing to have a war so they can enjoy themselves very funny, which is how the post reads to me. But each to their own.

Navaleye

I absolutely have pride and belief in our brave servicemen and women that they would indeed do it all over again. Many of them are doing so today in other theatres, a fact of which you will, I am sure, be only too aware. Your losses, and those of your colleagues, are acknowledged by the vast proportion of the population, with immense gratitude and humility. There is a debt there which can never be repaid. At least 6 members of my family lost their lives in the fields of France and Belgium during WW1, doing exactly what you did in the Falklands conflict, and what the current Armed Forces are doing today. Several of them don't have the comfort of a known grave. Many of them probably didn't even get the King's shilling and probably had no idea of the risks, since they were conscripted, but deep down they are made of exactly the same stuff which epitomises our UK Forces. It is in the nation's DNA.

Regards and thanks.

Unnecessary verbiage 10W. Clearly an Air Trafficker, and a civvy as well.:E
If you want to contribute to a purely military forum, it would help if you had some understanding of military life and personnel, and be prepared for some uncompromising and blunt rebuffs. Also don't let your "humorous" comments be misunderstood
It may be taken as offensive and arrogant.
Try not to give lectures
You may find that you offend people.

All of which is why I say "get some time in"
I'll let others support or shoot you down (a mil term) because I don't wish to lecture.:)

:eek: - Hastily reverse the Ark & Harrier force retirement decision for starters...then find some crew to operate both........bad timing or what to scrap these........:mad:

Beg to differ Mate.....every post with the Title "Mod" is a post by a Mod. Seems a common strain hereabouts....some folks wanting it both ways.

As darn few of us are clairvoyant....how do we differeniate your MOD posts from your Non-MOD posts....seeing that all of them have your MOD Title clearly displayed in that bitty box on the left?

The more you try to rationalize your statement the worse your credibility suffers amongst those of us who have worn a Uniform, served in Harm's Way, and know the real price of service to one's Nation during combat.

I think the Mod is bob on, his heart is in the right place. :ok:

Brian, note the "smiley".
My little boy didn't want to be an RAF nav, nor a civvie pilot (like his old man) so I pushed him into Eurocontrol where he's a rich eurocrat. Nothing more fun than taking the p*ss out of the flying prevention branch,:ok: particularly when family's involved.
However I digress....
I would truly hope that we could and would repel Argentinian interference in the Falklands, but I'm not convinced on the latter. Mickey Mouse Dave and his Disney Cabinet do not inspire.

ROG
 

I seemed to have a SOF failure yesterday - that idiot Clarkson's diatribe against cyclists ( in the ST ) again set me up for the day.

My No2 is at Swanwick and jostles regularly with No1 ex Jag Mate and TP.

When discussing FI and Argentina, No1 reckons 4 Typhoons are enough to deter their air force.

I hope he's right, cheers BW

Argentine order of battle
 

Overview of Argentine forces

http://www.scramble.nl/ar.htm

Did anyone read the article in the Daily Mail last week, by Admiral Sandy Woodward. He claims the Typhoon has poor ability in aerial combat?:confused:

I thought that the one thing those who constantly dismiss the Typhoon from the other services, for example Lewis Page, did accept, was its air to air agility and capability.

FB

A sad day indeed if you are less well informed than Lewis Page

Page as much as he may be ill informed on specific aspects does raise other points which need to be answered particularly around the procurement processes, where he spends most of his time bashing Typhoon.

Woodward though, is a different case. Although I'm more inclined to give Typhoon the benefit of the doubt in air to air combat, the scenario that Woodward came up with, to my mind, still holds water. And that is, those four Typhoons cannot be everywhere at once. All you have to do is keep the AD assets occupied at a distance where they cannot directly protect MPA. The rest is difficult, particularly logistically, but far from impossible.

But as said before, the best solution to retake the Islands is not to lose them in the first place. Providing there is sufficient quality intel to allow reinforcement in time, additional Typhoons, troops, SSN's/SSGN's, etc, the problem shouldnt arise.

And, in addition to that, as at least one other contributor has mentioned, its Presidential election season in Argentina and this outburst has been purely for domestic political consumption.

