Argentine Invasion Of Falklands

…

Argentina’s entire military budget couldn’t sustain what the UK armed forces are doing on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than a week or two at most….
Unicorn

Bit of an exaggeration. Argentinas military budget is about the same as the total UK defence budget for two weeks, or about the same as the annual supplement for operations in Afghanistan & Iraq. Considerably less than those wars are costing us in a year (the supplement doesn’t cover the costs, unfortunately), but a large fraction of it.

All wars lead to economic hardship. And at the end of the day, the question is one of political will. And all indications are that there is no political will at the moment in Arg to take over the islands. But if such a political will were to develop, then do not underestimate what Arg can do to both the british economy but also to the armed forces. There will be no “short sharp war” that you would like to see. Arg will not play by your rules anymore and will drag it out. And the richer the economy, the more it has to lose in a protracted war.

Tell that to a nation that is currently maintaining armed forces around the globe and is involved in two shooting wars on the far side of the world.

Argentina’s entire military budget couldn’t sustain what the UK armed forces are doing on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than a week or two at most.

In a protracted cold war the western economies are able to maintain the expenditure required far better than smaller, limited economies because they intrinsically create far more wealth per head of population.

For a textbook case look at the USSR’s economic dilemma in the 1970-80s.

Unicorn

One major thing to consider is that Venezuela would be very happy to lend them some assets, without necessarily getting directly involved (i.e. to prevent US involvement).

Oh, Chavez would know what any hard help (bar diplomatic bluster) would give the Americans all the justification they needed to get involved.

One major thing to consider is that Venezuela would be very happy to lend them some assets, without necessarily getting directly involved (i.e. to prevent US involvement). They could help Argentina out, at the very least with a few Ilyushin Il-78s, and potentially with a few Flankers. This is not just speculation – Chavez has made comments about wanting to see the Malvinas back in Argentine hands. Also, it has to be remembered that the current leader of Argentina, Kirchner, is known to be in favour of recovering the islands by force, and has said so before. This doesn’t mean it would happen, but all the leaders are in place for it to happen, i.e. a pro-invasion leader in Argentina, and Chavez to bankroll it.

Ex-leader, very soon. He’s quitting as president. His wife’s just been elected, with about twice the vote he got – and despite expectations, she’s already talking about changing some policies he was refusing to back down from.

Also, Kirchner & his party hate & fear the armed forces & the feeling’s mutual. They’re unlikely to back a military expansion, regardless of who pays for it. And Argentina currently has plenty of money, & could easily afford to spend some on the military, but it isn’t happening. Not even replacing things which are wearing out, or repairing all the equipment sitting idle for lack of money for maintenance. Kirchner is so keen on recovering Las Malvinas he couldn’t be bothered to attend the 25th anniversary ceremony. Sent the vice-president, to the fury of the generals. But he did attend the opening of a museum to victims of military rule a couple of years ago, in a former Navy building which the armed forces had objected to being handed over for that use. He personally removed the pictures of generals from the walls. He personally pushed through a repeal of the amnesty for crimes committed under the military government of 1976-83, & reversed a ban on extraditions for those crimes. What does that tell you? A few words about Las Malvinas for the Peronist mob is one thing, actually giving the armed forces (his enemies!) the means to do anything except parade neatly is totally different.

For Venezuela to lend Argentina assets before an invasion (BTW, you forgot to mention landing ships – very handy indeed) would give the game away. After an invasion aircraft would need overflight permissions which couldn’t be taken for granted.

Chavez talks big talk, but a lot of it is clearly more mouth than trousers. For a start, his “revolution” depends for money on the very people at who he aims his rhetoric – and he knows it.

If Venezuela were looking to take in 80 or 90 Sukhoi’s then yes, I could accept the view that Venezuelan assistance might be telling. As it stands though Chavez is only looking to take on about 24 aircraft – barely enough for 2 short squadrons so aerial assistance is going to be limited.

The Kilo’s that Venezuela are meant to be taking delivery of will be more readily deployable in support of Argentina and, of course, infinitely more deniable. The one thing that is absolutely certain though is that those Venezuelan Kilo’s are going to be the most heavily monitored SSK’s in the world. Getting an idea of the presence of a Venezuelan Kilo should therefore not be an issue and tactically speaking Sonar 2087 and Merlin should be up to the challenge.

Other than that, and the usual huffing and puffing rhetoric, there’s not really a lot that Chavez will be able to do.

