Fighting a Second Falklands War

[Izzy1]

Just interested to hear any views with regards Britain's current ability to fight a Second Falklands War or conflict of that ilk.

Has our sea/air lift capability improved since 1982? What would the Fleet do without an air defence fighter in the form of the Sea Harrier FRS.Mk2? Has Argentina the capability to once again seize the islands? Would we see Nimrods flying with Sidewinders again??!!


Personally, I think we still could still mount an-1982 style operation. Would like to hear anyone's thoughts on the subject.

[Dr Phobus]

Well, our amphibious ability has improved: 1 ocean, 2 Albion, 1 Argo, (soon) 4 bay, 1 Galahad, plus 4 Ro-Ro heavy lift vessels.

RN can also deploy 3 carriers.

The T-42 is obsolete yet sea dart has undergone some improvement, CIWS are wide-spread, sea wolf and sea wolf VLS is widespread and soon to be deployed in a block 2 form. There is also more towed array equipped ships.

Submarine force is highly capable and in numbers.

Plenty of Chinook and WAH 1 gunships, and medium lift helicopters.

Air power: well plenty of Gr 7/9 harriers, with PGM ability but lack radar and ARAAMM.. I just hope the sea harriers are sitting in month ball somewhere, my bet is that a small force are doing exactly this. Also, real numbers of effect AEW with surface and land search ability in the form of sea-king aew mk 7..So if all three are available then that a vast improvement over what we had 23 years ago. From a navel perspective, there is also evidence of a real growth.

As for the UK land forces, well, as good as always..

The Argentinians forces have suffered due to lack of funding. They primary warplanes are what they were flying 23 yrs ago. modified sky hawks, some super-etendards, Mirage III/V variants. They lack BVR, and are low in numbers.

There navy has improved, 4 meko class destroyers and 6 meko class corvettes, still, the up graded of the systems. They have 2 TR1700 subs, good boats, fast and quiet. However, there's only 2 and lack towed array.

[Aussie Digger]

In addition on the Argentine side, they are bound to have increased their stocks o vital weapon systems such as Exocet ASM's and laser guided bombs/missiles.

The Super Entendard/Exocet combination could have won the war for Argentina in 1982, however they had a grand total of 5missiles and France refused to supply anymore (when the conflict was on).

[Izzy1]

Despite plenty of views to the contrary, I do think we are in pretty good shape militarily to conduct such an operation again.

Yet as stated, my biggest fear is lack of fleet air defence and AD is right with regards Exocet. I am sure I heard that Aerosptaile/Matra restarted deliveries shortly after the conclusion of the 1982 conflict.

Always surprised me that Argentina didn't go down the Russian military supply route after the war.

[ThunderBolt]

I am not British nor Argentinian, but why are you thinking of another such operation such as Falklands, and i am pretty sure if another operation like Falklands would occur it will be worser than the one earlier.

[KGB]

I am not British nor Argentinian, but why are you thinking of another such operation such as Falklands, and i am pretty sure if another operation like Falklands would occur it will be worser than the one earlier.

The British now have a substantial military presence in the Falklands/Malvinas so another surprise ocupation like in the 80's is not likely. The English and Argentines are more likely to come to blows during the next world cup than in the falklands;)

[LancerMc]

I am with KGB that the UK and Argentinian soccers team with meet before they go to war. It is true the Argentinian military has seen short fall after short fall in funding and new equipment. The only was Argentina could effectively take over the island again is taking out the RAF fighter stationed in the islands. If they did that the RAF and RN would soon arrive and take over islands again. While the RAF/RN don't have BVM's any more, they do have cruise missiles that can take out the AAF on the ground from a distance. So the UK would easily win another Falklands War.

[zoolander]

not much has changed for argentina but much has changed for britain. The RN is much better than argentinas. The RN maintains air supuriority and sea supuriority. With the Type 45s i wouldnt fly my planes anywhere near that. i dont think those 40km exonot missiles will do much now.

[ArjunMK1]

Argentines lost Falklands due to lack of air launched AShMs !!!
Their airforce really a superb job , but with only iron bombs even Gould couldn't help them . :( They had only 4 air launched Excocets !!


Perhaps Argentina might purchase somne Brahmos from India , and when the air launched missile will be ready , Mirages may be modified to carry a single missile under the fuselarge !!! :kar

[chrisrobsoar]

Argentines lost Falklands due to lack of air launched AShMs !!!
Their airforce really a superb job , but with only iron bombs even Gould couldn't help them . :( They had only 4 air launched Excocets !!


Perhaps Argentina might purchase somne Brahmos from India , and when the air launched missile will be ready , Mirages may be modified to carry a single missile under the fuselarge !!! :kar

The Argentinians had 5 Excocet missiles, they all hit something.

We do not want nor need a re-match.

(Agreed the Airforce was very brave).

