So how vulnerable are the Falklands now ?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the Argentines have more MPA aircraft than we do

That's not difficult these days is it?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

They also have no plans to stop flying the Super Eterndards from US and Brazilian decks.

As has been pointed out, we are going to be short of SSNs this decade, as the Trafalgar class are retired. Thus far, only four Astutes have been ordered. Given other commitments East of Suex and nearer home - what is the chance of gaving one free to send South at short notice?

Additionally, our depleted frigate/destroyer numbers are being cut. You may remember that HMS Northumberland was en route to the Falklands in late 2008 when she was retasked to go to fight pirates off the Somali coast. There was no frigate/destroyer in theatre for severals months. This will happen again with less ships and sudden events likely to happen. To add to the fun, the Falklands patrol ship Clyde is set to return to the UK for maintenance in 2012. Presumably another River class OPV will relieve her. But what else happens in 2012? Won't providing security for the olympics drain resources - so commitments in the South Atlantic and elsewhere will be comprimised?

[stilton]

Four Typhoons is all the RAF has at Mount pleasant ! ?

[Jimlad1]

Oh lordy, this is degenerating into another one of those 'the whole sky is falling into my head' threads...

Firstly, the Argentine budget 'increase'. Their budget is a fraction of our own and as I've noted, 90% of it goes on their pay and personnel costs. This increase is mainly to cover their pay costs and not capital equipment expenditure. The reality is that their procurement programmes have been starved of funds for years, and so have their maintenance programmes.

To all intents and purposes the Argentines have a coastguard navy which struggles to get to sea at the moment. They do not have an amphibious capability which threatens the islands. If they decided to get one, it would take several yearsto get to the point where they were able to present a threat to the islands, and you'd hope we'd notice this fairly significant shift. So, people need to stop thinking that somehow the ARA is about to charge down and grab the islands - they haven't got the ships or capability to do this.

Secondly, on the idea of ferries - if you drop people off, you need to support them. Dropping off penny packets of light troops across the islands won't work - they won't have any support at all, and will end up walking tired wet and demoralised, knowing that they've got an assault on a major facility to look forward to at some point.

I keep hearing these suggestions that the Argentines are going to do some kind of beach landing - my first question is 'where and with what imaginary ships' and my second question is 'how do you maintain the element of surprise?' To land and take MPA requires equipment and logistics and a beachead to put it on. Anyone reading the excellent 100 Days, or Amphibious Assault Falklands by Mike Clapp, will realise that if you want to land a credible force in the Falklands, there are not that many beaches where you can do it. By a strange coincidence MPA is actually some distance from any of those said beaches...

So, if you do an amphibious assault, you have lost the element of surprise to put boots ashore. If you lose surprise, then the FI reinforcement plan starts and all bets are off. Yes you could put a patrol ashore, but to do that requires an SSK (of which Argentina has 3) and at best you could put a platoon ashore. This platoon then has to tab to the airbase and take up covered positions to present a MANPADS threat, which it would need to do in darkness on extremely hard going boggy ground with no shelter. They will be limited in what they can carry too, as they will be marching with everything they own.

The moment they fire a missile at a jet, then not only has Argentina effectively declared war on the UK, but also they have exposed their intent and all bets are off.

So we keep going back to the following problem for the Argentines - how do you land a force, and deny the airbase and air defence radars while maintaining the element of surprise for long enough that the reinforcement plan doesnt begin till too late and you have established air superiority?

I'm not saying it cant' be done - however, its not like 1982. There isnt a nice Moody Barracks to bomb and off you go. There is now a very challenging set of tactical problems to deal with, and you've only got one shot at getting it right.

In summary - Argentina does not now possess the ability to land troops and occupy the Falkland Islands. It would take several years to reacquire this capability. Any such move would be identified and UK posture adapted as requried. Any effort to take the islands is a very high risk operation with numerous points where it could fail or lose the element of surprise. Yes we need to remain wary, but the islands are well defended by good people from all 3 services and MPA remains an incredibly formidable nut to crack.

[taxydual]

Why do I get visions of Capt Mainwaring and his platoon defending the area between The Marigold Tearooms and The Novelty Rock Emporium?

The Argentinians no longer have to live under a Military Junta that had to bolster it's popularity with a show of 'Military Force' ie The Invasion.

We no longer have to live under a Prime Minister who had the guts to defend the British people.

Either way, both we and the Argentinians (if the 'event' came to Round 2) would be "'doomed", "doomed, I tell yer".

As for the rest of us 'armchair warriers', "don't panic, don't panic".

[Pontius Navigator]

I suppose one answer is an air assault a la Entebbe.

[TEEEJ]

Stilton wrote

Four Typhoons is all the RAF has at Mount pleasant ! ?