One major thing to consider is that Venezuela would be very happy to lend them some assets, without necessarily getting directly involved (i.e. to prevent US involvement). They could help Argentina out, at the very least with a few Ilyushin Il-78s, and potentially with a few Flankers. This is not just speculation – Chavez has made comments about wanting to see the Malvinas back in Argentine hands. Also, it has to be remembered that the current leader of Argentina, Kirchner, is known to be in favour of recovering the islands by force, and has said so before. This doesn’t mean it would happen, but all the leaders are in place for it to happen, i.e. a pro-invasion leader in Argentina, and Chavez to bankroll it.

Give it up, mate. You’re stretching credibility too far now. Bizarre fantasies . . .

Agree 100% – he’s not being realistic.

You are correct. It will not be easy given that the local population is so small and everyone knows everyone else pretty much. But it doesnt have to be a large force to cause trouble amongst 2500 inhabitants. Are you saying that all visitors are banned from the islands and a half dozen special agents cant cause trouble, leave and be replaced by others? Wont be that hard with the way the falklands tourism industry is these days. They dont even have to be Argentinians. Killers for hire would also do. What about the fishing fleets? What havoc can they cause? Its certainly will not be a cakewalk for the Arg but it would be fool hardy to think there is no threat and everything will be just like it was back in 82 with the Arg dropping their dockers for a few slaps.

So what you’re suggesting is a few hired assassins, pretending to be fishermen or tourists, without a declaration of war. Hmm. You know their chances of escape would be virtually nil? Therefore not a job you could hire professional hitmen for. That as soon as the first one was caught, the whole thing would blow up in Argentinas face? State sponsors of terrorism don’t get treated nicely nowadays.

BTW, a substantial proportion of those inhabitants are armed & trained.

Give it up, mate. You’re stretching credibility too far now. Bizarre fantasies . . .

How do you fight a guerilla war in a territory in the middle of the ocean, where the population is, to a man & woman, violently opposed to you? Who are these putative insurgents? How do they get there? What do they eat when they get there? Where do they hide, in that bare, open, grassland & bog? In the one, small, town, where every local knows every other, & a foreigner carrying a gun would be arrested in minutes? How do the frogmen get there? Where do they hide?

You are correct. It will not be easy given that the local population is so small and everyone knows everyone else pretty much. But it doesnt have to be a large force to cause trouble amongst 2500 inhabitants. Are you saying that all visitors are banned from the islands and a half dozen special agents cant cause trouble, leave and be replaced by others? Wont be that hard with the way the falklands tourism industry is these days. They dont even have to be Argentinians. Killers for hire would also do. What about the fishing fleets? What havoc can they cause? Its certainly will not be a cakewalk for the Arg but it would be fool hardy to think there is no threat and everything will be just like it was back in 82 with the Arg dropping their dockers for a few slaps.

Heres a few things I think Argentina will need:

Please add to the list..

I would add a small AWACS – maybe like Brazil has or the new one offered by Israel
New tanker and transport aircraft
Good SAM system and MANPADS
Modern infantry equipment
Modern helicopters
Modern anti-ship missiles

Maybe this discussion should turn out to be what would Argentina need to purchase to be able to have a chance at retaking the islands if the government suddenly decides to put a few billion dollars into renovating their armed forces.

—–JT—–

All wars lead to economic hardship. And at the end of the day, the question is one of political will. And all indications are that there is no political will at the moment in Arg to take over the islands. But if such a political will were to develop, then do not underestimate what Arg can do to both the british economy but also to the armed forces. There will be no “short sharp war” that you would like to see. Arg will not play by your rules anymore and will drag it out. And the richer the economy, the more it has to lose in a protracted war.

It is much easler for Arg to fight a guerilla war (provided there is political will) then it is for the UK to send troops to the other end of the world to fight the insurgents. A squadron and a few hundred troops will not cut it. Random shots at troops, scuba divers blowing up ships in port (rainbow warrior). The list is endless.

How do you fight a guerilla war in a territory in the middle of the ocean, where the population is, to a man & woman, violently opposed to you? Who are these putative insurgents? How do they get there? What do they eat when they get there? Where do they hide, in that bare, open, grassland & bog? In the one, small, town, where every local knows every other, & a foreigner carrying a gun would be arrested in minutes? How do the frogmen get there? Where do they hide?