[KAPITAIN]

In regards to saying the type 42 is obsolete is not true, the type 42 even though old is still a capible unit none the less espcialy if paired off with a type 22 or type 23 frigate.

the argentine navy no longer have the 25th of may aircraft carrier and they lack funds also so a second falklands war is not going to happen any time soon.

Not all 5 hit thier targets one ran out of fuel and hit the water. (in regards to exocet posting)

We now have more advanced harriers and Airborne Early Warning aircraft which we lacked during the first war, this means sea dart and other such missile and even fighters can be vectored in and killed at greater ranges.

I personaly have been onboard HMS Manchester a type 42 destroyer despite her age she is still capible of defending british intrests and i know they have been tasked to protect american aircraft carriers in the gulf, and ive also heard that during the 1991 gulf war a type 42 engauged and shot down two missiles fired at an american ship. (ive only heard this dont quote)


with HMS Fearless and Intrepid turning up it was like watching an episode of the antiques road show, but now with HMS Ocean Bulwark and Albion not to mention the new RFA landing ships it means we can pack more troops in less ships and also more equipment in less ships and still get the job done.

The TR-1700 Submarines are good seaworth boats lacking the towed aray system which makes detection that much more difficault of a SSN.

Today the royal navy SSN's are amoungst the worlds most advanced nuclear submarines and the new Astute class on further that, i believe the royal navy SSN's could anialate the argentine navy in a one and out.

[KGB]

There was an account that the French actually supplied England with information on how to neutralize the Exocets at some point during the Falklands campaign. Obviously this must have come after the RN took some serious hits (and after the Exocet's market value climbed due to the free publicity). This information was only released much later after the war.

Thus I'm surprised to see that the Argentines bought more exocets after they were betrayed in a way by their suppliers.

[KAPITAIN]

Exocet is not 100% french infact its part british too the manafacturer MBDA is owned partly by BAe systerms (Hence the B in the name).

So britian knew how to stop exocets, if you look at ships hit there was a foolish reason, sheffield was on a satalite phone so the radar didnt work to pick the missile up, another missile was blocked by two ships crossing paths. and so on.

[chrisrobsoar]

“Not all 5 hit thier targets one ran out of fuel and hit the water. (in regards to exocet posting)”

I mentioned earlier that all 5 Exocet missiles, hit “something”. There was debate at the time about what happened to one of the missiles. There were reports that it had run of fuel and had hit the sea. There were also reports that, after burnout, but still travelling at high speed, it diverted from its course and dived to attack a large object on the surface, wreckage, ice flow, or a whale? Post burnout the missile has the capability to transfer lock to another target within range. We concluded that the missile had been launched at too greater range to hit the original target and post boost had acquired and attacked another target (unknown); however it wasn’t a “miss”.

“We now have more advanced harriers and Airborne Early Warning aircraft which we lacked during the first war, this means sea dart and other such missile and even fighters can be vectored in and killed at greater ranges.”

The few remaining FA2 Sea Harriers were retired from service last week. Of about 60 that were built 15 were new builds and 45 were rebuilt from the FSR1 Sea Harriers, which were used in the Falklands Conflict. The re-builds were suffering from corrosion and were running out of fatigue life and some of the new builds had already been damaged beyond repair. Due to a combination of cost cutting, poor performance in the Gulf (caused by the high temperature) and small number of aircraft available the aircraft was retired. (NB: The FA2 was based on the all-metal Harrier I). Recently the UK has agreed to sell 8 FA2s to India (essentially all the remaining serviceable aircraft).

The Joint Harrier Force with still be able to deploy Harrier GR7/GR9s crewed by RN & RAF pilots. (Note that this aircraft is based on the Harrier II and is similar to the USN AV8B). GR7/GR9s can carry two AIM-9L Sidewinders, but have no radar, hence just have a limited self-defence capability. (I.E. This does not offer the fleet protection from aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles launched from long-range).

The Harriers we can deploy now have less air-to-air capability than we had in 1982.

After the 1978 retirement of the carrier-based Gannet AEW.3 we relied on the Shackleton AEW.2s, which during the Falklands Conflict could not provide cover.

In 1982 we had to rely on the ship’s radar.

The following link is from a model site, but it is succinct and accurate. The RN currently has 9 AEW Sea King Helicopters. The equipment is the same as the “quick-fix” deployed at the end of 1982, but the helicopter engines have been improved.

The new EH101 Merlins helicopters have yet to be modified for this role.

The AWAC aircraft & AEW helicopter would certainly be able to give an early warning of attack, but without adequate air to air capability from the Harrier, the ships would have to rely on thier own missile systems and CWI to intercept the missile after it was fired, rather than attack the carrying aircraft.

http://www.helis.com/database/go/uk_sea_king_41.php

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/sentry.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dart_missile


“There was an account that the French actually supplied England with information on how to neutralize the Exocets at some point during the Falklands campaign. Obviously this must have come after the RN took some serious hits (and after the Exocet's market value climbed due to the free publicity). This information was only released much later after the war.”

