Falklands tensions

[rip]

Fitted for, but not with 2 x quad Harpoon launchers

48x Sea Viper
2x Phalanx (I think)
2x 30mm
1x 4.5in gun

Then Lynx/Merlin armed with Sea Skua anti ship missiles/Stingray torpedos or only stingrays respectively

The issue about anti-ship missiles on the T45 class and literal combat capacity I think miss the point. The ships deployment is a visible political move and as so has value above its military capacity. However it is what you don’t see however that really counts.

What do you want to bet that there is a royal submarine or two in the area that you cannot see? If so they alone could prevent an amphibious invasion. There is now enough anti-air missile capacity on the island to make an air only invasion unprofitable. Now what exactly is the modern Argentine ASW capacity? And the islands can be quickly reinforced with Air power.

The Argentines are not that stupid to try anything.

 

[RobWilliams]

The issue about anti-ship missiles on the T45 class and literal combat capacity I think miss the point. The ships deployment is a visible political move and as so has value above its military capacity. However it is what you don’t see however that really counts.

What do you want to bet that there is a royal submarine or two in the area that you cannot see? If so they alone could prevent an amphibious invasion. There is now enough anti-air missile capacity on the island to make an air only invasion unprofitable. Now what exactly is the modern Argentine ASW capacity? And the islands can be quickly reinforced with Air power.

The Argentines are not that stupid to try anything.

I was merely commenting on the armament of a T45, not commenting on its suitability nor what should be required for Dauntless' deployment later in the year

I wouldn't like to comment on SSN/SSBN locations but even the potential for there to be one in the area would be a major worry for the Argentinians.

 

[the concerned]

Yeah but what i,m saying is that with a battery of as-90's on the island that would make an amphibious landing nearly impossible because these could target the ships before they could even deploy soldiers.I mean it is always better to prevent them taking the islands in the first place rather than trying to retake them

 

[StobieWan]

It's a very limited embargo. I think it only affects a couple of dozen vessels.It's a token gesture.

And those dozen vessels can pull their flag down and run up their home flag - in many cases, ironically, that'll be Spanish as the ships involved are fishing on licenses granted to Spanish ships

They would then be granted access as far as I understand the ban,


Ian

 

[swerve]

Yeah but what i,m saying is that with a battery of as-90's on the island that would make an amphibious landing nearly impossible because these could target the ships before they could even deploy soldiers.I mean it is always better to prevent them taking the islands in the first place rather than trying to retake them

In order to do that, they'd have to be in the right place. The islands have a land area of 0.6 Wales (i.e. 60% of the area of Wales), & are much less compact. Where would you put your hypothetical battery? The Argentineans put a battery of 155mm guns ashore in 1982, & we mounted an invasion without any of our ships ever being fired on by them. I doubt any were ever within range.

 

[exPrivate]

In fact the RN is sending either HMS Tireless or HMS Turbulent to the Falklands and the rumours are that there is already one around.

 

[RobWilliams]

In fact the RN is sending either HMS Tireless or HMS Turbulent to the Falklands and the rumours are that there is already one around.

Until I see it confirmed by the RN I wont believe it (which I admit its unlikely, but if the media is telling the truth the RN will have to admit it at some stage or another)

When i search it up the only mainstream UK newspapers reporting it are the Sun and the Daily Mail (with it being a 2 day old story in the Sun) and i generally look for reputable deployment stories in the Times or Telegraph (take that how you will).

Either way, we can catagorically say that (if this is true) it guarantees the Falkland Islands safety - aircraft carriers or not.

EDIT: I've found a reference to the deplyoment in a Telegraph article but no actual article about it

 

[exPrivate]

Well, the RN never comments on sub deployments even after they are over. AFAIK they never oficially confirmed that Conq was around the Falklands in 1982.
A Traffalgar class is a nice addition to the T45 IMO. And to William "the Conqueror"

 

[jaffo4011]

apparently the uk is being reported to the un by those nice,peace loving Argentinians for'militarising'the falklands.........

now,why would they be doing that?....... nothing to do with them invading the islands without warning in 1982,closing their ports to falklands shipping and shortly to cut off the islands to routine air traffic from their own continent...all without any provocation whatsoever....;

thse brits really are over sensitive arent they?

perhaps closing off all of Argentina's ports airbases and airports to vessels and aircraft flying the national flag with the t45 and typhoons would be an appropriate response and give an indication of how isolating and humiliating it is to be picked on by a more powerful neighbour......

 

[StobieWan]

apparently the uk is being reported to the un by those nice,peace loving Argentinians for'militarising'the falklands.........

now,why would they be doing that?....... nothing to do with them invading the islands without warning in 1982,closing their ports to falklands shipping and shortly to cut off the islands to routine air traffic from their own continent...all without any provocation whatsoever....;

thse brits really are over sensitive arent they?

perhaps closing off all of Argentina's ports airbases and airports to vessels and aircraft flying the national flag with the t45 and typhoons would be an appropriate response and give an indication of how isolating and humiliating it is to be picked on by a more powerful neighbour......

I'm more than a bit confused by Argentina's latest protest - I'm sure I recall that they "militarised" the situation thirty years ago by invading the Islands. Hey ho.

Best we not worry too much about it and simply continue to do what we've been doing for thirty years - uphold the right of the islanders to determine their own future in accordance with the UN guidance on such matters,

Ian

 

[Ananda]

Just wandering why Kirchener now acting and talking like Galtieri ? Is Argentina economy in trouble, in such that she need some patriotic sideways like the 82 Junta did ? Or the other way around, that she think Britain in economic trouble now that by pushing up the heat will push London to negotiating on Argentina term ?

