Falklands War The Second?

OS119

gatecrash wrote: »

...Do you not think that a trained team of SF troops could evacuate the a/c a lot quicker?...

yes, they could - but how do they get there?

'civil' airliners don't just appear at the end of MPA's runways declaring an emercency. the AirSearch radars on Mts Kent, Alice and Byron will see a civil air liner about 250 miles away.

given that the FI aren't on the way to anywhere the only aircraft its radars should ever see are aircraft going there - and there's a short list of times and days on which those aircraft are expected - it is simply impossible to 'sneek up' on the FI using an airliner, unless you want to fly at low level - and how do you think the FI are going to react when a 'civil' airliner turns up in the FIADZ at 200ft, then declares and emergency and makes a bee-line for MPA?

its a scenario thats been 'gamed' a number of times - and it still doesn't work - yes you get some damage, but the truth is that there is too much immediately available fire-power (not to mention runway clearing equipment) at MPA for such an op to work. such jobs require the 'defender' to not know theres an issue until the opposition SF pull their rifles out of the bags, and to then not have enough time to gather enough force/firepower to stop the SF doing their job. that situation doesn't arise at MPA because there's lots of firepower available very quickly, the targets for the SF are very widely spaced - and therefore time consuming - and MPA is extremely suspicious both of aircraft it doesn't have on its list, or who make any attempt to evade detection.

cyrusdvirus

OS119 wrote: »

yes, they could - but how do they get there?

'civil' airliners don't just appear at the end of MPA's runways declaring an emercency. the AirSearch radars on Mts Kent, Alice and Byron will see a civil air liner about 250 miles away.

given that the FI aren't on the way to anywhere the only aircraft its radars should ever see are aircraft going there - and there's a short list of times and days on which those aircraft are expected - it is simply impossible to 'sneek up' on the FI using an airliner, unless you want to fly at low level - and how do you think the FI are going to react when a 'civil' airliner turns up in the FIADZ at 200ft, then declares and emergency and makes a bee-line for MPA?

its a scenario thats been 'gamed' a number of times - and it still doesn't work - yes you get some damage, but the truth is that there is too much immediately available fire-power (not to mention runway clearing equipment) at MPA for such an op to work. such jobs require the 'defender' to not know theres an issue until the opposition SF pull their rifles out of the bags, and to then not have enough time to gather enough force/firepower to stop the SF doing their job. that situation doesn't arise at MPA because there's lots of firepower available very quickly, the targets for the SF are very widely spaced - and therefore time consuming - and MPA is extremely suspicious both of aircraft it doesn't have on its list, or who make any attempt to evade detection.

Back in the late 70's Air New Zealand used to run charter sight seeing flights down to Antarctica and back. What's to stop the Argentine National Airline running some flights out of Buenos Aires doing the same? They have a/c with the legs, the A340.

One of them on a scheduled sight seeing flight suddenly 'declares' an emergency??

(by the way, i'm not saying this is likely, and it is straying into the Walter Mitty arena, I'm just playing Devils advocate)

BostonB

I guess they've had 30 yrs of preparing for exactly that. I assume they'd be suspicious of anything out of the ordinary.

BostonB

How about this

http://nathanconquersuk.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/57765monty-python1.jpg

cyrusdvirus

BostonB wrote: »

How about this

http://nathanconquersuk.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/57765monty-python1.jpg

Ah yes... the pre prototype of the A340. Ye Olde A340.

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

I guess they've had 30 yrs of preparing for exactly that. I assume they'd be suspicious of anything out of the ordinary.

it was long considered - and probably still is - far more likely that a problem would come in the face of an Argentine civil protest making its way to the islands than a conventional militiary incursion - though it had been noted that a 'civil' protest/demonstration would make a superb cover/distraction for a military incursion....

the civil protest was always the one that caused headaches - the people involved could be arrested for trespass or immigration offences, but it would play into their hands to have them arrested by Soldiers/Airmen in DPM with rifles etc.. so the hope was that they'd go to Stanley and be arrested by the Falklands Police, though the FP are pretty small, so having a fishing boat with 50 crusties on it (not one of whom was an Argentine Intelligence Officer - oh no siree..) making a nusance of themselves in Stanley harbour would probably overwhelm them.

Gatecrash - don't worry, its a tradition at BFSAI to believe that the last guy in your post was an idle, unthinking and complacent drunk who gambled with the islands safety, but actually there's a massive room full of 'what happens if they try this?...' exercises, and we find that we've got a reasonably plausable answer for most of them - though some of it comes close to 'what happens if the Argentines develop a Death Star...'.

that said, if you offered CBFSAI another 4 Typhoons, 4 Tornado GR4's, an AWACS, another Tanker, two Reapers and four Jungly Sea-Kings and 4 Apaches and a hundred coppers he's bite your hand off.

veloc123

feeney92 wrote: »

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

I hope not I am going on a stag there soon with a bunch of welsh lads ya know cause the sheep shagging is good there....

veloc123

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.