The French government provided information on the operation of the Exocet Missile to the British government soon after as the Argentines landed on South Georgia.

However, the UK also used the ship borne version of the missile and with much assistance from the US determined how to defeat the missile. The problem was that we could not build and deploy the counter-measure quickly enough to stop being hit.
(This information was provided to the French as a “Thank-You” for their help and I think resulted in improvements to the missile). Later the RN ships were equipped with improved counter-measures to spoof Exocet Missiles.

“Thus I'm surprised to see that the Argentines bought more exocets after they were betrayed in a way by their suppliers”

I do no think that they knew that the French government (not directly the suppliers) provided the intelligence to the UK government. I’m not sure how many additional Exocets they were able to purchase.


“Exocet is not 100% french infact its part british too the manafacturer MBDA is owned partly by BAe systerms (Hence the B in the name).”

Yes and no. Aerospatiale developed the missile and was the supplier in 1982. Later British Aerospace & Aerospatiale became partners in the MBSA joint venture.


“So britian knew how to stop exocets, if you look at ships hit there was a foolish reason, sheffield was on a satalite phone so the radar didnt work to pick the missile up, another missile was blocked by two ships crossing paths. and so on”.

As mentioned above, we knew how to create a counter-measure to spoof the missile but we could not deploy it in time. However this meant that we were relying on hard kills using missiles and guns. There was a problem with interference between the satellite communications system and the long-range radar that had been know for years, but had not been fully fixed.

And yes apparently one ship crossed in the path of another, which had a firing solution, but this sort of “stuff” happens during war.

In summary.

We have better AEW, poorer Air-to-Air fighter cover and would have to rely on missiles and guns to protect the fleet.

We have fewer ships, many of the types we used then are still in service (Type 42).

IMHO: We could not re-take the Falklands, certainly not in the same way as we did in 1982. Nor do I think that there is any political will in Argentina for a re-match.

[crazypole]

Just as an extra thought to throw into the pot... the army would be hard pressed to have to find the troops needed to mount a quick response, like in 1982. What with troops spread over the middle-east in the "war on terror", there can't be all too many spare forces around. I write this with no knowledge of the actual state of affairs, so could be wrong.

[jimma]

Have just finished reading a book about this. Apparently now we would be in a position to get large troop carrying air vehicles to the islands and be there before the Argies! All we had to do was extend the runway!!

hi all - great forum!

[Super Nimrod]

It might be closer than many think when we have leaders like Mr Chavez threatening revenge for the Malvina's yesterday and definately rattling his sabre.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2368707.ece

[Neutral Zone]

It might be closer than many think when we have leaders like Mr Chavez threatening revenge for the Malvina's yesterday and definately rattling his sabre.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2368707.ece

There's a discussion about those comments going on on another thread ;)

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6595&page=4

The view on this and other forums is that it's just some macho posturing to allow Chavez to brag about all the new toys he's buying. There's no appetite in Argentina for a "Falklands 2" and if Chavez goaded Argentina into attacking and supplied them with weapons then the U.S. would probably sieze the opportunity to try and bring him down.

Looking back over the previous posts, people were mentioning the improvements in Britain's AEW capability since 1982, particularly the RN's Sea Kings. Wouldn't the RAF's E-3's also be available? They could base out of Ascension and supported by Tristars and in a few years the A330 tankers operate right down into the South Atlantic and provide AEW cover?

[Super Nimrod]

Yes that is correct.

The real joker in the pack though is Tomahawk and both Venezuela and Argentina know that UK attack subs could sit 200 miles offshore and give them serious problems miltarily.

How far can the Venezuelan airforce fly attack missions offshore ? The Atlantic is still pretty wide near them and any UK forces heading south could always head down the african Coast, and would have support from Ascension for the middle Atlantic

[swerve]

In the last war, both sides kept operations (except for a little recce) to the disputed territories. The Argentineans considered raids elsewhere, e.g. Ascension, but did not attempt them. I suspect that one reason was that they believed it would mean open season on Argentinean shipping for our subs.

Chavez must have advisers who will point out to him that any action outside the Falklands & their environs would run the same risk. Tomahawks hitting airbases in Venezuela would be political disaster for Chavez (he'd be shown to be helpless to protect his own country). And imagine a strike on Venezuelan oil installations.

[harryriedl]

Yes that is correct.

The real joker in the pack though is Tomahawk and both Venezuela and Argentina know that UK attack subs could sit 200 miles offshore and give them serious problems miltarily.