If they're going to go for it, they wont do it yet. They'll do it in another 2 or three years when the effects of SDSR are properly felt at the front line. They've waited long enough. Another three years wont be the end of the world.

Don't forget Lewis Page's exclusive a few weeks ago regarding a Pakistani F16 vs Typhoon exercise where the Typhoon was apparently found lacking. That was pretty swiftly dismissed as propoganda aimed at spoiling the Indian fighter competition, and strikes me as just the sort of thing Adm. Woodward might like to jump on.

How do you mean? My point was that Lewis Page, among others, while deriding the Typhoon for everything have, before now, always begun their verbal attacks by describing it as an air superiority fighter with nothing to fight. And so superfluous. Then going on to say how useless it is as a ground attack aircraft. But to say this is somehow to acknowledge that it is at least an adequate fighter. Personally, I understand from those with anything to do with the Typhoon it is an outstanding air superiority fighter. As for the ground attack side, this is largely, as yet, a case of plenty scope for development. But that development will produce something equally outstanding.

OK sod it, bring tha Harrier back like WEBF says, its the answer to all matters air combat related, obviously!:ok:

PS Love the way it goes straight up and down at airshows! A testimony to British engineering and a clear example of an aircraft unbeatable in any other way!!:D

FB:)

Sandy Woodward has my respect, but I'm a bit wary of a submariner being cited as an authority of a fighter which he'd never had in his OOB as a battle force commander.
EDIT: that said, I just looked at the numbers again, quantity has a quality all its own, and lack of quantity is ... a problem. At some point, force multipliers don't, when you trim past the fat and cut muscle.

A more poignant question for our British friends is ... what AEW capability do the fighters have? That was one of Admiral Woodward's frustrating shortcomings when he ran the show ... what, nearly 30 years ago?
:eek:
Man, time flies.

FB

Calm down, I was suggesting that Sandy Woodward was less well informed than Lewis Page. I agree with you about bringing back the Harrier, we might get some bandwidth back. Then we can run some threads about how the RN stitched up the RAF and have "bring back both variants of Tornado, Jaguar and Nimrod campaigns" because the RAF have escaped unscathed up till now.

regards

retard

I don't believe there is any airborne early warning but they have some quite useful ground-based radar.

"...have some quite useful ground-based radar."

On unmanned sites subject to known limitations. And, given how often hardware limitations on the older now superceded platforms in the 80's and 90's used to leave holes, the lack of a permanently assigned Area Air Defence DDG potentially exacerbates the situation.

The Woodward scenario has got nothing to do with how capable Typhoon is as an air superiority asset. You dont have to get into a tangle with one or more, you just have to keep them occupied and out of the way at the edges of the FIPZ for long enough to prosecute the capture of the airfield.

This then, becomes ultimately much less about individual platform capabilities and far more to do with numbers available and multi-layered AD including SHORAD, accounting for as many of the possible threat scenarios. If all your assets are away from the nest providing QRA, what are you protecting the homeplate with? Look how many times in the 80's a relatively low number of Tu95's buzzing about in the North Atlantic had our Q resources stretched. More times than I care to remember.

As it is at the moment, we are, to my mind, relying too heavily on Intel to give us sufficient warning of attack which would allow us to make best attempts to effect a timely reinforcement.

Given how the cracks appear to be showing with Libya and Afghan, all it would take would be an increase in legimate Argentine/ joint South American exercise activity in the region and the potential for FIPZ incursions.

I dont think anything will happen for at least a couple of years. All the noise that Kirchner is coming out with now is just that. Noise for domestic consumption. If they are going to go for it, she and/or her successor will wait until we have started making deep cuts to muscle rather than trimming off fat and when the procurement lines, if there are any are just too damned long to be able to react. And then, they will go for it.

An absolute minimum of 2 to 3 years wait, but certainly before the QE carrier comes onstream. I reckon between 2015 and 2018, they're likely to go for it. The UN will do nothing, as it always does, Britain does not have the diplomatic support in South America or even in the Whitehouse any more and certainly will not have the capability to launch a CORPORATE type venture.

