Falklands War The Second?

DipStick McSwindler · 18-02-2012 5:34pm #1

This post has been deleted.

Delancey · 18-02-2012 6:26pm

No , there is a lot of ' Sabre Rattling ' all right coming from Argentina but IMO thats all it is - the British built a substantial airport on the islands after the war and they can , if required , quickly re-inforce their air presence there not to mention the rumoured presence of their attack submarines in the South Atlantic.
Ironically if the Argentines had never attacked in 1982 now would be the time to do it - Royal Navy has no working aircraft carriers now so there would not be much they could do about an invasion.
Royal Navy also now has only a limited amphibious attack capability.

Argentina is waging a successful diplomatic campaign against the islands and seems to be winning support from neighbouring countries - in the long run this may prove decisive .

Lemming · 18-02-2012 7:41pm

Delancey wrote: »

Argentina is waging a successful diplomatic campaign against the islands and seems to be winning support from neighbouring countries - in the long run this may prove decisive .

It remains to be seen just how long that can be sustained. There's a lot of populism about the whole matter; and populism gives way for practicality at the end of the day when people look at the returns.

Chile for one, I do not see sustaining this for long as they enjoy economic dealings with the Falklands. Nor do I see other nations keeping up a protracted level of embargo or any notions of blockade when their own businesses perhaps start to suffer on account of this. Ultimately, if/whenever oil starts getting drilled and the Falkland Islanders are looking to trade, you'll find all that "solidarity" suddenly becomes inconvenient and ends up drifting in the wind.

Still, De Kischner is playing a dangerous game that she may not be able to stop without toppling both herself & her government if she's not careful. Her government has its population whipped into quite a frenzy over the matter, and with the 30th anniversary of Argentina's military defeat looming close, emotions are going to be very raw and unchecked. De Kischner may not be able to stop what she's started without a face-losing climb-down.

Realistically though, no. There wont be a shooting match unless the Argentinians really lose the run of themselves.

Maoltuile · 18-02-2012 7:45pm

feeney92 wrote: »

just want to get peoples opinion on this topic, anybody reckon theyll have another go at each other?

No. It's BS being fanned by the Tories, desperate to distract from their domestic unpopularity with a bit of jingoism. The deployments of the warship, (allegedly) the nuclear sub and the royal heir don't have an equivalent on the South American side, so far as I can see.

And an English Tory government accusing others of "colonialism" takes the biscuit.

Maoltuile · 18-02-2012 7:47pm

Delancey wrote: »

No , there is a lot of ' Sabre Rattling ' all right coming from Argentina but IMO thats all it is - the British built a substantial airport on the islands after the war and they can , if required , quickly re-inforce their air presence there not to mention the rumoured presence of their attack submarines in the South Atlantic.
Ironically if the Argentines had never attacked in 1982 now would be the time to do it - Royal Navy has no working aircraft carriers now so there would not be much they could do about an invasion.
Royal Navy also now has only a limited amphibious attack capability.

And the Harriers are gone, and the troops are still tied up in Afghanistan. As well, there's a lack of friendly South American juntas (and I don't think Obama will open the NATO armouries to them the way Ronnie did).

OS119 · 18-02-2012 8:00pm

Delancey wrote: »

...Argentina is waging a successful diplomatic campaign against the islands and seems to be winning support from neighbouring countries - in the long run this may prove decisive .

while i agree - to some extent - i have a nasty feeling that the current Argentine government is forcing itself into a corner on this issue, and that the scale/nature of the rethoric its using internally may mean that when the UN finally says 'not interested' (as it always does), and the rest of MERCOSUR says 'no, we aren't going to establish economic sanctions against the UK and EU over the FI - grow up', the Argentine govt is going to face an electorate that it exposed to the heady whiff of nationalism without any further peaceful options left open to it.

its then going to face the delightful choice of saying 'oh well, thats that - shows over, nothing to see here' or having a pop at the Islands.

one of those will result in its immediate loss of office and abject humiliation, the other a short term guarenteed 99% poll rating, the possibility of having every street in Argentina named after fair Christina, and if it all goes wrong the possibility that a scapeoat can be found in the Americans, the betrayel by the already hated military, or some kind of fabrication of British aggression that the other MERCOSUR countries will pretend to believe.

one requires moral courage and ends in political death, the other is expedient, will result in young men losing their lives for nothing except political ego, and may allow our politician to live to fight another day.

so, dear readers, which do we think the average politician will go for?