How far can the Venezuelan airforce fly attack missions offshore ? The Atlantic is still pretty wide near them and any UK forces heading south could always head down the african Coast, and would have support from Ascension for the middle Atlantic
i positive that the Venezuelan f16 don't have the range and i don't think the Su30 do eatheir and Venezuelan isn't overendowed with tankers:vamp for any kind of strike

[XaNDeR]

Nah , are you guys joking this is the Argentinian navy we are talking about , nobody in the world stands a chance against such a power..
No but really.. Im not trying to insult argentinian navy they are fairly good but its stupid to think that RN would not have the assets or capability to be able to succesfully complete such a scenario , which won't happen anyway.

RN has good capability and pretty decent power projection compared to US , and absolutely amazing power projection compared to anyone else than Russia or France.
If a reincarnation of falkland war happened ( which won't ) they are more than capable of handling it.

[riksavage]

The Brit’s have the added advantage of knowing the ground extremely well (unlike in 82). Most of the UK’s infantry battalions have trained on the island (excellent live firing), have conducted extensive patrolling and war-gamed to death all invasion possibilities including a once a year a 24-hour re-forger exercise conducted by the designated UK spearhead battalion. Combine this with the equipment stock-piled on the island (105mm’s etc.) coupled with the vast improvements in equipment now issued to the UK land forces and you have a potent force, which will be on the island before any Argentineans step ashore in considerable numbers.

The UK continues to practice the reinforcement of existing Tornado assets, which now would be supplemented by a Typhoon squadron.

The UK army may be stretched, but at least one Para or RM battalion is on 24-hours notice to move. In a worse case scenario the UK will make us of it’s strategic lift (4 x C17’s) to deploy a reinforced company to back-up the existing regular infantry company + Falklands defence force assets already on the ground. To neutralise that threat the Argentineans will need to get at least one intact SF Battalion ashore – no easy task. Plus they will be facing UK troops with extensive combat experience (Afghanistan / Iraq) at all levels, officer, NCO right down to ordinary foot-soldier.

The threat of just one UK attack submarine in the vicinity of the islands will cause the Argentineans serious problems both tactically and psychologically. The memory of the sinking of the Belgrano and associated loss of life remains very strong :shudder .

[harryriedl]

The Brit’s have the added advantage of knowing the ground extremely well (unlike in 82). Most of the UK’s infantry battalions have trained on the island (excellent live firing), have conducted extensive patrolling and war-gamed to death all invasion possibilities including a once a year a 24-hour re-forger exercise conducted by the designated UK spearhead battalion. Combine this with the equipment stock-piled on the island (105mm’s etc.) coupled with the vast improvements in equipment now issued to the UK land forces and you have a potent force, which will be on the island before any Argentineans step ashore in considerable numbers.

The UK continues to practice the reinforcement of existing Tornado assets, which now would be supplemented by a Typhoon squadron.

The UK army may be stretched, but at least one Para or RM battalion is on 24-hours notice to move. In a worse case scenario the UK will make us of it’s strategic lift (4 x C17’s) to deploy a reinforced company to back-up the existing regular infantry company + Falklands defence force assets already on the ground. To neutralise that threat the Argentineans will need to get at least one intact SF Battalion ashore – no easy task. Plus they will be facing UK troops with extensive combat experience (Afghanistan / Iraq) at all levels, officer, NCO right down to ordinary foot-soldier.

The threat of just one UK attack submarine in the vicinity of the islands will cause the Argentineans serious problems both tactically and psychologically. The memory of the sinking of the Belgrano and associated loss of life remains very strong :shudder .
the FiD force also has teeth compared with 1982 and is very professional these days

[jimma]

lets not forget that the argies were hoping to exploit a latency in our imperial ways. They thought we would never send a force that far away to protect some volcanic rock. Now they know that we would so such an attack is seriously unlikely.

Jimma

[raven1971]

I agree with Neutral Zone - the "hermanos" (as the Argentines are referred to here in Brazil) haven't got the will to go to war over the islands yet again. It is interesting that the maps you buy in Argentina still show the Islands as being part of Argentina, part of the Tierra Del Fuego province. Latest I'd heard is that Kichener wanted to try a "diplomatic solution"- unlikely as it is that that would ever provide a result they're seeking.

I can't recall who said they were suprised the Argentines didn't "go the Russian route" with weapons after the war; let's not forget, the regime at the time was a right-wing dictatorship very friendly towards Washington - despite President Reagan's support for Britain in the conflict. Any feelers towards the Russians would have cost the regime even more dearly than the loss of the war did - even though the war itself was the event that gave Argentina the push towards ending the dictatorship.

Venezuela is a different case, and ultimately one which frightens me more (I work quite close to Venezuela and Colombia). Chavez has not only purchased 100,000 new AK-103 rifles from Russia (in addition to many other weapons), he has also gotten a contract to build a factory to produce Russian-designed weapons in the city of Maracay. That the FARC have begun migrating northward away from the Putumayo region (Vaupes department) into Guaviare (and thus towards safe havens in Venezuela) should come as a suprise to no one, and the final destination of Chavez-produced weapons should raise eyebrows, especially given his relations with the US and the progress made by the Colombian Army under Plan Colombia.