It was a straight swap for four Tornado F.3s.

RAF News - Great teamwork getting Typhoons to Falklands

RAF News - Falklands’ first overseas deployment for multi-role fighter

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Military Operations | Typhoons on first operational deployment

The four Typhoons that are Falklands based are listed here.

Typhoons Depart for the Falklands | Fast Air Photography

Prior to the Tornado F.3s it was four F-4 Phantoms from the late 1980s.

The Royal Air Force - History Section

'As tensions between the UK and Argentina eased during the late 1980s it was decided to reduce the number of aircraft permanently stationed in the South Atlantic. By November 1988 only four Phantoms were left and they were named ‘Faith’. ‘Hope’, Charity’ and ‘Desperation’ by the crews.'

TJ

[dctyke]

Having done 3 tours there I would ask anyone (other than the resident infantry at the time) two questions:

How good do you think you would have been at defending the airfield against trained soldiers?

Same again (on a friday night)


one more point:

I was on exercise in germany once in the 80s when less than 30 (really, really good) paras crippled the whole station. And the Stn cdr cried foul because they had dug a land rover access size hole under the perimeter fence!

We should not be so cock sure what the lure of oil can do!

[The Old Fat One]

JimLad

You are wasting your breath mate. Way too many peops (including, so it seems some ex VSO) long since gave up on reality where this one is concerned.

As for the MPA being essential to Falklands Security...

I was there, in an MPA, Apr 82 to Jun 82. I know what we did do and what we didn't do; what we could do and what we couldn't do.

We helped...a little bit. On one occasion we also hindered, quite a lot.

But we were not, in any sense, mission critical.

[Jabba_TG12]

TOTD:

Yes, my tongue was lodged extremely firmly in my cheek when I wrote that.

I'm certainly not saying that its going to happen anytime soon and certainly take on board the points about the Argies amphib capability and also their political situation and how different things are from 82 in that respect.

But in my very humble opinion Woodward's scenario has some credibility.

I've also seen the counter argument that these guys are stuck in the past, the Argentine people and the Islanders dont think like that anymore and that these old warriors need to make such utterances as self-justification or are too heavily stuck in their old ways. This, to me, serves to act as the required "pinch of salt".

But by the same token, as any of us who have served there post-82, there are potential weakspots, quite bad ones, if my memory serves me well. And if the islands have any strategic importance to us, complacency about establishment levels and reinforcement must absolutely be avoided.

We seem to have developed a remarkable knack of shooting ourselves in the foot over the last 10-15 years and to my mind there are few things more galling than seeing some of our mates make the ultimate sacrifice for something that is either subsequently given away or carelessly lost.

Maybe I'm being a tad melodramatic but...

[Grumpy106]

Jimlad is spot on with his assessment.

I have spent a lot of time in the FI and I can assure you that the focus down there is well and truly on Argentina and her potential actions. Does anyone seriously think that they could spring a total surprise attack with sufficient force to take the islands? The whole 'Friday Night/Sat Morning' scenario is a red-herring. If there was the slightest sniff of an escalation in the threat the bars would be closed. And I'd also like to point out that the AD radars and QRA Force are manned 24/7 and the Duty personnel obviously remain sober, despite what some people might think. The only way Argentina will get any sort of foothold in the FI again is by negotiation.

Woodward is out of touch and was just scaremongering to try and defend his former Service.

[alfred_the_great]

WEBF - 7 Astutes. Extra one ordered in order to ensure SM drumbeat continues until SSBN(F) is confirmed (or otherwise).

[Jabba_TG12]

Grumpy:

The Q force is indeed at readiness, 24/7 and the AD picture, compiled and supplied by the external sites, is monitored 24/7, that much is indeed true. That is not the whole story though and if you're as regular a visitor to the islands as you imply, you'll know that too.

Whether the bars would be open or not is completely irrelevant. Thats implying that the defence of the islands rests on whether the detatched personnel are permanently p*ssed or not and I think they deserve a bit better than that. Not all of us carried out our four month tours in an alcoholic haze.

I would hope to share your optimism about getting enough warning (if the capability to deliver any threat eventually existed). However, not finding those WMD, losing track of four geezers with rucksacks on the tube and other such intel-led squirm-a-thons, I would guard against blithe complacency.

[Mechta]

Coalition Attack?

All the scenarios discussed so far assume that this would be a purely Argentina vs UK match.

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons, has anyone considered if the Argentines came to an agreement with a well-armed, but oil-poor nation (not necessarily a near neighbour) for assistance with an amphibious assault, in return for a preferential deal on the future oil reserves? They would have to do a good job of hiding the movement of some pretty big hardware, but only a fool would only consider the most obvious scenario.