BlaasForRafa · 18-02-2012 8:13pm

Maoltuile wrote: »

And the Harriers are gone, and the troops are still tied up in Afghanistan. As well, there's a lack of friendly South American juntas (and I don't think Obama will open the NATO armouries to them the way Ronnie did).

Have you looked at the capabilities of Argentina's air force lately? (heres a hint, they don't have much)

tac foley · 18-02-2012 8:15pm

Submarine-launched cruise missiles.

UK - many.

Argentina - none.

tac

Maoltuile · 18-02-2012 8:19pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Have you looked at the capabilities of Argentina's air force lately? (heres a hint, they don't have much)

They don't need to *have* much, unless the UK fancies flying CAPs from the UK to cover any fleet they send.

xflyer · 18-02-2012 8:22pm

Maoltuile wrote: »

No. It's BS being fanned by the Tories, desperate to distract from their domestic unpopularity with a bit of jingoism. The deployments of the warship, (allegedly) the nuclear sub and the royal heir don't have an equivalent on the South American side, so far as I can see.

And an English Tory government accusing others of "colonialism" takes the biscuit.

The Argentinians started the jingoism. Warships are routinely deployed to the Falklands. The new one simply replaced the previous one and RAF SAR crews are routinely rotated through the islands whether they be royalty or not.

You've a hilariously distorted view of the situation. It's quite obvious that the sabre rattling is an election trick on the part of the Argentines.

That Harriers may be gone, but Typhoons are deployed there. With their capability any air attack would be cut to pieces from a long way out.

In fact the Argentine forces are incapable of launching an invasion. The carrier is long gone. The Air Force are still using the same aircraft from 1982, mildly upgraded, Mirages, Skyhawks. Museum pieces then, positively archaic now.

The Armada is but a shadow of it's former self and fundamentally incapable of transporting enough troops to the island to make a difference.

Add that there is no possibility of surprise like the the last time and it's pure escapism on the part of a failed Argentine government.

There will be no second war and if the Argentines are thinking all this sabre rattling will bring the British to the negotiating table then they don't know their history.

The only possible tactic that might work would be to send civilian boats to 'liberate' the Malvinas. As far as I know some people in Argentina still think the people there are suffering under the yoke of British oppression!!! In 1982 they actually brought leaflets for the inhabitants telling them not to worry they were now liberated from the British! LOL

I am pie · 18-02-2012 8:29pm

OS119 wrote: »

while i agree - to some extent - i have a nasty feeling that the current Argentine government is forcing itself into a corner on this issue, and that the scale/nature of the rethoric its using internally may mean that when the UN finally says 'not interested' (as it always does), and the rest of MERCOSUR says 'no, we aren't going to establish economic sanctions against the UK and EU over the FI - grow up', the Argentine govt is going to face an electorate that it exposed to the heady whiff of nationalism without any further peaceful options left open to it.

its then going to face the delightful choice of saying 'oh well, thats that - shows over, nothing to see here' or having a pop at the Islands.

one of those will result in its immediate loss of office and abject humiliation, the other a short term guarenteed 99% poll rating, the possibility of having every street in Argentina named after fair Christina, and if it all goes wrong the possibility that a scapeoat can be found in the Americans, the betrayel by the already hated military, or some kind of fabrication of British aggression that the other MERCOSUR countries will pretend to believe.

one requires moral courage and ends in political death, the other is expedient, will result in young men losing their lives for nothing except political ego, and may allow our politician to live to fight another day.

so, dear readers, which do we think the average politician will go for?

This again, please include your analysis the hugely Anti Military background of the leftwing government and try to understand that they are resented by x military personnel. They absolutely will not launch another doomed to fail invasion.