Raven

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

[Andy in West Oz]

I personaly have been onboard HMS Manchester a type 42 destroyer despite her age she is still capible of defending british intrests and i know they have been tasked to protect american aircraft carriers in the gulf, and ive also heard that during the 1991 gulf war a type 42 engauged and shot down two missiles fired at an american ship. (ive only heard this dont quote)


I think that was HMS Brazen. She engaged and shot down one Silkworm (?) that was fired at USS Missouri. Have often wondered what the Silkworm would have done to something as heavily armoured as Missouri.

Andy

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think that was HMS Brazen. She engaged and shot down one Silkworm (?) that was fired at USS Missouri. Have often wondered what the Silkworm would have done to something as heavily armoured as Missouri.

Andy

Thats a good point! if an 15inch armour peircing shell would have trouble peircing all that side armour, how is a 200odd kg warhead going to fair???? maybe the old battleships would have been all but impervious to most AShM's apart from the one the sov one tonners???

[riksavage]

I’m sure it was the T42 Destroyer HMS Gloucester that shot-down the Silkworm with a Sea Dart. The reason being my old man met an LT. off the Missouri in Perth years ago who claimed they have the ships (Gloucester’s) plaque in the wardroom.

Is the Falklands worth fighting for – hell yes, there’s oil in them there hills! Plus the fishing rights bring the islanders a pretty penny, which I understand contributes to the existing Garrison. The scramble for resources in the Artic Oceans will make the Falklands more strategically important from a security perspective. Like Ascension Island we could ultimately see a joint UK/US presence there in years to come.

[windscorpion]

Even without the potential revenues there the fact remains the people there were British and the territory was British and had been invaded by a foreign power. If you are just going to sit back and let it happen then why bother having an armed forces at all? What a great message it would have sent to every other potential aggressor around the world.. especially the Soviets!

[riksavage]

Very true, The Falkland invasion response by the UK military and resolve by Maggie i nthe face of ship losses had an impact upon Soviet Doctrine. As a result they commited more divisions facing the UK in BAOR.

[jimma]

The British people on the island do not want to be under Argentine rule. We have a responsibility to our land and to our people.

I consider the invasion of the Falklands the same as an invasion of the British isles.

[swerve]

....

Is the Falklands worth fighting for – hell yes, there’s oil in them there hills! Plus the fishing rights bring the islanders a pretty penny, which I understand contributes to the existing Garrison. The scramble for resources in the Artic Oceans will make the Falklands more strategically important from a security perspective. Like Ascension Island we could ultimately see a joint UK/US presence there in years to come.

A pity nobody told Maggie & her cabinet that in 1979, or maybe they wouldn't have shelved the Shackleton report & ignore its proposals to improve the airport & port & invest in oil exploration, downgraded the Falkland Islanders British citizenship (including taking away their right of abode in the UK - rescinded after the war), rejected proposals to spend some money on the run-down barracks, announced the withdrawal without replacement of the S. Atlantic patrol ship, & started negotiating with the Argentinean junta about a cession of sovereignty. It was that lot - and the poor response to some carefully escalated Argentinean provocations - which convinced Galtieri et al that we wouldn't fight for the islands. If the government had shown a little spine before the war, I doubt very much it would have happened.

http://www.falklands.info/history/history6.html

If we want to avoid future wars, we have to learn from that, & avoid making the same mistakes. Don't ignore the effect on others of decisions taken for internal reasons. Don't ignore signals sent by prats like Chavez, however worthless we think them. Send clear signals of our intent.

BTW, there's a problem with a US presence in the Falklands: the USA doesn't recognise our (or anyone elses) claims in the Antarctic, so unless they change that policy (unlikely), giving them a base would tend to undermine our position down there rather than reinforce it.

[Andy in West Oz]

I’m sure it was the T42 Destroyer HMS Gloucester that shot-down the Silkworm with a Sea Dart. The reason being my old man met an LT. off the Missouri in Perth years ago who claimed they have the ships (Gloucester’s) plaque in the wardroom.


You're right Rik, dunno why I was thinking Brazen. Was reading about her involvement in some other ops recently but can't even remember what that was! :unknown

Re the Falklands, I think the UK would ultimately be successful again but one major advantage they've got now is the presence of aircraft on the islands. I imagine a regular CAP would prevent/deter any attempt at an attack. If an invasion did eventuate, SSNs could prevent any resupply by sea and provide a platform to strike, at arm's length, Argentinian assets on the islands. It could be that "easy". SSNs could do what the Black Buck Vulcans did...and more.

Having said that, let's hope it never comes to that.