Kaduna, you should not enter into a discussion without at least a modicum of knowledge. Guerilla warfare has certain prerequisites, none of which are present in the Falklands. And the idea that Argentineans might ever be willing to endure significant hardship for the Falklands is absurd, as is the idea that Argentina could do serious damage to the British (as distinct from the Falklands, a very different thing) economy. How do you imagine this happening?

You don’t get it, do you? The 1982 war cost Argentina much more than the UK, not counting military losses. The longer any war, the worse for them. Argentinas economy (despite their wonderful resource endowment) is extremely fragile. Any government that tries your proposed strategy will be committing economic, & hence political, suicide.

All wars lead to economic hardship. And at the end of the day, the question is one of political will. And all indications are that there is no political will at the moment in Arg to take over the islands. But if such a political will were to develop, then do not underestimate what Arg can do to both the british economy but also to the armed forces. There will be no “short sharp war” that you would like to see. Arg will not play by your rules anymore and will drag it out. And the richer the economy, the more it has to lose in a protracted war.

We wouldn’t have a protracted engagement. A modest reinforcement would be plenty to discourage Argentinean action, & if that failed & “body bags started coming home”, then you’re talking about a short sharp war. Argentina doesn’t have the armed forces for anything else. Remember the geography – the islands are several hundred km from the mainland. You can’t fight a naval guerilla war, sinking an occasional ship. Doesn’t work. You eventually end up with no ability whatsoever to sink any ships, & you’ve lost.

It is much easler for Arg to fight a guerilla war (provided there is political will) then it is for the UK to send troops to the other end of the world to fight the insurgents. A squadron and a few hundred troops will not cut it. Random shots at troops, scuba divers blowing up ships in port (rainbow warrior). The list is endless.

As for outgunned and outnumbered, as I mentioned before, they have slightly better missiles, and a modern radar, versus the Harriers with no radar, and older missiles. In terms of outnumbered, I am not quite so sure, especially since there will only be around 40 or so GR-9s, facing 35 or so A-4ARs, along with the remaining Daggers. This does not really make for a major quantitative advantage to UK forces.

This assumes they’ll have taken the islands without significant loss to their Air Force. Presumably the air force is the only chance they’ll have to take out the RAF station, short of a remarkable SF op.

The alternative being that they leave the flight alone and let sea transports taking a chance with no aircover.

Their C-130s aren’t in too bad a condition, and they could certainly keep enough airworthy if the need arose. The KC-130s could carry enough fuel to get a good enough number of Skyhawks into the area, with full fuel levels. It shouldn’t be underestimated how much damage the few Skyhawks could do, especially since they’ll not be dropping a few dumb bombs this time.

As for outgunned and outnumbered, as I mentioned before, they have slightly better missiles, and a modern radar, versus the Harriers with no radar, and older missiles. In terms of outnumbered, I am not quite so sure, especially since there will only be around 40 or so GR-9s, facing 35 or so A-4ARs, along with the remaining Daggers. This does not really make for a major quantitative advantage to UK forces.
….

Last time, the KC-130s managed to get about 4 at a time over the Falklands, a few times a day. Do you think they could do better now? Remember the same two tankers have to recover the returning raids. According to Argentinean accounts I’ve read, they were operating at full stretch last time, disregarding usual safety margins, & they damn near lost at least one tanker to fuel starvation while recovering returning fighters which would otherwise have ditched.

The small number which could actually operate over the islands at one time means that regardless of the total numbers, they will be outnumbered in the theatre of action. The total numbers or aircraft available at any given moment will favour Britain. The number of aircraft hours over the islands per day will favour Britain. Aircraft sitting on the ground at Comodoro Rivadavia (nice friendly place when I was there in the 1980s, BTW), or in transit, can’t affect the battle. Logistics is everything.

Im not familiar with internal Arg politics. Are you saying there is mass opposition to the idea of taking over falklands? That may well be the case. Question is, how much appetite would the UK populace have for a long protracted engagement half way around the world. Esp if the body bags start coming home and the conflicts drags on for years and years. With an occasional ship going down every now and then.

No, there is mass support for taking over the islands. But not at the expense of hundreds of Argentinean lives, & not at the expense of the immense economic disruption that protracted hostilities would cause. Threatening war, mobilising for it, then withdrawing, time after time, would cost a lot of money & disrupt trade. Most of Argentinas trade is by sea. What would constant Argentinean threats to start a maritime war off their own coasts (not ours – wouldn’t affect our trade) do to that?

You don’t get it, do you? The 1982 war cost Argentina much more than the UK, not counting military losses. The longer any war, the worse for them. Argentinas economy (despite their wonderful resource endowment) is extremely fragile. Any government that tries your proposed strategy will be committing economic, & hence political, suicide.