We're going down a path where we will barely be able to protect our own shores, let alone anyone elses.

Well said that man.

I've met 10W and he is a good egg, but clearly hasn't the first idea about what going to war is like, and never will. Sorry mate but you are way off course with your comments. :=

As the man said, get some time in before trying to lecture military men, otherwise you just sound a bit silly. :ok:

Back on thread, I was in Argentina earlier this year. While the Falklands always comes up when people find out I'm not only a Brit but Ex Mil, with very, very few exceptions they believe they are theirs passionately, but recoil in horror at the thought of another military spat over them. So relax the Presidents rants are for domestic consumption.

Jabba TG12 - Although I'm stepping well beyond my comfort zone here really given my knowledge isn't the true limitation of one's own GBAD assets measured against the compartive quality of the assumed opposition?

Are the Argentine forces in any position to exploit any 'weaknesses' in UK GBAD assets in the Falklnads given the complete lack of support said forces have experienced from their government over the last 29 years?

As a 'for instance' it is believed by many sources that the only ground attack a/c the Argentine military can muster in any numbers at the moment are some A4s and a small number of Pucura. Just how 'limited' would GBAD assets need to be in order to allow subsonic and short-legged a/c such as these to approach the Falklands?

Stupid woman. Just as macho as her erstwhile idiot compatriots; remember them all for their crimes against their own people in yet another discredited Argentinian junta..... Menendez, Galtieri, Alfredo Astiz to name but a few and not many years ago either. Think 30,000 Desaparecidos (disappeared ones) and see what motivated them last time, not too long ago that the Argentinian people should forget.........?

To divert public opinion from their huge problems at home, again, she's so busy stirring up imaginary slights to their monstrous Latin egos, they forget the Islanders desire to remain British and the fact that they have been British since 1765, consolidated in 1833 when the ludicrous Argentinian half hearted claims were finally put to rest.

Just because they are closer than UK, 400 miles is still quite a distance, does not make the Argentinian preposterous posturing and noisy "anti colonial" rhetoric any more valid, although some of the politically correct and corrupt countries serving in the UN can be bought over as they have no concept of the Britishness of the Islands. They also hope that Obama's obvious hatred of the British for perceived slights will lend credence to their repeated discredited claims and lies

Their invasion in 82 was a colossal mistake, and their huge defeat was an immense public slap in the face to their petty political egos and national pride - **** them. Any other military adventurism will be nipped in the bud by the a DLG, an SSN and the current Falklands garrison

Let them rant, spill tears into their rather poor Gougouenheim Sauvignon Blanc and reminisce about things which might have been :E

Reading these latest posts actually asks more questions than they answer. It would appear there are a few Typhoon aircraft down sarf!! What would happen if these four aircraft were removed from the equation whilst on the ground! What if the run way were damaged? What if the opposition decided the kick-off would be after 5pm during the week, or perish the thought, they attacked at the week-end!

We can all talk a good fight but the defensive capabilities of a few Typhoons is not confidence inspiring :uhoh::uhoh: I accept they are probably a decent fighter aircraft but the opposition might not play the type of game where the benefits of this aircraft might be of use?


I cannot even begin to consider the political ramifications of a second conflict; we lost too many good men in the first one, to now simply roll over.

"isn't the true limitation of one's own GBAD assets measured against the compartive quality of the assumed opposition?"

Arguably yes. Considering the level of the threat to MPA, it could be easily argued that it isnt worth our while investing in a solution similar to Patriot. As yet, I'm not aware of any SEAD assets or ordanance that is or is not in the Argentine arsenal. I'd like to think though that should they acquire such weapons, however crude/outdated from anywhere that HMG would take a view on how such assets may tip the balance away from the defenders of the Islands - the radar sites are completely static and so far as I'm aware have never been able to defend themselves against any type of attack. Apart from Blowpipe Det's in the 80's, its been an open secret that these sites would be sacrificed and left to their own devices if the balloon went up.

"Are the Argentine forces in any position to exploit any 'weaknesses' in UK GBAD assets in the Falklnads given the complete lack of support said forces have experienced from their government over the last 29 years?"