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

You sound like a Tan....

xflyer

Thank you for that in depth commentary on the subject. Now off you go back to After Hours or wherever your kind of 'wit' is appreciated.:rolleyes:

getz

the argentine goverment has put its self between a rock and a hard place,it does not recognize the rights and goverment of the folklands residents [yet they have been there longer than the existence than argentina] so she will not talk to them,she also has had WRITTEN IN HER CONSTITUTION that any argentine goverments are not allowed to negotiate on the future of the falklands without the result full sovereignty,and after the way she treats her own citizens who would be daft enough to want to be ruled by them,

OS119

getz wrote: »

the argentine goverment has put its self between a rock and a hard place...

the real rock and hard place they've put themselves between is that they've ramped up the rhetoric and action to a point that they can't back away from without looking deepily foolish/weak, but don't have the political/economic/military power to change the current situation.

they've effectively said 'the current situation is unexceptable to Argentina - and we're going to change it to one more acceptable', but aren't going to be able too, and are somehow going to have to find a plausible narrative to give to the electorate that doesn't cause them great political pain.

the Argentine media is full of comment about how this is just politically convenient nonsense thats an utterly transparent attempt to deflect political/economic bad news - and we all know that, but it puts even more pressure on the Argentine President to have some kind of 'victory' that she can wave in their faces and say 'look, not only am i not a idiot, but this was not just the normal distraction politics - i've acheived something'.

this is my concern - that as every week goes by with the economic and political measures she's trying having no effect - and with the resultant media/electoral criticism of both her reasons for the policy, and the failure of that policy, she needs a victory more and more to justify herself. at some stage she could become desperate, and when she gets desperate she might decide that the risks of military action are no longer outweighed by the consequences of inaction.

she's in a hole, and she needs to stop digging - but if she stops digging other people will dig for her. this is not a technical issue about the corelation of forces, its purely subjective political judgements about competing risks.

getz

hit the nail on the head, last year there was a diplomatic fallout between argentina and the US over the confiscation of military items in ezeir, the argentine foreign minister hector timerman presented a official written letter to the US emassy in buenos aires they also criticised washingtons behavour pointing out if the reverse had happened, ;they would be in guantanamo; the US state department expressed dismay at the behavour of argentina,officials claim it has damaged relations between the two countries, senater ernesto sanze pointed out,that it is suspicious that when this goverment has serious domestic problems it looks to involve itself in a loud international fight,

BostonB

getz wrote: »

... when this goverment has serious domestic problems it looks to involve itself in a loud international fight,

Which? US or Arg?

Fratton Fred

A Brazilian colleague gave an interesting angle to this.

The Guarani Aquifer could, in years to come, be one of the worlds most valuable resources and whilst most of South America couldn't give a rats about the Falklands, a european country having the potential to stick a large military force right in their back yard isn't something they are particularly comfortable with.

The four countries that contain the aquifer are the original Mercosur countries.

xflyer

Well it's been often predicted that in the future, wars won't be fought over oil but water.

Which does make the Falklands very strategic indeed!

thecommietommy

xflyer wrote: »

Well it's been often predicted that in the future, wars won't be fought over oil but water.

Which does make the Falklands very strategic indeed!

More reason for Argentina to try and get them then so ??

getz

thecommietommy wrote: »

More reason for Argentina to try and get them then so ??

the old colonial powers in south america have left bad memories,not many have statues to their previous masters,so it always upsets those countries who see the UK as a colonial power still on their continent,

johngalway

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A Brazilian colleague gave an interesting angle to this.

The Guarani Aquifer could, in years to come, be one of the worlds most valuable resources and whilst most of South America couldn't give a rats about the Falklands, a european country having the potential to stick a large military force right in their back yard isn't something they are particularly comfortable with.

The four countries that contain the aquifer are the original Mercosur countries.

Done a small bit of reading about Guarani, the Argentinians, and an American billionaire who owns land there. The Argentinians have opened up his land to Indigenous persons I guess is the PC :rolleyes: term.

Remind anyone of anywhere?

Sunnyisland

Might be of Interest to some people here

Channel 5 on tuesday night at 20.00

The Great Falklands Gamble: Revealed

The film reveals chilling parallels with current government budget cuts. In 1982, Defence Minister John Nott was on the brink of scrapping Britain’s amphibious warfare capabilities. If the Argentinians had invaded just eight weeks later, the ships and equipment needed for the operation would already have been decommissioned.
There are also shocking accounts of British warships destroyed by Argentinian bombs, men burnt alive, bombs crashing through the decks of ships, night attacks up mountainous slopes and merciless hand-to-hand fighting, all made worse by unsuitable equipment and shortages of helicopters.
By explaining the hair-raising realities of individual battles, this programme sheds new light on a decisive and historic British victory.

