Las Malvinas.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

I dont see how Im supposed to have changed my position - within the recent past/last decade this present time remains the most likely time for any military involvement.
i.e - if I had to place a bet at any point over the last 15 or so years I'd reluctantly place it on 2014, it may be unlikely to win, but its the most likely of the given choices. I've explained why this is so several times now - when was the last time an Argentine president sent an open letter regarding the islands to a British newspaper or threatened company execs with imprisonment for taking part in what Argentina considers to be theft of its resources, when was the last time the Argentine defense budget jumped 25%.

Ok, sabres can be rattled, letters can be written, currencies can be re-designed and budgets can be increased.

Saying the Argentinians are more likely this year to mount any kind of operation to 'recover' the Islands is a bit like saying, next week I'm more likely to win the Euromillions because I bought two tickets instead of one - it may be factually true, but the odds are still vanishingly small.

How in your deluded world would it work? Let's assume the President calls in the respective Chiefs of Staff and issues the requisite orders, and that the population have been duped (again, all extremely unlikely, but lets assume its true).

How would they organise the necessary manpower, equipment, logistics etc and get it into position (in Argentina) without the British knowing? How would they procure the ammunition, food, fuel and other sundries needed without drawing attention to a sudden spend?

And if they could do that without the British, Americans or French figuring out what was going on - how would they then get to the Islands undetected, across 300 miles of ocean, possibly patrolled by at least one of the RN's attack boats, and land their forces when they have only ONE amphibious capable vessel and ONE tender?

And even if they did assemble their force undetected, arrange its supplies, crossed the ocean and landed - how would they keep them supplied? How do you think any armed force the Argentinians could land would do against forces that have been, effectively, at war for most of the last decade-and-a-half and that could have attack helis on station within 24 hours?

How would they even secure some kind of air dominance? They'd end up sending the cream of their pilots to destruction........again.

So, yes 2014 is "....... the most likely of the given choices" but only if the other choices are any other year between now and never.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Tell me how 'my ignorance' has once again been exposed. (loving all the constant attention btw - its all about me me me) Yes, Im well aware there will be two aircraft carriers.
Theres more places out there to patrol than the far ends of the south atlantic. Big globe.

You clearly have no idea of what it takes to operate a carrier force or carrier battle group when you talked about the British having an "Aircraft carrier permanently stationed in stanley just in case."

FFS, even if the British did decided to put a carrier down there on anything like a permanent basis they wouldn't confine it to the littoral or create for themselves the complexity of having to crew, supply and sustain something as sophisticated as a CBG to meet a non-existent threat........and as I said two carriers rarely means two carriers on deployment.

I'm glad you're enjoying the attention, hopefully you're getting an education from it.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

As you may be aware the islands defense policy is to be capable of repelling anything coming from Argentina and while mount pleasant is sufficient for now, it can't be said that will always be the case. In my previous post I briefly refer to the question of what exactly is going to happen in the coming decades - Argentina as a country is set to see exponential growth and millions of new citizens in that time.
With those citizens, and the presently increasing military budget (projected by the given market analyst at $8.1 billion p.a by 2018) will come new military abilities .... naturally. Given that theres almost a 2:1 citizen soldier ratio on the islands at present - what might the place look like in 20 years if the policy of keeping in line with Argentinas abilities is maintained.

The word literally is often used, but in this case it's appropriate - the British aircraft used in the Falklands War are now 'literally' museum pieces - coincidentally, I was looking at Harrier XZ997, a Falklands veteran, in Northolt yesterday. The RAF have moved on to Tiffies and the RN/RAF will be getting F-35s what will the AAF have to contest the air? - At present the Argentinians are still doing their best with pretty much the same kit and in some cases the same airframes they had in 1982 with no sign of anything better.