As it stands at the moment, short of Arg Special Forces, I do not have any inside knowledge or access to classified info as to what HMG perceives the direct threat to MPA or the mountain sites to be. The short answer is "I sincerely hope not", although saying that they cannot now does not mean they never will be. I'm not sure I'd agree with you about complete lack of support. Under-resourced, under-financed in some respects, maybe. But complete lack of support I think might be pushing it.


"As a 'for instance' it is believed by many sources that the only ground attack a/c the Argentine military can muster in any numbers at the moment are some A4s and a small number of Pucura. Just how 'limited' would GBAD assets need to be in order to allow subsonic and short-legged a/c such as these to approach the Falklands?"

From my own recollection of MPA and FIADGE, I am not aware of any electronic warfare threat to GBAD or, as I said before, any SEAD capability that they may or may not have. Doesnt mean none exists or none is going to exist, should the Argentines acquire such platforms. The A4's and Pucara's are incidental. The keys to the whole piece revolve around the size and dispersal of the FI garrison (much reduced over the last 10-12 years or so), the resident naval presence (likewise) and the amount of Typhoons. Woodward's scenario was based on an incident or series of incidents at the edges of the FIPZ that would drag the airworthy Typhoons away from protecting MPA, long enough for an airborne commando assault to start taking the airfield. As soon as the first sets of wheels touch the tarmac, or the first sets of boots land on the ground, it is then too late. The Typhoons part in proceedings is then utterly redundant.

Is it possible to reach MPA by air without being spotted by the mountain sites? Hell yes. Always has been. Particularly if you're distracting attention elsewhere.

And, as I say, its not about now, its about four or five years hence. God knows what state GBAD will be in by then - I'm not aware of any other GBAD asset procurement programme to replace Rapier and other platforms - plus reduced army and air force manning, plus decreasing the amount of squadrons, plus more demand elsewhere on the Herc fleet and FSTA taking over from the VC10's, no LRMPA, last of the T42s gone - and however many SSGN's we've got, they cannot be everywhere. Likewise, SSN's. Good as they are, they still have vulnerabilities and if they're being chased over the southern oceans by Argentine Subs or ASW assets, they have to spend more time staying safe and less time being a threat to the Argies themselves. And, from a quickly executed prosecution of an airfield capture, they're somewhat superfluous.

The best way to recapture the Islands is not to lose them in the first place. And the only way we'll do that, if we are not going to make a sizeable presence there is to ensure we can reinforce quickly and effectively. That capability, plus the heavy reliance on Intel sources as opposed to a standing force to give you heads up warning and to deter agression is a rubber band I personally being stretched more and more thinly.

Carrying on with the what ifs... If the Argentinians managed to take over MPA, what are the chances of another Corporate style operation succeeding when the new incumbents have a fully functioning airfield, instead of the limited capabilities of Port Stanley.

glojo - I hope you're not suggesting something as implausible as an attack by SF.

Glojo:

Thats exactly what I'm getting at.

Engineer#

Absolutely non existant, I would venture.

Jabba - So would I - The answer to Woodwards questions is not fund the carriers but incumbent support eg Typhoons, AD etc.

Yep Engineer, I'd guess so. If you value it, make sure you protect it accordingly so that you dont lose it in the first place. If that means more Typhoons, troops and AD Destroyers, then yes. That is the bill you must pay.

In recent years I have operated the Airbridge to the Falklands & a couple of months ago had the pleasure of joining some of the EGYP resident civvies on their weekly Stanley 'walkabout', one afternoon. After some refreshments, they set up camp in The Globe. I went for a wander.

On this particular day, a large cruise liner was moored near Stanley with the endless shuttles by the smaller craft depositing literally hundreds of tourists at the wharf in the centre of Stanley, all toting Canon', kagoul & curiosity.

I discretely showed my ID to one of the minibus drivers who had come to taxi the tourists and asked for directions to the Museum, the driver winked & nodded to the vacant front passenger seat. Once aboard & underway, I was aware that the vast majority of trade was from the US' & Canada. This is where I got an insight into what your average US' citizen knows about the Falkland Islands. One of the more vocal had a 'New England' accent, & was sharing his 'knowledge' gleaned from an his friends who staff an Argentine steak restaurant he frequents back home, with tacit agreeing nods from his entourage of about a dozen or so. This is what I 'learned'.