Try and go beyond comparing argentina of 30 years ago to that of today. An entirely new government is in place, they are motivated by an attempt to stabilise the latin american bloc into one cohesive society. They believe this regional political unity affords them a greater diplomatic voice to table their sovereignty claim at the UN. They are going for exclusively political and diplomatic means of getting the outcome they want.

The uk's response to this is to send down the boys singing rule britannia until them argies work out who is boss. Terrific.

Maoltuile · 18-02-2012 8:38pm

xflyer wrote: »

In 1982 they actually brought leaflets for the inhabitants telling them not to worry they were now liberated from the British! LOL

"In 1982" the inhabitants of the Falklands actually weren't full British citizens.

And the inhabitants of Hong Kong haven't been accorded the same 'rights' to be British before being handed over to Communist China. But, this is turning into a political discussion.

Maoltuile · 18-02-2012 8:47pm

xflyer wrote: »

The Argentinians started the jingoism. Warships are routinely deployed to the Falklands. The new one simply replaced the previous one and RAF SAR crews are routinely rotated through the islands whether they be royalty or not.

You've a hilariously distorted view of the situation. It's quite obvious that the sabre rattling is an election trick on the part of the Argentines.

That Harriers may be gone, but Typhoons are deployed there. With their capability any air attack would be cut to pieces from a long way out.

In fact the Argentine forces are incapable of launching an invasion. The carrier is long gone. The Air Force are still using the same aircraft from 1982, mildly upgraded, Mirages, Skyhawks. Museum pieces then, positively archaic now.

The Armada is but a shadow of it's former self and fundamentally incapable of transporting enough troops to the island to make a difference.

I don't actually believe that this is going to come to military conflict, as I mentioned. And I think that ignoring the enthusiastic Tory involvement in ratcheting the situation up is woefully myopic. The suggestion that the royal heir just happens to be posted there is laughable. And the 'warship' usually deployed down there isn't typically a state of the art destroyer with more important things to be doing.

The carrier wasn't used in the invasion, apart from carrying troops, and took no part in the war. On a separate issue - Typhoons, really? Has anyone bought those white elephants without bribery?

Add that there is no possibility of surprise like the the last time and it's pure escapism on the part of a failed Argentine government.

The Argentines have said nothing, done nothing to give any indication that they've any interest in war. All of the military activity has been on the British side.

OS119 · 18-02-2012 8:54pm

I am pie wrote: »

...They are going for exclusively political and diplomatic means of getting the outcome they want....

and if it doesn't work?

you are suggesting that the current Argentine government is uniquely equipped in the world to handle the public failure of its flagship policy - that it will face no electoral consequences for being re-buffed in the world stage, that the electorate who were told 'we will get the Islands back' will hold no grudge against a government that failed to deliver?

OS119 · 18-02-2012 8:59pm

Maoltuile wrote: »

...The Argentines have said nothing, done nothing to give any indication that they've any interest in war. All of the military activity has been on the British side.

so, just to be clear, if the British PM, standing in front of a map of Ireland coloured in with the Union Flag, said that the UK wanted to take control of the whole of the Island of Ireland - though exclusively by peaceful means of course - and the Irish government chose to move an Air Defence radar onto the Wicklow Mountains, its the Irish Government that would be sabre-rattling?

raher1 · 18-02-2012 9:05pm

its all about the oil under the falklands,its ocean plate touches the argentine coast. the falklands are kinda independent as well just use britian for defence. ya think the argentines would know better,there economy is on the rise so any war would mean ruin even if they win.:)

Maoltuile · 18-02-2012 9:22pm

OS119 wrote: »

so, just to be clear, if the British PM, standing in front of a map of Ireland coloured in with the Union Flag, said that the UK wanted to take control of the whole of the Island of Ireland - though exclusively by peaceful means of course - and the Irish government chose to move an Air Defence radar onto the Wicklow Mountains, its the Irish Government that would be sabre-rattling?

The Argentines have been making this case (and it is a strong case) to the UN for years. This didn't just pop out of nowhere as a surprise.

It's been the Tories who've chosen to ramp up the military side. I see that you're not going to dispute this, which is to your credit.