Lemming

realies wrote: »

Might be of Interest to some people here

Channel 5 on tuesday night at 20.00

The Great Falklands Gamble: Revealed

The film reveals chilling parallels with current government budget cuts. In 1982, Defence Minister John Nott was on the brink of scrapping Britain’s amphibious warfare capabilities. If the Argentinians had invaded just eight weeks later, the ships and equipment needed for the operation would already have been decommissioned.
There are also shocking accounts of British warships destroyed by Argentinian bombs, men burnt alive, bombs crashing through the decks of ships, night attacks up mountainous slopes and merciless hand-to-hand fighting, all made worse by unsuitable equipment and shortages of helicopters.
By explaining the hair-raising realities of individual battles, this programme sheds new light on a decisive and historic British victory.

Link for anyone able to access the stream.

Thanks for the heads-up realies

thecommietommy

realies wrote: »

Might be of Interest to some people here

Channel 5 on tuesday night at 20.00

The Great Falklands Gamble: Revealed

The film reveals chilling parallels with current government budget cuts. In 1982, Defence Minister John Nott was on the brink of scrapping Britain’s amphibious warfare capabilities. If the Argentinians had invaded just eight weeks later, the ships and equipment needed for the operation would already have been decommissioned.
There are also shocking accounts of British warships destroyed by Argentinian bombs, men burnt alive, bombs crashing through the decks of ships, night attacks up mountainous slopes and merciless hand-to-hand fighting, all made worse by unsuitable equipment and shortages of helicopters.
By explaining the hair-raising realities of individual battles, this programme sheds new light on a decisive and historic British victory.

Not only if the Argentineans had invaded just eight weeks later, but the British were even pondering of getting rid of them anyway !!!! Of all the most useless conflicts, the one over 2 craggy little islands, would if it not for the number of deaths, make a good script for a comedy movie.

thecommietommy

Interesting link here. " Israel secretly supplied arms and equipment to Argentina during the Falklands War due to Prime Minister Menachem Begin's personal hatred of the British, a new book discloses.....Air to air missiles, missile radar alert systems, fuel tanks for fighter bombers and gas masks were dispatched from Israel apparently destined for Peru but were then transported on to Argentina, it claims. "

So much for Britain and Israel's ' close ' relationship ?? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8463934/Israel-supplied-arms-to-Argentina-during-Falklands-War.html

BostonB

If you read the book about the Black Buck raid you'd see they had to resort to searching museums for some of the parts for that. Decommissioned wouldn't have been that much a hurdle to over come. Unless the vessels were unfit to be recommissioned.

thecommietommy

BostonB wrote: »

If you read the book about the Black Buck raid you'd see they had to resort to searching museums for some of the parts for that. Decommissioned wouldn't have been that much a hurdle to over come. Unless the vessels were unfit to be recommissioned.

" they " the Argentineans or the British or both ?

BostonB

thecommietommy wrote: »

" they " the Argentineans or the British or both ?

It was a British raid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck

Its a decent book if you are into aviation.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vulcan-607-Rowland-White/dp/0593053915

Fratton Fred

thecommietommy wrote: »

Not only if the Argentineans had invaded just eight weeks later, but the British were even pondering of getting rid of them anyway !!!! Of all the most useless conflicts, the one over 2 craggy little islands, would if it not for the number of deaths, make a good script for a comedy movie.

So should Britain have just abandoned the falkland islanders then?

cyrusdvirus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So should Britain have just abandoned the falkland islanders then?

It appears that there are a few users on this site who think that the needs and desires of a few thousand people to be ruled from the UK shouldn't be taken into consideration.

Who cares about self determination etc..... :rolleyes:

thecommietommy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So should Britain have just abandoned the falkland islanders then?

Didn't stop them from abandoning Hong Kong and God knows how many other colonies of the old empire And besides FFS, they were thinking of getting rid of the 2 craggy islands anyway.

But what do you think of Israel's role in supplying the Argentine's ?

thecommietommy

gatecrash wrote: »

It appears that there are a few users on this site who think that the needs and desires of a few thousand people to be ruled from the UK shouldn't be taken into consideration.

Who cares about self determination etc..... :rolleyes:

I know, it's not like the Brits would ever occupy any country against the wishes of it's inhabitants !!!!

cyrusdvirus

thecommietommy wrote: »

And besides FFS, they were thinking of getting rid of the 2 craggy islands anyway.
?

Hong Kong was leased. The lease was up, and not extended.


As for the quoted bit, you got a source to back up that assertion?