1) He said he was comfortable speaking English because the primary language of the Islands is Spanish.

2) The Brits invaded the islands just before WW1 in order to have a South Atlantic base to harass German interests in South West Africa & South America, herding the Argentine settlers into concentration camps before forced deportation.

3) When asked why all the streets were devoid of Brit Military personnel, his reply was it was probably due to strained relations between Argentina & the Brits, the Argentinian Government demanding that no British personnel can be allowed on the streets whilst the Islands were under occupation & dispute resolved.

By now we had reached the museum & were vacating the bus when the Colonial asked the driver in Spanish what time the bus would be leaving the museum. The driver looked blankly at the offender who continued to dig his hole until one of Canadians shouted to the Septic, advising him to ask again in English, which he did & the old boy behind the wheel smiled & said very, very slowly "In ... One... Hour", the Septic stepped back, his followers confused & aghast, and asked, "You speak English???" to which the driver replied "Yes, a little". One of the Septic's disciples meekly asked, "How come?" The driver's reply squeezed the last of any dignity from the scarlet faced, squirming "Cwoffee" drinker by simply saying,"For it be my Mother tongue.... and that of all natives of these Islands. See you all in an hour".

My, how the 2 Canadian couples & I laughed.

Reluctantly spurning the invitation of the Cannucks to join their party, I decided to tag along the American group to see what they made of the tour of the museum. Again surprise at the tour guide's 'American' names, their 'flarless' English accents, the way the tour guide (who was 12 in April 1982) differentiated between the Argentine Invasion & the British Liberation & smiled when she had to correct the dissenters that the Brits didn't 'Invade' the Islands in 1982.
The short bus journey back to the wharf was a fairly silent affair. The only sound being that of our vociferous Colonial licking his wounds. Upon arrival at the wharf, it was readily apparent that for quite a few Septics, the run ashore had been an enlightening experience. A few of the startling 'revelations' shared were:

The place hadn't changed much since the old photographs in the Museum
The street names were in English, not Spanish
The vehicles & roadsigns were on the 'British' side of the road, as were the steering wheels.
Very few people appeared to speak Spanish, in fact everybody spoke English just like Brits
None of the natives looked Latino.
All the flags featured the British Flag (as does Hawaii pointed out by one of them)
A couple of the entourage who had served in the US military, stationed in the UK, stated that if you didn't know you were 8000 miles away from Europe, you'd think you were in Great Britain.
The pubs were just like British Pubs.

At this point, I wandered up the hill to rejoin my party at The Globe were I was met with an urgent beckoning & had the enviable honour to be introduced to a man called Don. Don was Rex Hunt's driver, a true legend & the only man to kill an Argentine Special Forces invader on that night in early April 1982, albeit being a civvie armed with a 12 Bore shotgun guarding the flagpole of his Governor's Residence from the kitchen back door. I sat & listened to him for hours, plying him with Diet Coke (at his request). What a treasure trove of information, opinion & observation he is.

He said that he can tell the difference in regional Argentine accents & takes great delight in making some of the 'Tourists' squirm when they come ashore from the visiting Liners, pretending to be Brazilian or Chilean.

Some of you may be thinking, what has my post to do with any 'Impending Falklands Crisis'. Well, my theory is that people need educating about it all.

EVERYBODY who neither knows the truth about these Islands nor the history, pride & passion of those who were born & bred there, fought for & served there needs educating about the Falklands. More could be done to achieve this. From encouraging trade & tourism to the Islands to bringing the history of the Islands into peoples homes. TV should show more programmes about these Islands every year on the anniversary of the Argentine Invasion in April through to June when the Liberators forced the unconditional surrender of the Argentines. Films made for TV such as the brilliant 'Tumbledown' & 'An Ungentlemanly Act', should be given to the US TV Networks who have a growing appetite for bespoke British TV productions.