[raven1971]

[QUOTE=Investigator;114457]While i'm all for territirial integrity I still find it strange that anyone would be willing to lose hundrends (if not thousands) of lives over a stray couple of pieces of rock many hundreds (Argentina) or thousands (UK) of kilometres away from your country. Wikipedia has it with a population of 3060 and a GDP of US$75 million. Are there large petrolium deposits I do not know about?[QUOTE]

Petroleum deposits near the Falklands were officially revealed in 1993, the year after Britain increased the territorial waters around the archipelago. In addition, the Islands represent a major fishing hub, as well as a "rest stop" for British ships sailing round Cape Horn, one which they don't need to pay port fees. I have a link for a BBC report on it, but I haven't posted 15 times yet on this site, and as such I can't post URL. Go to Yahoo and search for "Falklands oil" and the thread should come up in the first link.

Raven

[riksavage]

Swerve you are bang on the nail. However we must look at today’s UK military in the context of 1982. Back then we were a NATO configured force, Army – BAOR, Navy – ASW North Atlantic.

Today the UK military is smaller, but much, much better equipped and prepared for expeditionary warfare. The average infantry regiment has today the same firepower at company level that an 82 battalion had in its entire Orbat. Combine this with strategic lift, both amphibious and air-mobile and we are looking at a completely different ball game.

Should our South American friends decide to invade they will suffer disproportionate casualties. Combine this with the fact that the current Argentinean General Staff couldn’t organize a 'panic in doomed submarine' and we have a recipe for a tango-two-spins-disaster!

[Stuart Mackey]

While i'm all for territirial integrity I still find it strange that anyone would be willing to lose hundrends (if not thousands) of lives over a stray couple of pieces of rock many hundreds (Argentina) or thousands (UK) of kilometres away from your country. Wikipedia has it with a population of 3060 and a GDP of US$75 million. Are there large petrolium deposits I do not know about?

If the inhabitants were facing execution I can imagine a rescue attemt being made but if at worse it was deportation to the UK then why bother? Millions seem to like living in the UK.

I'm sure the Falkland Islanders are nice people but their lives are not worth more than an equivalent number of British or Argentinian sailors.

I probably should make some comment about buying billions of dollars more of ships or planes or something but I don't think the end result is worth it. Sometimes sabre rattling is not the best option.


The reason the British fought and died on Falklands was because it is British Territory inhabited by British citizens who were invaded by a nation governed by a fasist Junta who were encouraged by a British government who were happy to trade away right of their own citizens in the name of a perverse peace, similar to 1938, with Munich. Like in 1939 the British did not simply go to war over some south Atlantic rocks/distant nation but for the principle of self determination and defence of there own people.

[swerve]

The reason the British fought and died on Falklands was because it is British Territory inhabited by British citizens who were invaded by a nation governed by a fasist Junta who were encouraged by a British government who were happy to trade away right of their own citizens in the name of a perverse peace, similar to 1938, with Munich. Like in 1939 the British did not simply go to war over some south Atlantic rocks/distant nation but for the principle of self determination and defence of there own people.

Fine principles, but unfortunately I can't believe that the same government which was willing to ignore them from 1979 to 1981 suddenly became a convert to them. Rather, the government realised that the British people wouldn't stand for seeing British territory invaded, & saw that abandoning the islanders would lose the next election. Your mention of Munich is apt. I get annoyed by people who compare Maggie to Churchill over the Falklands. More like Chamberlain. He was forced to fight in the end.

[Stuart Mackey]

Fine principles, but unfortunately I can't believe that the same government which was willing to ignore them from 1979 to 1981 suddenly became a convert to them.

I never siad they did, only thats why they fought ;)


Rather, the government realised that the British people wouldn't stand for seeing British territory invaded, & saw that abandoning the islanders would lose the next election. Your mention of Munich is apt. I get annoyed by people who compare Maggie to Churchill over the Falklands. More like Chamberlain. He was forced to fight in the end.

Oh, I agree, someone was definatly reading from Chamberlains 'Principles of Foreign Affairs' before it all went pear shaped.

[raven1971]

The Iron Lady was nothing, if not an opportunist ... the Falklands came at the right time, didn't it? Reluctant or not, the government came out of the war at the top...

One small correction: At the time of the war, the Kelpers weren't British citizens; they were granted full citizenship in the 1983 Act, after the war. Prior to that, they were citizens of a British Territorial Dependency - citizens with restrictions, in other words - unless otherwise connected to the UK.

On the other side, the fascist regime in Argentina to this day remains the main culprit for the loss among the Argentine people, in that they seriously miscalculated the foreign support they'd have for the war (they never expected American opposition; after all, it was the Americans who put them in power in the first place), and every move after that was a textbook example of how not to conduct a war. A good book on the issue (though I'm not sure it's available in English) is Malvinas: Gesta e Incompetencia by Gen (retired) Martín Balza; it shows quite well how the war is viewed by the military in Argentina.