After all, it wouldn't be the first time a couple of countries ganged up on another to get their hands on some substantial oil reserves...

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Originally Posted by Grumpy106

Woodward is out of touch and was just scaremongering to try and defend his former Service.

I would suggest that Adml Sandy was not "scaremongering" but exposing a real threat to the National good. I believe, though, that he mistakenly tried to phrase it in terms that the home grown ballot box fodder might understand.

The threat isn't to the Islands: it's against their offshore assets. If we are to seriously reap the mineral assets, it will take equipment, facilities and infrastructure. Imagine running OFFSHORE TAPESTRY and the "cod war" at that range from the UK or with the capacity the Islands have?

Argentina and any allies doesn't need to expend material and effort it doesn't have on taking the Islands. It just needs to use the material and effort it does have to harass the operation of the offshore facilities and the supporting traffic. I think you would find that the UN would not oppose that as the sea area is a disputed asset.

[cazatou]

In World War1 Argentina stayed neutral - although it did make a lot of money in selling grain to the Allies.

In World War2 Argentina leapt to the assistance of the United Nations on March 27th 1945, declared war on Germany and immediately dispatched one merchant vessel carrying grain in the next available Convoy bound for Europe. The cynical have suggested that the entry to the war at that time was purely to ensure a seat at the Inauguration of the United Nations Assembly.

The demise of democratic Government meant that overseas investment in Argentina fell dramatically and living standards fell also. It was against that background that the Junta made the decision to annex the Falkland Islands. One can almost be certain that the British Antarctic Territory would have been next on the list if UK had acquiescsed in respect of the Falklands.

Sabre rattling by right wing elements in Argentina will doubtless continue - but that is a long way from mounting an invasion against a well prepared professional Military Force which has had some 28 years to hone its Defence plans.

[Postman Plod]

Hell, "out of touch" simply means "disagrees with the official assessment of the situation, and needs to be dismissed and put in his place" - it doesn't mean he doesn't have a clue what the potential risks and likely scenarios are! Maybe his is protecting his service, but given that his task force lost a significant number of lives and ships trying to recover the islands, I'd imagine he wouldn't want to see the UK in the same situation again!

Who cares about oil-poor nations - there are enough oil-rich South American countries rushing to support the Argentine claim - some of them with large, well equipt and expanding militaries!

As GBZ says, who needs a conflict when a blockade or port and airspace restrictions (potentially across much of South America?) would be enough to make life very difficult for resource exploitation?

[The Helpful Stacker]

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons, has anyone considered if the Argentines came to an agreement with a well-armed, but oil-poor nation (not necessarily a near neighbour) for assistance with an amphibious assault, in return for a preferential deal on the future oil reserves?

Yeah, I've read that book too (Patrick Robinson - Ghost Force?)

Maybe we can hire some super-mega-whoppa-tron re-modelled B52s from a privately-owned airforce operating out of a mysterious airbase in the US to defend the Falklands.

Both are equally realistic.

[Wrathmonk]

Funny old world isn't it. A former super power routinely 'probes' our defences and yet people of a certain colour cloth cry 'get rid of Typhoon' (our only AD fighter) in favour of the Harrier/Carrier. Whereas a broke, militarily inferior nation, has shown no interest in repeating its operations of 28 years ago but nevertheless the world will stop spinning unless we have carriers, harriers, subs, destroyers etc etc etc to repel the "threat". If the Falkland Islands were at that much threat of a no notice invasion (or the intel is really that bad not to see one coming) then shouldn't we have the entire Fleet (whats left of it after its been sold off to pay for the 1 or 2 carriers) parked in the FI Territorial waters just in case? Together with any infanteer or marine not involved in AFG. After all, how long would it take to sail a task force south bound versus reinforcing the FI by Air? By then the Argies could be well dug in ...

Or perhaps we could just look at the facts and accept that what we have there, backed up with what we could have there, is sufficient to deter.

Fully expect to get flamed by the usual suspects

[Two's in]

Funny old world isn't it. A former super power routinely 'probes' our defences and yet people of a certain colour cloth cry 'get rid of Typhoon' (our only AD fighter) in favour of the Harrier/Carrier. Whereas a broke, militarily inferior nation, has shown no interest in repeating its operations of 28 years ago but nevertheless the world will stop spinning unless we have carriers, harriers, subs, destroyers etc etc etc to repel the "threat".

Fully expect to get flamed by the usual suspects

Well you shouldn't, as long as your point is effective Defence planning is a structured and inclusive exercise, not a knee jerk reaction driven by politicians seeking votes or military leaders trying to keep pet projects alive (or afloat in this case) through hyperbole and emotion without using rationale or logic to support their arguments. It cuts both ways.