Sorry for this kind of questions. I'm not really following Falkland development.

 

[Astute]

Just wandering why Kirchener now acting and talking like Galtieri ? Is Argentina economy in trouble, in such that she need some patriotic sideways like the 82 Junta did ? Or the other way around, that she think Britain in economic trouble now that by pushing up the heat will push London to negotiating on Argentina term ?

Sorry for this kind of questions. I'm not really following Falkland development.

I think one of the main reasons is oil there are rumours of oil companies sending there people to the falklands to get contracts these include US companies , deals could be done soon , so Argentina is stepping up its BS ,

It really is a joke how can Argentina act like a victim ,I cant remember the UK invading Argentina in 82, i dont see Argentina Flags being burnt in London or protests out side there embassy, or the uk stopping fishing boats or trying to blockade any one or threatening Argentina in anyway the simple fact is its Argentina who should be put in front of the UN for trying to start some thing AGAIN it cant finish ,

Its all about the money money i wonder who Argentina has promised contracts to in exchange for surport . mmmmm

 

[the concerned]

I reckon the answer is to join with an american oil company then the whole argument would be put to bed even the whole of south america combined are not stupid enough to start invading places where US lives are at stake

 

[Astute]

I think if the rumours are true Argentina are very worried the US or some other country could get a stake in the possible falklands oil fields, so they are pushing their BS on the world before this might happen,, its quit sad really simple little dog syndrome barking away wanting to be big and hating the fact of been ignored trying to show every one they mean business specialy the rest of south america,
they are simple bullies trying a different tactic in trying to get what they want , first they tried by force now they are trying to get the un to do it for them,.
the fact the 3000 people who live in the falklands are British going back many generations and over 170+ years its there home, this doesnt mean any thing to Argentina its all about money, and the Falklands has proven to be a well worn out Distraction played on by the goverment of Argentina to steer there own peoples attention away from problems at home.

 

[exPrivate]

Gentlemen,
I have always sided with the Brits in this dispute, still I think that the arguments and are strikingly similar on both sides. When Brits are talking about Argie aggression, they are considering 1982 but when Argies talk about Brits` agression they have in mind not only the Falkland situation but also the events in Rio de La Plata in 1806-1807. Then we have the common accusations of colonialism, and later the accusations that the other side is distracting the attention from the severe economic problems in the country, etc.
The really strong point of Britain is the right of self determination. And the military superiority, of course. The last one is usually abouth 90% of the judicial, historic and other argument. :ar15

 

[jorgedr]

apparently the uk is being reported to the un by those nice,peace loving Argentinians for'militarising'the falklands.........

now,why would they be doing that?....... nothing to do with them invading the islands without warning in 1982,closing their ports to falklands shipping and shortly to cut off the islands to routine air traffic from their own continent...all without any provocation whatsoever....;

thse brits really are over sensitive arent they?

perhaps closing off all of Argentina's ports airbases and airports to vessels and aircraft flying the national flag with the t45 and typhoons would be an appropriate response and give an indication of how isolating and humiliating it is to be picked on by a more powerful neighbour......

We are not closing their ports and airbases but ours to a certain flag which is our right to do but you are talking to close ours ports using military actions, we are no doing anything like that, again we are not deciding who goes to their ports but ours, is that ilegal in any way?.
our main trade partner is brazil, are you going to shoot asters to a brazilian planes trying to reach one of our airports? please...

 

[lopez]

He wasn't actually suggesting doing that. He was just making the comparison that for the UK to do that would be similar to what Argentina could to to the Falklands people. It is how they feel they are being picked on by the Argentinians who are a regional power when compared to the Falklands. If the UK did what he suggests it would be similar. A bigger more powerful group asserting the unwanted influence over another.

Can you see the similarities?

I suspect he was making a point rather than suggesting a course of action.

 

[RobWilliams]

I suspect he was making a point rather than suggesting a course of action.

Then he shouldn't have used the term 'would be an appropriate response' in his post, IMO its an extremely poor comparison as neither actions are comparable.

As to the isolation issue, its nothing new. The trade bloc affects a handful of fishing vessels (Which are mostly Spanish owned) and the 'law' itself can be avoided anyway by simply hoising the Red Ensign before making port.

 

[StobieWan]

We are not closing their ports and airbases but ours to a certain flag which is our right to do but you are talking to close ours ports using military actions, we are no doing anything like that, again we are not deciding who goes to their ports but ours, is that ilegal in any way?.
our main trade partner is brazil, are you going to shoot asters to a brazilian planes trying to reach one of our airports? please...

No UK poster is suggesting any such thing, and I don't think anyone of us wants a repeat of the 1982 conflict. What we're all baffled about in the UK is why Argentina is repeating the pattern of deliberate challenges and provocations that preceded the 1982 invasion, and then goes running to the UN to protest that we have replaced a standing patrol on schedule as if this were an act of aggression.

Argentina's best approach remains diplomacy - sit around the table, talk about getting involved in the oil extraction, refining the results - establishing warmer ties with the Islands and the Islanders.

We can't cede them to Argentina - not after fighting a war - it'd be politically totally unacceptable to any UK leader.

Trade, peaceful interaction, a softer approach, and patience...

Ian

 

[lopez]

We can't cede them to Argentina - not after fighting a war - it'd be politically totally unacceptable to any UK leader.

It would also be completely unacceptable to the people of the Falkland Islands themselves. Who overwhelmingly consider them selves to be British