Raven

[swerve]

...One small correction: At the time of the war, the Kelpers weren't British citizens; they were granted full citizenship in the 1983 Act, after the war. Prior to that, they were citizens of a British Territorial Dependency - citizens with restrictions, in other words - unless otherwise connected to the UK. ...

Raven

Not quite, but almost. The British Nationality Act 1981 was passed in 1981, but didn't actually come into force until 1st January 1983, i.e. the same date as its provisions re the Falkland Islanders were superceded by the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983. Under the law in force before the British Nationality Act 1981, the islanders were "Citizens of the United Kingdom & Colonies", just like anyone born in the UK, of British descent, e.g. me. Though that didn't bring with it an automatic right of abode in the UK, unless, as you say, they had a personal connection with the UK. That was a restriction imposed by various Immigration acts, not citizenship law.

BTW, it's been stated a few times here that the status of the Falkland islanders with regard to British citizenship was changed before the war (though technically, their status was set to change, rather than actually having changed), & this was probably a factor, albeit a minor one, in precipitating the war, in that it was seen by Galtieri et al as a sign of a British wish for disengagement from the Falklands, & lack of interest in the inhabitants.

[raven1971]

I stand corrected, sir; interesting to note that, to this day, the Falkland Islanders have automatic right to Argentine citizenship if they so wish. I also had an interesting conversation in Argentina with an elderly gentleman from the UK, in which we pondered what occurs when an anyone wishes to visit the Falklands from Argentina; do they have to pass through customs, either leaving Argentina or upon their return? If so, doesn't that show de facto recognition of British sovereignty over the Islands? Perhaps someone more up to date with the legal aspects of that issue than I can answer that.

Raven

[citizen578]

what occurs when an anyone wishes to visit the Falklands from Argentina; do they have to pass through customs, either leaving Argentina or upon their return? If so, doesn't that show de facto recognition of British sovereignty over the Islands? Perhaps someone more up to date with the legal aspects of that issue than I can answer that.

Raven


I don't believe it shows any de-facto recognition, but the answer is yes, they do have to go through the normal customs procedures. You may also be aware that Argentina forbids flights to or from the Falklands entering their airspace. This is as part of the economic attack on the islands which has been ongoing since the war, but also negates the issue (to a greater extent) of customs declarations and passports having to be shown at Argentine airports.

[citizen578]

As for the theme of this topic...

The Falklands is, these days, Britain's forgotten conflict. I'm not referring to the 1982 conflict, but to the one which is going on right now. Whilst the threat of invasion is (for the moment) minimal, we have constant problems with Argentina's fighters making deliberate incursions into Falklands' Airspace before running for home with a couple of Tornado F3s hot on their tails, as well as Argentine Coast Guard and Navy ships entering the FI's EEZ and then harassing fishing fleets. It is a situation which demands constant vigilance on the part of the British forces.

Anyone with even a modest understanding of Argentine politics knows the traumas which afflict the country on a predictably regular basis, just as they will know the predictable cries of ''Malvinas Argentinas!!'' in the halls of power.

Does Argentina have the muscle behind the flapping lips? At the moment, no. Years of deperately trying to procure new fighters (normally Mirage 2000s, but also Su-35s and F16s) new submarines (only the solitary old Type209 is fully operational, with both TR1700s in need of refit) and attack helicopters (the order for ex-USMC Cobras was cancelled)... have all fallen foul of the boom bust Argentine economy.
The current focus of defence spending is on limiting fatigue, with the obvious consequences of having inexperienced crews, and on giving a full radar coverage of the mainland.

However, it won't be that way forever, as Argentina's economy was recently growing at 9% p.a. and flat growth is expected throughout the global recession. Soon Argentina will finally have the pennies scraped together for some new kit.
However, the economic resurgence is built on unsustainable investment, rapidly decreasing foreign investment and massive GM Soy exports to China (until China's own farming industry is sufficiently mechanised). So... we'll find ourselves in a few years, looking at a politically and economically volatile country at the end of a period of significant rearmament. Brace for impact.

[riksavage]

We have discussed Falklands scenarios on numerous occasions and regardless of any Argentine blustering in my opinion they will be batting on a very sticky wicket if they try anything now or in the immediate future.

For one the gap between the Argentine and UK forces is wider now that it's ever been. On the one side you have a military where ALL it's infantry and armoured battalions are being tried and tested in combat on a regular basis and have benefitted from material / weapons upgrades over the last three years. On the other, you have a military with zero recent combined arms combat experience (1982 being the last time), plus issued equipment hasn't changed much since 82 (exception being SF units). Even if the Argentines went on a spending spree, they still lack the leadership experience at the crucial NCO and officer level.