OS119 · 18-02-2012 9:41pm

Maoltuile wrote: »

The Argentines have been making this case (and it is a strong case) to the UN for years. This didn't just pop out of nowhere as a surprise.

your logic is flawed - if Argentina is not ramping up because its made the same claim for years, how is the UK ramping up when it has been deploying same forces to the Islands since 1983?

four fighters - firstly F-4 Phantoms, then Tornado F3's, now Typhoon.

1 major surface combatant as South Atlantic Patrol Ship (covering an area from Assension Island to the Caribean, to the FI and out to Southern Africa) - either a Type 42 Destroyer, a Type 22 or T23 Frigate, and now a Type 45 Destroyer.

1 infantry Company - it used to be an Infantry Battalion, but it was decided it wasn't neccesary.

1 tanker aircraft.

1 transport aircraft.

1 submarine - a submarine covers the same patrol area as the SAPS, but is only deployed for about 6 months of the year.

that it - exactly the same forces have been on/around the Islands since the 1982 war. i imagine if you googled it you could even get the ships names and patrol dates.

MANUTD99 · 18-02-2012 9:51pm

I've been reading a little lately about South America. It is becoming more like a union these days and not conforming to what Western powers would like them to be.

Does anybody know what the likes of Chavez of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and more importantly Brazil have had any say on this matter and I wonder if they would back Argentina in any way?

bwatson · 18-02-2012 9:56pm

Maoltuile wrote: »

I don't actually believe that this is going to come to military conflict, as I mentioned. And I think that ignoring the enthusiastic Tory involvement in ratcheting the situation up is woefully myopic. The suggestion that the royal heir just happens to be posted there is laughable. And the 'warship' usually deployed down there isn't typically a state of the art destroyer with more important things to be doing.

The carrier wasn't used in the invasion, apart from carrying troops, and took no part in the war. On a separate issue - Typhoons, really? Has anyone bought those white elephants without bribery?

The Argentines have said nothing, done nothing to give any indication that they've any interest in war. All of the military activity has been on the British side.

You are one deluded fool. What have the tories done except maintain that the wishes of the islanders will always be the most important thing?

The Argentines have no interest in any war? Maybe they should stop talking about islands inhabited by a people who are repulsed by them then. Maybe they should stop calling press conferences in front of maps of the islands filled with the colours of the Argentine flag.

British military activity in the south atlantic is at the same level as it has been for the last thirty years.

scudzilla · 18-02-2012 9:57pm

tac foley wrote: »

Submarine-launched cruise missiles.

UK - many.

Argentina - none.

tac

Which means nothing, The Brits had much better missiles last time around, and unless they're going for a strike on the mainland, which they won't, then these missiles mean nothing

bwatson · 18-02-2012 10:00pm

MANUTD99 wrote: »

I've been reading a little lately about South America. It is becoming more like a union these days and not conforming to what Western powers would like them to be.

Does anybody know what the likes of Chavez of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and more importantly Brazil have had any say on this matter and I wonder if they would back Argentina in any way?

Mr Chavez has expressed his solidarity with Argentina and made a couple of predictibly clueless statements regarding the actions of the "British Empire" and has pledged venezuelan military support should things kick off.

bwatson · 18-02-2012 10:05pm

scudzilla wrote: »

Which means nothing, The Brits had much better missiles last time around, and unless they're going for a strike on the mainland, which they won't, then these missiles mean nothing

I'd love to see Britain take note of the US navy's way of doing things when it comes to hostile threats. Basically, I would be totally supportive of the Royal Navy flattening as many Argentine government buildings, air defences, power stations, important pieces infrastructure, military instillations etc as possible should they dare threaten British citizens again. Use up the stocks of Tomahawks. Dissuade them from ever attempting again.

OS119 · 18-02-2012 10:21pm

scudzilla wrote: »

Which means nothing, The Brits had much better missiles last time around, and unless they're going for a strike on the mainland, which they won't, then these missiles mean nothing

err, the UK didn't have these missiles, or anything like these missiles last time - it had the Vulcan Bomber force, which it used to attack/degrade Port Stanley Airport from Assension Island - and used a significant part of its tanker force to do so.

the Vulcan is long gone, but Tommahawk can do the same job with far less risk and effort - it can also do very bad things to ships...

bwatson · 18-02-2012 10:25pm

OS119 wrote: »

err, the UK didn't have these missiles, or anything like these missiles last time - it had the Vulcan Bomber force, which it used to attack/degrade Port Stanley Airport from Assension Island - and used a significant part of its tanker force to do so.

the Vulcan is long gone, but Tommahawk can do the same job with far less risk and effort - it can also do very bad things to ships...