We wouldn’t have a protracted engagement. A modest reinforcement would be plenty to discourage Argentinean action, & if that failed & “body bags started coming home”, then you’re talking about a short sharp war. Argentina doesn’t have the armed forces for anything else. Remember the geography – the islands are several hundred km from the mainland. You can’t fight a naval guerilla war, sinking an occasional ship. Doesn’t work. You eventually end up with no ability whatsoever to sink any ships, & you’ve lost.

Oh by the way cool crew produced videos like that have now been banned by the MOD. Shame really as videos like these ones are a benefit to recruitment in my opinion.

Got to be said some of the best stuff you ever saw on Youtube were the clips made by 1435, 801sqdn etc and I agree that, for recruitment, showing that side of forces life is critical.

Problem is though for every teenager that sees an air loadie doing his ironing in the back of a Herc and thinks its something he quite fancies a crack at you get a Colonel Farquar-Farquar Smith Rtd or a ‘Concerned of Croydon’ on to the ‘Man at the Ministry’ whinging about how things weren’t like that in his day or moaning about the expenditure made to keep youngsters clowning around on taxpayers money. Double edged sword!.

Its got to be restated though, and its been said before, that air loadie is an effing legend!.

Oh by the way cool crew produced videos like that have now been banned by the MOD. Shame really as videos like these ones are a benefit to recruitment in my opinion.

I just don’t think the Harrier GR9 come’s into the equation when it comes to the Falklands. We will have reached a very bad situation if the Argentines feel its safe enough to take the Islands forcing us to send Harriers to take it back – again. The fact is as mentioned before when it comes to fighter aircraft is the ability to perform CAP over the Islands. As it stands at the moment the Argentine airforce cannot perform CAP over the Islands, the Radar installations on the Island can vector the Tornados onto any intruder with plenty of warning. The AI24 Foxhunter can see far further than any radar fitted to an Argentine fighter in conditions of heavy clutter and the AMRAAM C5/ASRAAM are far beyond anything fitted to Argentine fighters. Further from all that Tornados taking off from MPA not only will be carrying plenty of fuel but can also meet up with a tanker on station allowing them to maintain a huge radius of operation, whilst the Argentine aircraft will be close to Bingo.

I suppose Argentina can try and overwhelm 1435 flight by sending every jet they have in intervals that overlap the regeneration rate of MPA. I don’t think the Argentine airforce has the logistics to play that game at the moment and if there was any associated naval or army build up then the Falklands garrison would be reinforced and a full squadron of F3 or F2 would deploy along with AWACS and maybe some GR4 as a show of force.

It would be more problematic if Argentina invested in either a shorter legged fighter (like the Mirage 2000 or F16) with tankers or a more expensive longer legged fighter (Su27 or F15) along with some half decent BVR missiles as they would then be able to perform (theoretically) a constant CAP over MPA which exceeds the base regeneration rate. The MOD (well they hold the purse strings) would have to put a full squadron on the Island as a response to that kind of threat.

We should also not forget our Tomahawk equipped Submarines which I’m sure give Argentine staff planners in their millitary sleepless nights.

Oh well enjoy these – Faith, Hope, Charity and Desperation down South!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI-U3-9UO0w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2LmjNmn7zQ

and BBC Docu – Dan Snow obviously doesn’t know that it is standard practice for 1435 to meet each incoming flight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkNpxp3HCBU

No UK government could survive the loss of the Falkland Islands irrelevent of their political mandate or popular support.

Maybe that’s what it would take for the UK government to properly fund and equip the UK armed forces….:rolleyes:

Kaduna,

The actions of a belligerent Argentina would have a diametrically opposite effect to that you are presuming. With a real threat to point to the UK Defence establishment would have a real stick to beat the Treasury with.

While it is true that it would wake up the MoD, it is also true that any real impact of the increased spending is likely to take some time. Causing real heart and pocket burn in the meantime.

Luckily for us, because relying on the stupidity of british politicians is quite a high-percentage bet, Argentina is not likely to let the Malvina’s issue drop and, with publicised abrogations of political agreements, they are being just contrary enough to keep this one on the front burner. Argentina 0 – UK 1 (Argentine own goal).

Heh 🙂
But dont forget the “Hand of god” goal either!. That might yet sneak up out of no where and leave everyone well and truly up the proverbial creek. 🙂