I don't think the Argentines have the mokie or cohonez to make a serious attempt to grab the Falkands as they did in 1982. These days those Islands are defended a hell of a lot better than a 'Dads Army' of local volunteers & Royal Navy Ice Patrol Ship with a boarding party of Royal Marines. Have they replaced the vast (proportionally) number of aircraft they lost, has the 'new' General Belgrano been sourced? Is the Vienticento De Mayo seaworthy?

Could the Argentines afford to have South American nations such as Chile, Uruguay, Brazil & Venezuela taking up the cause of Continental Solidarity? Chile already recognises the Falkland Islands Government & the MoD employ quite a few Chileans on the base, from one of the poorest areas of Chile. I can't see them wanting to pay anymore than lip service to their old foe, the Argies.
Uruguay can't afford to take sides because if oil is found in viable quantities in the basins around the Falklands and Argentina has isolated itself from any lucrative support work, then Uruguay & the port of Montevideo being strategically the closest major friendly port would gain immensely.
Brazil is an unpredictable one. It doesn't need to court UK trade as much anymore & could seize this chance to show it is the regional Superpower.
Venezuela, well, wouldn't any alliance between Argentina & Venezuela risk polarising the argument to Argentina's detriment? Forcing the US' to remain 'Neutral' (again) at the least or joining our side, wholeheartedly, just for the chance to give Chavez the Chav a bit of a kicking?

My solution: Let the world see how British (and how Un-Argentine) these Islands are & their inhabitants want to be. And if ANY diplomatic solution needs instigating, all the UN could do under International Law is offer the Islanders a vote on self determination. The sooner this happens, the sooner the matter can be put to bed & the sooner the Argentine Political Apparatchiks can cease using the Islands as a topic for whipping up jingoistic sentiment.

Discuss.

P.S. Don also said that Major Patricio Dowling who was the Argentine Military Intelligence Officer who made Don drive him back from Stanley Airport when Governor Rex Hunt & his wife were deported from the Islands post Argentine Invasion with his (Dowling's) pistol pointing in the back of Don's head, in a 'Bomber' Cab' over largely unpaved roads. Apparently Dowling was of Irish decent, fervently anti-British & wanted to summarily execute some of the Islanders & 'remove' some to Argentina. Don also said that 'Dowling' is alive & well & living in a country close to the UK, that recently received a substantial financial bailout from the UK. Would Dowling's actions & intentions be deemed a War Crime?

Hi Fodplod and others :)

All I am tactfully trying to say is

NEVER, ever underestimate the capabilities of your enemy!! :uhoh::uhoh:

During that last conflict the skills of those very brave Argentinian pilots were clear for us all to see. However they do not possess fourth generation fighter aircraft. It would be naive to expect them to play any game to the rules we want!

Far better to remove a threat out of its comfort zone as opposed to trying to tackle it head on.

I enjoyed reading that nice post by Daddy-Oh..... but we should take aboard what he was saying about the freedom folks have to enter the Falkland Islands!! From my experience with folks from across the pond, most of them are unaware of even where the Falklands are, let alone its history!

It is no good for us all to say there will NOT be an invasion, we have been there, said that and paid a very, very expensive price for making that wrong assumption.

We will soon be quitting Afghanistan and before all those assets get sold on eBay.... Some of them might be sent south to strengthening the garrison on that far away land.

I had similar thoughts as Glojo....except I took even a more basic view. With a grand total of four....as in a finger four formation if all were up at the same time...and an availibility rate in the 70's...errr...now we are at three....and as the basic formation is two....leaving one either on the ground or overhead acting as a sentinel...to cover a very large area 24 hours a day....7 days a week. Now I know the Typyhoon is supposed to be the Cat's Hindend and all...and the RAF masters of their realm....but let's be real here.

Add in some of the options previously mentioned....and I can see it being a bit difficult for the force extant to handle a single mass raid which saturates the home boys....then followed up by an immediate second raid that puts paid to the runway and assorted support facilities.

The Enemy is thinking ahead just as our side is doing!

Granted all plans are effective right up to the instant contact with the opposing force takes place....then it falls back to who is both the best and the luckiest.