Added to that, it is so much more difficult to to bring down a cruise missile than it is to bring down a hostile aircraft. The government need to state how they would react to any argentine military activity. It would very soon put a stop to this soap opera.

54kroc · 18-02-2012 10:28pm

bwatson wrote: »

I'd love to see Britain take note of the US navy's way of doing things when it comes to hostile threats. Basically, I would be totally supportive of the Royal Navy flattening as many Argentine government buildings, air defences, power stations, important pieces infrastructure, military instillations etc as possible should they dare threaten British citizens again. Use up the stocks of Tomahawks. Dissuade them from ever attempting again.

Theres a big difference between the US and the little old UK.

tac foley · 18-02-2012 10:34pm

scudzilla wrote: »

Which means nothing, The Brits had much better missiles last time around, and unless they're going for a strike on the mainland, which they won't, then these missiles mean nothing

The main targets - airfields and so on are on the mainland.

The Falklands is sovereign territory of the UK.

An attack on the Falklands is therefore an attack on the UK.

A carefully-considered response, such as levelling the nearest air base to Buenos Aires, might get the attention of the Argentinian authorities.

tac

tac foley · 18-02-2012 10:36pm

54kroc wrote: »

Theres a big difference between the US and the little old UK.

The Royal Navy was an enthusiastic lobber of submarine-launched cruise missiles in GW2.

What makes you think that they are not so enthusiastic about doing it all over again with a bunch of invading dagoes uppity Argentinians?

tac

bwatson · 18-02-2012 11:08pm

54kroc wrote: »

Theres a big difference between the US and the little old UK.

Little old UK can still pack a fairly powerful punch if it wants to though, don't you fret.

Lemming · 18-02-2012 11:17pm

Maoltuile wrote: »

And the inhabitants of Hong Kong haven't been accorded the same 'rights' to be British before being handed over to Communist China. But, this is turning into a political discussion.

Britain, had Hong Kong on 'lease' on agreement from the Chinese by agreements dating back to the mid 19th century. Those treaty agreements expired. You are effectively trying to compare an apple to an orange. The histories of Hong Kong & the Falkland Islands are not even remotely similar in political or socio-economic terms.

Maoltuile wrote: »

The suggestion that the royal heir just happens to be posted there is laughable. And the 'warship' usually deployed down there isn't typically a state of the art destroyer with more important things to be doing.

Two things;

1. Being posted to the Falklands is considered one of the sh*tiest deployments for UK forces as far as I am aware. Others who post here can correct me on that if I'm wrong. It has been suspected that the RAF deployed Prince William to make a point within its own ranks that whilst yes he may be heir to the throne, he's still wearing the uniform and has to abide by orders just like anyone else, even if it includes deployment to a fairly sh*te location.

2. As has already been pointed out, the deployment of the new type 95 destroyer is replacing an older model, & is something that has been done on a recurring basis. So Argentina trying to make capital from this is just dishonest politics at its "finest".

On a separate issue - Typhoons, really? Has anyone bought those white elephants without bribery?

So, you're flying a Skyhawk. Do you fancy going up against a modern fighter? Any modern fighter? No? Well then what difference does it make if it's a Typhoon or a F22 when your own airforce capabilities have effectively stood still for thirty years? You are well and truly neck deep in it.

The Argentines have said nothing, done nothing to give any indication that they've any interest in war. All of the military activity has been on the British side.

I'll direct you to a direct quote from De Kischner;

"Give peace a chance, give peace a chance. Not war".

Now, so far, the only politicians to have used the 'W' word have been the Argentinians. Take from that what you will.