The first hint of any Argentine aggression (now or in the future) and a ready reserve armoured infantry battalion (Viking equipped) with engineer, artillery (105mm) and air-defence support (tracked stormer) will be lifted to the islands within 24-hours (rehearsed annually). Deployment areas are marked and known by ground commanders, all supporting geographical and typographical data is on file ready for briefing. The entire coastline has been mapped (low and high-water mark), suitable landing zones recorded and marked ready for DF missions. To take on such a force, placed in prepared defensive positions coupled with excellent local knowledge and support from the indigenous population will require at least a well equipped and trained Brigade - three infantry battalions plus full logistical support. The Argentines don't have the ability to lift that amount in one go unless they use civilian shipping.

As the struggle for resources increases in the Artic the area around the Falklands will become more strategically important not less, meaning the UK is likely to increase interest in the area. When they start drilling for oil offshore (only a matter of time), the infrastructure facilities on the island will improve requiring increased UK military interest. Port Stanley will become another Aberdeen.

Even if the Argentines were able to damage the airfield with attacks that managed to penetrate both the fighter screen (Typhoon) and Rapier / Stormer coverage the engineering materials stockpiled at Mount Pleasant would have the airfield C17 capable in a very short order. Worst case scenario a C17 can drop a fully equipped company of Para's in one lift anyway. With the way the A400 is going I can see the UK buying at least 2-4 more C17's in the near future allowing for a strategic airbridge to be maintained.

In support of the ground force a single Trafalgar or Astute (2009-10) class sub capable of firing Tomahawks stationed in the vicinity means that if necessary Argentine coastal air-bases can be neutralised.

Plus the UK's strategic surveillance and monitoring abilities are leaps and bounds ahead of what they had in 82 as a result of the ongoing conflicts in the ME and subsequent expansion of GCHQ and associated intelligence assets.

[harryriedl]

As for the theme of this topic...

The Falklands is, these days, Britain's forgotten conflict. I'm not referring to the 1982 conflict, but to the one which is going on right now. Whilst the threat of invasion is (for the moment) minimal, we have constant problems with Argentina's fighters making deliberate incursions into Falklands' Airspace before running for home with a couple of Tornado F3s hot on their tails, as well as Argentine Coast Guard and Navy ships entering the FI's EEZ and then harassing fishing fleets. It is a situation which demands constant vigilance on the part of the British forces.

Anyone with even a modest understanding of Argentine politics knows the traumas which afflict the country on a predictably regular basis, just as they will know the predictable cries of ''Malvinas Argentinas!!'' in the halls of power.

Does Argentina have the muscle behind the flapping lips? At the moment, no. Years of deperately trying to procure new fighters (normally Mirage 2000s, but also Su-35s and F16s) new submarines (only the solitary old Type209 is fully operational, with both TR1700s in need of refit) and attack helicopters (the order for ex-USMC Cobras was cancelled)... have all fallen foul of the boom bust Argentine economy.
The current focus of defence spending is on limiting fatigue, with the obvious consequences of having inexperienced crews, and on giving a full radar coverage of the mainland.

However, it won't be that way forever, as Argentina's economy was recently growing at 9% p.a. and flat growth is expected throughout the global recession. Soon Argentina will finally have the pennies scraped together for some new kit.
However, the economic resurgence is built on unsustainable investment, rapidly decreasing foreign investment and massive GM Soy exports to China (until China's own farming industry is sufficiently mechanised). So... we'll find ourselves in a few years, looking at a politically and economically volatile country at the end of a period of significant rearmament. Brace for impact.
If you want to talk about economics Argentinian is the least prepared Latin American country bar Venezuela. with large inflation a reduction of exports due to financial crisis and a government which makes people nervous and quite large depts[which why people were nervous when the Argentinian nationalized there pentions]

[citizen578]

I think we're all in agreement that despte the strategic vulnerability of British Forces in the South Atlantic, there's bugger-all Argentina can do about it militarily (for now) other than make harassing raids. The future, however, is not so certain.

There has been plans for a mass ''civil disembarkation'' in the islands. This involves civilian registered vessels and aircraft being used to ferry large numbers of nationalists over to the Islands, as part of a bizarre political protest. Aside from the fact that it is a recipe for disaster, and will no doubt keep SAR crews on the Falklands very busy, what are peoples' thoughts on this?

http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1950

[AnthonyB]

Australia has begun increasing our cooperation with the French, especially in regards to both of our southern ocean territories. I wonder if there is scope for increased interaction with the UK as well. It always struck me as odd that the FPDA is the major formal defence arrangement between Australia and the UK (although it doesn't directly involve any of our own territories.)

Resources are going to get scarcer, the southern ocean territories have large EEZ zone around them which might well include considerable resources. UK, France and Australia (and probably South Africa and New Zealand) all have a common interest in mantaining sovereignty over remote islands in the southern ocean (and their EEZ's).

Begin with joint exercises and an agreement to consult on Southern Ocean issues. (Once Australia has the HLD's and the AWD's combined with our subs we could play an active role in exercies.)