The not quite naval stand off with Argentina

No, it’s the same old crowd making hot air. We hope….

Not entirely sure how they want to impose their permit system on other South American nations what I do know is they are in effect shooting themselves in the foot in respect of lucrative support contracts.

Seeing as all Latin American governments are supporting Argentina’s position on this, it doesn’t seem out of bounds for Brazil and Uruguay to require Argentinian permits for Malv/Falklands-bound ships operating from their own ports if Argentina requests such a step, or simply to bar such traffic. I haven’t found any new reports of this happening yet, but it seems a logical next step in Argentine/South American ‘civil resistance’ to increase economic pressure on activities they don’t like. But I’m unaware of any such request being forwarded to other countries yet.

I have one question: Argentina seems to be explicitly relying on international law for their case. Have they attempted to take the subject to the ICJ? Has UK resisted this?

This is a reminder, if one was needed, than unexpected events can and do happen. We need to maintain forces to deter aggression, including the big stick type forces based back in the UK. We need to retain the capability to respond rapidly to influence events, for example, deploying a SSN to a area sends a message and acts as a deterrent due to the potential of her weapons.

Haven’t they got AIM-9M now? We had AIM-9L in 1982, & they had R.530 & older models of Sidewinder, IIRC.

M! On A-4AR Fightinghawk

Even the Harrier GR.9 still in service should be able to match the Argentine’s in a missile duel. Fairly sure they still have the same missile types in service now as they did back then (meaning rear aspect only).

Haven’t they got AIM-9M now? We had AIM-9L in 1982, & they had R.530 & older models of Sidewinder, IIRC.

I kinda wish they would.

Might get some more money into the budget

If only we hadn’t scapped the Sea Harrier* before CVF (and aircraft) are ready to take over. As discussed on the Sea Jet and Future Carrier PPRuNe threads. Not that Argentina has the means to mount an invasion 1982 style….

* A few are still in RN/MOD hands, and either stored or used for shore based ground based training purposes, and in theory could be regenerated.

Even the Harrier GR.9 still in service should be able to match the Argentine’s in a missile duel. Fairly sure they still have the same missile types in service now as they did back then (meaning rear aspect only).

If only we hadn’t scapped the Sea Harrier* before CVF (and aircraft) are ready to take over. As discussed on the Sea Jet and Future Carrier PPRuNe threads. Not that Argentina has the means to mount an invasion 1982 style….

* A few are still in RN/MOD hands, and either stored or used for shore based ground based training purposes, and in theory could be regenerated.

Just for interest sake, and in line with the ability of 3 or Typhoons ability to defend the islands, exactly how many airfields on the Falklands capable of supporting the Typhoon?

I would suggest the one they operate from and that’s it, but it does have 2 runways, Typhoons could operate from either, and there is plenty of room for reinforcements.

I would guess that Stanley Airfield itself could support Typhoons, and that;s about it other than MPA of course.

Just for interest sake, and in line with the ability of 3 or Typhoons ability to defend the islands, exactly how many airfields on the Falklands capable of supporting the Typhoon?

In that earlier post I showed that the J-6 certainly has the range for a one-way mission and, depending on loadout, could probably be configured to leave from and return to remote airfields in mainland Argentina. .

You also ignored the very limited space & facilities at those remote airfields, which would limit your ‘overwhelming numbers’ to a very thin stream of aircraft (providing an easy bit of target practice for Typhoons), the impossibility of assembling such a force secretly (& therefore the ease for the UK of planning counters), the infeasibility of finding 500 Argentinean suicide pilots, etc., etc.

Your thinking is on the same lines as some others here: you don’t think things through. You pretend problems don’t exist, instead of looking for ways to overcome them, & assume your opponents are stupid & somnolent.

When was the last time the British had a significant exercise down in the Falkland’s?
I do not mean one company of Royal Marines, four Tornado’s and one frigate!
I mean a true show of force to emphasis it want and importance of the Falkland Islands!
After all is this not what gave the green light to the Argentinean’s in 1982!

I think the British military has to show its conventional war fighting capability and want more, as it has got so tied up in its out of control expedition wars on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This I also will go a long way in stemming the want of the typical British political system to slash and burn their military again and again at any opportunity.

Regards
Pioneer

No need, stuff like the articles posted by Super Nimrod are a much more subtle method of achieving the same effect.

hawk, not to mention the time required to get hold the aircraft, train the suicide pilots etc. So while these guys are preparing, the UK sends down additional typhoons for air defense and storm shadow equipped tornados. Pre-emptive strike on the Argentine airfields with storm shadow (with thermobaric warheads) in conjunction with tomahawk strikes on naval bases.

Wher would the pilots with the expertice and dedication to fly these “1-way” missions come from?