MANUTD99 · 18-02-2012 11:41pm

bwatson wrote: »

I'd love to see Britain take note of the US navy's way of doing things when it comes to hostile threats. Basically, I would be totally supportive of the Royal Navy flattening as many Argentine government buildings, air defences, power stations, important pieces infrastructure, military instillations etc as possible should they dare threaten British citizens again. Use up the stocks of Tomahawks. Dissuade them from ever attempting again.

You'd be a fantastic politician in America so you would. Lets claim our land which is 8000 miles from England and against the evil Argentina which is 300 miles away

bwatson · 18-02-2012 11:56pm

MANUTD99 wrote: »

You'd be a fantastic politician in America so you would. Lets claim our land which is 8000 miles from England and against the evil Argentina which is 300 miles away

I take it you would have no problem with me claiming the Irish Republic for Great Britain then? Its far closer to Great Britain than the Falklands are to Argentina.

Sure I'll just get onto the Chief of the General Staff, shall I? No doubt the 1st Armoured Division will be in Dublin by Tuesday.

MANUTD99 · 19-02-2012 12:01am

bwatson wrote: »

I take it you would have no problem with me claiming the Irish Republic for Great Britain then? Its far closer to Great Britain than the Falklands are to Argentina.

Sure I'll just get onto the Chief of the General Staff, shall I? No doubt the 1st Armoured Division will be in Dublin by Tuesday.

I call tool, gets jacket and leaves thread, goodnight

bwatson · 19-02-2012 12:03am

MANUTD99 wrote: »

I call tool, gets jacket and leaves thread, goodnight

I don't see the difference. Would you care to explain?

The majority of people in the Irish Republic do not want to be British, regardless of how close Britain is. The Majority of Falklanders do not want to be Argentine, regardless of how close Argentina is.

Don't forget to pick up your Man Utd scarf either.

Donny5 · 19-02-2012 12:07am

MANUTD99 wrote: »

You'd be a fantastic politician in America so you would. Lets claim our land which is 8000 miles from England and against the evil Argentina which is 300 miles away

That's silly. It's not as though the Brits kicked the Argentinians out. The Brits arrived 130 years before the Argentinians, and when the Brits found them, they were uninhabited.

Maoltuile · 19-02-2012 12:34am

bwatson wrote: »

You are one deluded fool. What have the tories done except maintain that the wishes of the islanders will always be the most important thing?

And you, kind sir, appear to be off your meds.

Maoltuile · 19-02-2012 12:39am

OS119 wrote: »

your logic is flawed - if Argentina is not ramping up because its made the same claim for years, how is the UK ramping up when it has been deploying same forces to the Islands since 1983?

four fighters - firstly F-4 Phantoms, then Tornado F3's, now Typhoon.

1 major surface combatant as South Atlantic Patrol Ship (covering an area from Assension Island to the Caribean, to the FI and out to Southern Africa) - either a Type 42 Destroyer, a Type 22 or T23 Frigate, and now a Type 45 Destroyer.

1 infantry Company - it used to be an Infantry Battalion, but it was decided it wasn't neccesary.

1 tanker aircraft.

1 transport aircraft.

1 submarine - a submarine covers the same patrol area as the SAPS, but is only deployed for about 6 months of the year.

that it - exactly the same forces have been on/around the Islands since the 1982 war. i imagine if you googled it you could even get the ships names and patrol dates.

The Type 45 is really a cruiser at 8,000 tonnes (the 'destroyer' designation is just for the benefit of the Treasury/politicians, as was calling the Type 22's 'frigates' and the Invincibles 'through deck cruisers'). So yes, I'm afraid I have to be the one to tell you that dispatching it does represent an increase in UK forces.

And do you really mean to tell me that you believe the tour of young officer Windsor is a coincidence...?

Maoltuile · 19-02-2012 12:46am

Donny5 wrote: »

That's silly. It's not as though the Brits kicked the Argentinians out. The Brits arrived 130 years before the Argentinians, and when the Brits found them, they were uninhabited.

That's not quite the end of it, though. The Argentinians inherited the Spanish "right" to them, irrespective of whether they put someone on the islands or not. And as we discovered with Hong Kong, Diego Garcia etc. the Brits are selective in who can and can't exercise the supposed right to self-determination.

The curious non-British status of the Falklands kelpers was covered at length in that "Falklands War" magazine series from the Eighties, by the way.