Then we need to make sure we keep our Airborne assets... Oh, that's right... they haven't been used since Suez so we're thinking of scrapping them... :ugh:

the strength of the Falklands defence forces would become irrelevant if the Argies occupied Ascension first.
Airborne surprise assault using three or four 747's arriving unannounced, followed by a few Super Etendards tankered in once the runway was secured.
No need for air defence - they'd just need the anti-ship Etendards
They wouldn't need to hold it for long - just long enough to break the supply line while they invaded the Falklands and dug in. If they did it just before the South Atlantic winter began, they'd have several months to fly defences into Mount Pleasant
The USA may moan, but if it was presented to the UN as a temporary measure to protect themselves while the "reposession" took place they could spin it out long enough until they felt it was safe to withdraw

Don't forget that the RAF sent down an AWACS recently to operate from MPA. This would allow the Typhoons to operate With full L16 awareness radars off. I believe the AWACS also has a pretty decent maritime capability so no major surface fleet could possibly make it through undetected. As for only having 4 Typhoons down at MPA, during tension this would be reinforced surely.

Hahahahaha I have not had such a good laugh in ages. We would have to get them there, and crews and tankers are not freely available, being used elsewhere.


Were the Falklands defences upped during 'tension' before the invasion in '82, nope, thought not.

ZH875 wrote:
Were the Falklands defences upped during 'tension' before the invasion in '82, nope, thought not.

Actually they were, the Garrison of 40 RM Commandos was doubled, to 80! Due to the fact the invasion occurred when they were changing over from one detachment to their relief. During the initial fighting, one group with an anti tank weapon (Carl Gustav?) asked their commander for orders as to which targets should have priority, and when asked what targets they had in their sights was told "Target one is an Aircraft Carrier, Target two is a destroyer, Target three is a transport..." but they had to shift position before they got their reply!

In the good olde days of that 'Special Relationship' we could rely on the USA to at least be quietly supportive of the stance we might take regarding these islands but does anyone seriously believe we still have that type of relationship?

I had to look up what the Spanish name was for the Falklands but it flows off the lips of the Obama administration. Are we to accept this wording was not deliberate, was not said to convey a message?

During the first conflict Argentina would use Lear jets to divert air cover away from the area they wanted to attack with their aircraft. I am guessing that they would have improved on that ruse and honed their skills.

I still cannot get over the number of aircraft we have to protect those islands :uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh:

Jamesdevice

I agree, the weak link in the chain is ASI, however, that little lump of lava has a fair bit of high level diplomatic & legal protection.

1) Ascension is a British Overseas Territory with its own Government.
2) The runway & taxiway's are leased to & maintained by the USAF, therefore US Territory & the airfield has FAA employed US citizens who constitute ATC.
3) The RAF/MoD operate the apron.

So any Argentine effort to 'neutralise' Azzie would result in Argentina invading ANOTHER foreign island, over 2000 nm from BA & making a surprise attack on a US' Air Force Base, albeit an AAF.

It wouldn't take much for either a determined Argentine SF team or the, generally ex-UK Armed Forces personnel that make up the various units at the Airhead from SERCO, VT et al to block the runway. Any Argie attempt would incur the wrath of the US State Dept., Military & would risk losing any diplomatic support.

Beating their hairy, Latino chests, attempted face-saving by dragging the Falklands/Malvinas topic out of the cupboard for the six months leading up to an election, just to whip up jingoism for a desired election result is an Argentine tactic we are just going to have to get used to. However 'Teddy Throwing', 'Bottom-Lip Protruding' political & diplomatic goading & posturing is their only option. It is their only, realistic, practical, credible, viable & most importantly moral & legal option.

As for the Obama circus deliberately terming the Falkland Islands 'Malvinas' how do we know it isn't just the State Dept's attempt to keep the Argies keeping Chavez at arms length?

As long as we have a boat down there with Tomahawks and whatever fish the RN use these days then there isn't going to be a problem. Although we also need politicos with the will to win, thus ensuring that the rules of engagement are fair and equitable. Difficult to believe that the former colonials would do anything other than support the Brits after the last 20 years or so, but there we are.

Do you get off on this claptrap?