…
No, it’s one of the most stupid suggestions I’ve seen here, akin to the “overwhelm the Falklands with 500 J-6 fighters bought secondhand from China” suggestion last year.

Ah yes, “Operation Cuito.” I’m glad to see it left such an impression. 😀

Some of you have far too much faith in new technology. The idea than four Eurofighters can defend Las Malvinas is, respectfully, crazy.

In that earlier post I showed that the J-6 certainly has the range for a one-way mission and, depending on loadout, could probably be configured to leave from and return to remote airfields in mainland Argentina.

The objective, of course, would be to neutralize the Eurofighters, disable the air defenses, thus allowing Argie troops to be flown in on civil or military transports. Then the Argies dig-in and hold the islands.

Your arguments lack coherence. Is this a war? If so, what the hell is the point of a single raid on an economic target? And where is the casus belli? Is it expected to help Argentina to gain control of the Falklands? If so, how?

Or is it a raid, with the pretence that it is not a war? That’s terrorism.

Note that Argentina is keenly interested in exploring for oil in its undisputed EEZ, offshore from its oil fields on land, & setting such a precedent would be very damaging indeed to its own interests.

The casus belli would be the theft of Argentinian resources.

When was the last time the British had a significant exercise down in the Falkland’s?
I do not mean one company of Royal Marines, four Tornado’s and one frigate!
I mean a true show of force to emphasis it want and importance of the Falkland Islands!
After all is this not what gave the green light to the Argentinean’s in 1982!

I think the British military has to show its conventional war fighting capability and want more, as it has got so tied up in its out of control expedition wars on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This I also will go a long way in stemming the want of the typical British political system to slash and burn their military again and again at any opportunity.

Regards
Pioneer

I think UK ability to fight a war against the Argentina is pretty obvious to everyone I also think everyone knows that the UK is prepared to fight for the Falklands unlike in 1982 when Argentina thought the UK wouldn’t care. No show of force or task force needed. I prefer for are armed forces to be used more wisely where they are needed not on some pointless ‘show of force’.

When was the last time the British had a significant exercise down in the Falkland’s?
I do not mean one company of Royal Marines, four Tornado’s and one frigate!
I mean a true show of force to emphasis it want and importance of the Falkland Islands!
After all is this not what gave the green light to the Argentinean’s in 1982!

I think the British military has to show its conventional war fighting capability and want more, as it has got so tied up in its out of control expedition wars on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This I also will go a long way in stemming the want of the typical British political system to slash and burn their military again and again at any opportunity.

Regards
Pioneer

Some South African websites are saying that the SSN HMS Sceptre has requested a run ashore in Simonstown in the next couple of weeks. I guess thats a subtle way of sending a message.;)

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/287310

http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=115767,1,22

talking about coherence, the whole scenario is about a country that has no real way to harm anyone around falklands since it’s air force is in dire straits and its navy can’t come close for UK submariens patrolling the area…

if we want to be coherent then the answer is simple:

forget it completely, there’s only some small politician talk that will take place and that’s it

if they decide to go and attack, there’s obviously the will to start a conflict, and that platform would be an easy target in such a case, much easier than the islands themselves from which the typhoons shoudl be able to wipe out any argentinian aircraft with ease (we’re talking about aircraft of which the newest one is 40 years old, basically, even if some avionics were modernised)

as for serbia attacking kosovars, it’s another topic and has no place here, but, just for your information, kosovo was an autonomous region of serbia and what happened there was matter of serbia’s internal problems with albanian nationalists, not just some innocent civilian harassment by the “bad military guys”. Besides, the KLA was considereed by everybody, NATO countries included, as a terrorist organisation until the NATO leaders decided they wanted a justification to remove milosevic from office and declared KLA “a liberation army”. Anyway, the “why” and all political reasons and justifications are out of topic here, I simply underlined the fact that if there’s an armed conflict, there’s little in a way of “civilian” targets that may be considered “off limits” by anyone

if there is an escalation (will to go and use weaponry to stop the drilling) what would your suggestion be?

I don’t say that it would be a clever way, but if going into a conflict, a drilling platform is an easy target to reach (and before you talk about terrorism) one could talk about strategy in order to reduce enemy’s ressources.

back in 1998, NATO has bombed serbia all over the place with almost no military target hit yet I have some doubt that many around here would consider NATO countries as “terrorists”

Your arguments lack coherence. Is this a war? If so, what the hell is the point of a single raid on an economic target? And where is the casus belli? Is it expected to help Argentina to gain control of the Falklands? If so, how?

Or is it a raid, with the pretence that it is not a war? That’s terrorism.

Note that Argentina is keenly interested in exploring for oil in its undisputed EEZ, offshore from its oil fields on land, & setting such a precedent would be very damaging indeed to its own interests.