Donny5 · 19-02-2012 1:00am

Maoltuile wrote: »

That's not quite the end of it, though. The Argentinians inherited the Spanish "right" to them, irrespective of whether they put someone on the islands or not. And as we discovered with Hong Kong, Diego Garcia etc. the Brits are selective in who can and can't exercise the supposed right to self-determination.

The curious non-British status of the Falklands kelpers was covered at length in that "Falklands War" magazine series from the Eighties, by the way.

The historical Spanish claim is no different to the British, and the current British claim has 180+ years of almost continuous occupation and local support. The Argentinians have neither.

cruasder777 · 19-02-2012 1:11am

Delancey wrote: »

No , there is a lot of ' Sabre Rattling ' all right coming from Argentina but IMO thats all it is - the British built a substantial airport on the islands after the war and they can , if required , quickly re-inforce their air presence there not to mention the rumoured presence of their attack submarines in the South Atlantic.
Ironically if the Argentines had never attacked in 1982 now would be the time to do it - Royal Navy has no working aircraft carriers now so there would not be much they could do about an invasion.
Royal Navy also now has only a limited amphibious attack capability.

Argentina is waging a successful diplomatic campaign against the islands and seems to be winning support from neighbouring countries - in the long run this may prove decisive .

They have also got the worlds most advanced destroyer patroling which is capable of shooting down the entire Argentinian air force from 80 miles away. Also a sub, a battalion, and fighters.

Argentina could not land troops, it does not have the capability.

"In an "intensive attack" a single Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers operating together.[10]"

Daring embarking on sea trials in 2007

Anti-air
Sea Viper missile system.

SAMPSON multi-function air tracking radar. (range 400 km)
S1850M 3D air surveillance radar, capable of tracking up-to 1,000 targets. (range 400 km)
48 cell SYLVER A-50 VLS for accommodation of up to 48× MBDA Aster missiles. A mix of;
- Aster 15 - anti-air missiles (range 2-30km)
- Aster 30 - anti-air missiles (also anti-ballistic missile capable) (range 3-120 km)

dowlingm · 19-02-2012 7:36am

First of all, regardless of rights or wrongs or comparisons to Ireland etc, the UK holds the island and the international community by and large accepts that. Having spent blood and treasure to get them back in 1982, it's unlikely a future UK government will see it any differently.

Turning to the military angle, the UK's HMS Conqueror (laid down in the late 60s) sank Belgrano with two out of three launched Mark 8** torpedoes, a WW2 era weapon. There was also some patrolling to try and give early warning of Skyhawk raids but nothing could be done bar radio in.

HMS Astute or a Trafalgar class sub loaded with Spearfish and Tomahawk could have laid out Belgrano AND at least some of its escorts AND launched a strike on Falklands airfields (to higher precision than Black Buck) AND a strike on the nearest Skyhawk airfield in a single patrol while remaining hundreds of miles off the Argentine coast. As noted above the RN has fired Tomahawk before and has purchased the newest Block IV type.

As long as the Yanks didn't try and exercise any veto over the last above (since they supply the TLAMs) I reckon that would be game set and match for the UK since a successful strike on the Argentine mainland must surely call a halt without the need to hit the Falklands or any naval surface assets. The RN might have been stripped to the bone but the bone still has enough marrow in it to keep the Falklands.

The Argentines must know this, so logic suggests it must be sabre rattling. The alternative is too mad to contemplate. There's only one way the Argentines get the Falklands and that's if they buy them - enough to buy out the UK's interest in the oil and the cost of generously resettling the islanders, with the UK recognizing that this would save them massive sums on an ongoing basis and thus asking for a realistic price.

South Georgia could be kept out of it so that UK could retain an legitimate interest in the Antarctic mainland and the same treaty could and should contain provisions to end any disputes between Argentina and the UK over the boundaries of their Antarctic Territories, or better yet yield up both claims in favour of the United Nations with both countries bases having the status of embassies/consulates.