That's before you go on to look at other systems such as the TLAM, the Tactical TLAM and Storm Shadow - the integration of which on the Typhoon is due to be completed next year so you can be sure there'll be a few of those in a shed somewhere on RAF Mount Pleasant.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

At that later time Britain will realize that its pointless to have whats effectively an increasingly expensive fortress in the south Atlantic which generates only negative relations with south america's biggest trading block. At this point it will be realized that the previously presented plans for leaseback of the islands, submitted by British politicians themselves, are the sensible option.

- monocle

Well if you want we can go around on your crazy train again - the defence of the Islands costs the UK defence budget a minuscule amount - less than 1% of their defence budget.

To keep things simple for you and to return to John Slessor (the point at which you first demonstrated your lack of knowledge on these matters) - an amphibious landing (according to Slessor and most navies who know about these things) requires air superiority at least. To obtain air superiority an attacking air force - to use Slessor's crude 'formulas' - needs to be able to maintain an advantage of 6:1 over the defender. So to counter those four Tiffies the Argentinians need to be able field 24 comparable aircraft.

Let's be generous at this point and say the AAF can maintain an unheralded 90% serviceability rate during combat ops - that means having 27 fighters to make sure that you have the necessary 24 available to combat the 4 Typhoons.

Then you've got to figure that a few are going to be pranged in accidents and the like, but despite their armourers incompetence, AAF pilots are bloody good so optimistically they might only write off 10% in non-combat flying - that brings us to a nice round figure of about 30 Typhoon equivalent aircraft - at $125m per airframe that's $3.75billion!!

I suppose based on your figures they could buy them as long as they scaled back their army, their navy, their marines, cut everyone's pay, fed everyone less, rationed ammunition, didn't buy much fuel and opted not to buy anything to arm the aircraft with.......

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Well the odds are certainly small, though not as small as your analogy.
The two lotto tickets things does however show that you've finally grasped the concept.
Britain doesn't seem to think the odds are as unlikely as you do, which is why we see the issue being addressed on tv by mps.




Again I personally dont suppose Argentina will go to war. Ive made that clear already.



See above.




see above.


And even if they did assemble their force undetected, arrange its supplies, crossed the ocean and landed - how would they keep them supplied? How do you think any armed force the Argentinians could land would do against forces that have been, effectively, at war for most of the last decade-and-a-half and that could have attack helis on station within 24 hours?

How would they even secure some kind of air dominance? They'd end up sending the cream of their pilots to destruction........again.

[see above]

You're asking me to draw up a fictional battle plan for something I said I dont think will happen.




Ah good, you agree with my op.




Yeah, you shouldn't actually read that literally. Im making the point that if the present conditions are maintained the islands will basically be a fortress with some citizens added on.


Nope, (and from who exactly) but it does make me laugh at times.



But its not always going to be 1982 is it.




And what exactly do the British public (new generations) get in return for their numerically huge investment.
What will their investment reap for them.
Will their businesses operate well in south America, in the mercosur countries. Who do you think might be the last option for any business where possible.

We've seen a predisposition by both past British foreign office ministers (see earlier post with proposal for leaseback) for sharing the islands.
And present day mps - Galloway, Covey. For similar.
Simply because those options make consistent sense and are the most sensible in terms of maximum benefit to Britain.


(And the British public (see ipsos mori poll) for direct UK control of the islands - which in this case makes great sense - why leave your entire South American foreign relations in the hands of 2500 people) )



Herein the proposal that Argentina's forces will never equate with those possibly fielded by Britain some 14,000 km away.
Never.

Still trying to cover up your knowledge deficit.......keep rowing back, who knows we may yet forget some of your 'gems'

Incidentally, you do know when Hague visited Brazil, the Falklands wasn't even raised - that's how much the other countries in the region care

http://en.mercopress.com/2014/03/22/the-falklands-malvinas-brazil-s-next-regional-headache

Why get into a snit over a few rocks when there is trade to be traded and business to be done.

As for what the UK gets from the Falklands - well great training ops for a start.......