Manic Moran · 19-02-2012 9:49am

Maoltuile wrote: »

The Type 45 is really a cruiser at 8,000 tonnes (the 'destroyer' designation is just for the benefit of the Treasury/politicians, as was calling the Type 22's 'frigates' and the Invincibles 'through deck cruisers'). So yes, I'm afraid I have to be the one to tell you that dispatching it does represent an increase in UK forces.

British warship nomenclature tends to make sense when you look at it. As a general rule, if it's an ocean-going warship with only one primary role, it's a frigate. If it's got two roles, eg ASuW and AAW, it's a destroyer. If it can do all three, it's a cruiser. The -45s are AAW and ASuW primarily with only limited ASW capability.

Other nations tend to go by displacement or endurance. The US Navy, for example, the only notable combat difference between a hangar-equipped Burke destroyer and a Tico cruiser is the latter has a larger missile magazine capacity, and is a bit bigger.

And do you really mean to tell me that you believe the tour of young officer Windsor is a coincidence...?

So what was the signal being sent when HRH went on a counter-drug tour aboard HMS Iron Duke in the Caribbean?

NTM

tac foley · 19-02-2012 11:47am

Whether we are commissioned into the UK's Army, Royal Navy or Royal Air Force, the wording on the commission is the same - 'You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge yout DUTY as such in the Rank of xxxxxxxxxxx......We do hereby Command them [inferior ranks] to Obey you and to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any your superior Officer, according to the Rules and Disciplines of War'.

In that respect, Princes William and Harry got the exact same wording on THEIR commission as I did on mine - the only difference was that theirs were signed by their mom.

They might be royal princes, but they are the same as me in every other respect - officers in the Armed Forces who go where they are sent, the same way as I was.

tac

tac foley · 19-02-2012 11:49am

dowlingm wrote: »

HMS Astute or a Trafalgar class sub loaded with Spearfish and Tomahawk could have laid out Belgrano AND at least some of its escorts AND launched a strike on Falklands airfields (to higher precision than Black Buck) AND a strike on the nearest Skyhawk airfield in a single patrol while remaining hundreds of miles off the Argentine coast. As noted above the RN has fired Tomahawk before and has purchased the newest Block IV type.

+1.

Precisely the point I have been trying, so far with no success, to make.

tac

Maoltuile · 19-02-2012 12:28pm

tac foley wrote: »

They might be royal princes, but they are the same as me in every other respect - officers in the Armed Forces who go where they are sent, the same way as I was.

I don't believe this for a second (the Windsor family are vital to British national interests, and all that) and I'm surprised that someone would bother to claim it.

Their 'service' is what it has been for at least a century now: an extended rolling PR exercise to rehabilitate the fairly loathsome Windsors using new, untainted generations.

Border-Rat · 19-02-2012 1:53pm

Adml Woodward said with the Armed Forces already "over-committed" in Afghanistan and Libya and the Navy drastically weakened following last year's defence review "the answer appears to be that we can do precisely nothing"

Admiral Sandy Woodward.

bwatson · 19-02-2012 2:08pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

Admiral Sandy Woodward.

Why do you continually post the same tired quote? Do you have nothing else to add to these conversations? No opinion or viewpoint of your own?

I assume the answer to both questions would be no.

Seeing as you are a well noted outspoken critic of Britain on this board, I'm sure you would have done so by this point.

Why are you, as an Irish republican, so interested in the British Armed Forces anyway?

Maoltuile · 19-02-2012 2:23pm

bwatson wrote: »

Why are you, as an Irish republican, so interested in the British Armed Forces anyway?

Why are *you* posting on a .ie military forum?

bwatson · 19-02-2012 2:25pm

Maoltuile wrote: »

Why are *you* posting on a .ie military forum?

What do you mean by the asterisks?

Maoltuile · 19-02-2012 2:30pm

bwatson wrote: »

What do you mean by the asterisks?

It's called emphasis.

bwatson · 19-02-2012 2:47pm

Maoltuile wrote: »

It's called emphasis.

Not necessarily, which is why I asked.

The bluntness of your response was very out of place considering this.

Seeing as bold fonts, colours etc were available to you - which are far more often used to symbolize the importance of a certain word or phrase in media such as message boards and other forms of textual communications - I was not at all sure of your intention.

Falklands War The Second?

Comments