Argentina Reasserts Claims To Falklands (again)

[Danjanou]

Perfect timing as the Royal Navy is mothballing half the fleet. :-\

Which ironically they were in the process of doing in 1982 including selling off both carriers (Invincible and Hermes) prior to the new ones being ready (Illustrious was hurridly commisioned and sent to the region after the war ended) and both assualt ships. had the Argentines waited 2-3 months the Brits would not have been able to mount a military response at all and been forced to used diplomatic/economic means only.

In 1982 the Brits were so focussed on a WW3 NATO-vs Soviet Bloc type scenarion they were not really equipped /trained for a operation of this type. Now that's not the case.

 

[aesop081]

I removed my post after re-reading yours and realizing i had misinterpreted it.........oops !!

Now my the point i was trying to make when i posted the Nval losses inflicted to the RN was in response to this post you have made (emphasis mine):

If things boil over again, I wonder how the Argentine Navy will do this time? With their aircraft carrier "Veinticinco de Mayo" scrapped, the old cruiser "General Belgrano" at the bottom of the ocean thanks to HMS Conqueror and with only two carriers (I don't count HMS Oean as a carrier) in the Royal Navy to deal with, wonder what'll they sortie against the Brits?

In 1982, the Argentine Navy sortied Belgrano and Santa Fe......and didnt accomplish anything.  Even though their Navy was bottled up in Port for the duration, they managed to Give the RN a major punch. Seems to me that Argentina could still pack a wallop without its Navy.

 

[midget-boyd91]

Here's a question that's gotta get some thinking done.... If it  all does end up in a  dejavu scenario, what is going to happen in Afghanistan where the Argies and Brits are working on the same side?

 

[Good2Golf]

S97 + UGM-109  (a.k.a.  HMS Triumph + Tomahawk)

A battle-proven combination...

G2G

 

[tomahawk6]

The situation is a bit different now than in 82. The Brits have a sizeable ground/air force presence plus a couple of subs. No way the Argies could mount a naval operation against the Falklands without losing their entire force.

 

[aesop081]

The situation is a bit different now than in 82.

After Belgrano, the threat of a single submarine ( HMS Conqueror) was enough to convince the Argentine Navy to stay in port......i dont think it's that different.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

    At the time of the last Falkland conflict, the US was busy sternly disapproving of the UK flexing its military muscles on any continent that had "America' in it, and Canada was way too peacable to provide support for any military actions by NATO allies that might involve (gasp) gunplay.  Now the US has come to rely on the UK as its best and greatest ally,  and Canada has remembered that allies are expected to fight for each other. 
    Should a second conflict begin, Canadian and American ships would flank the deployed British battlegroup, and US AWAC and tanker assets,  and the use of US bases would allow the British to utilize its Tornado groups very aggressively.  Likewise I would expect both Canadian and US fighters to make a big show of establishing "No Fly Zones" to keep all but the most suicidal Argentine fighters restricted to their own continental airspace.
    To make a strike for the Falklands when you do not know if the UK is willing to shed blood for a sheep covered rock on the back end of nowhere, and you are reasonably certain her allies will not offer any material support, is a reasonable gamble.  That was then.  To seek to attack the Falklands knowing that the UK will pay in blood and treasure to take it back, in the sure and certain knowledge that her allies will fall all over themselves to demonstrate they are standing shoulder to shoulder with their British allies in their time of need, and knowing that the troops that the UK will send are now battle tested on land, sea and air, is political and national suicide.  This is now.
    The Argentines may rattle sabers, and even shout at the UN and OAS, but the sabers will remain most carefully in their sheaths.

 

[aesop081]

     At the time of the last Falkland conflict, the US was busy sternly disapproving of the UK flexing its military muscles on any continent that had "America' in it, and Canada was way too peacable to provide support for any military actions by NATO allies that might involve (gasp) gunplay.  Now the US has come to rely on the UK as its best and greatest ally,  and Canada has remembered that allies are expected to fight for each other. 
    Should a second conflict begin, Canadian and American ships would flank the deployed British battlegroup, and US AWAC and tanker assets,  and the use of US bases would allow the British to utilize its Tornado groups very aggressively.  Likewise I would expect both Canadian and US fighters to make a big show of establishing "No Fly Zones" to keep all but the most suicidal Argentine fighters restricted to their own continental airspace.
     To make a strike for the Falklands when you do not know if the UK is willing to shed blood for a sheep covered rock on the back end of nowhere, and you are reasonably certain her allies will not offer any material support, is a reasonable gamble.  That was then.  To seek to attack the Falklands knowing that the UK will pay in blood and treasure to take it back, in the sure and certain knowledge that her allies will fall all over themselves to demonstrate they are standing shoulder to shoulder with their British allies in their time of need, and knowing that the troops that the UK will send are now battle tested on land, sea and air, is political and national suicide.  This is now.
     The Argentines may rattle sabers, and even shout at the UN and OAS, but the sabers will remain most carefully in their sheaths.

With the UK already severly commited with Afghanistan and Iraq, i think you are oversimplyfying the situation.  personaly i dont think the timming of this is coincidental. Dont forget that the US is also streched thin and so are we.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Yes we are all overcommitted right now, but the Falklands conflict could never possibly be about force levels, but force projection.  To project force to the tip of South America using only its diminishing heavy lift and sea lift assets, and protected only by its naval aviation assets placed a small UK force at the end of a tenuous supply line against the full force of the Argentine navy and airforce opperating from its home bases.
Now we look at what cooperative NATO allies do to this equasion.  If the UK is able to employ its own front line air squadrons from secure land bases, with full satelite and electronic intellegence support from its allies, the Argentine militaries ability to project force will be shattered for little cost.  With command of the electronic battlefield, and thus of the air, a small but lavishly supported British force could destroy anything the Argentines sent against them.  The professionals in the Argentine military are as aware of this as the rest of us, reguardless of what the politicians say to the press.

 

[The Rifleman]

The British Army maintains a small garrison on the Falkland Islands based at Mount Pleasant. The total deployment is about 500 personnel made up of an Infantry Company, an Engineer Squadron, a Signals Unit, a Logistics Group and Supporting Services.

The 33 Engineer Regiment (EOD) provides a constant support and is part of the Joint Service Falkland Islands Detachment which consists of RAF and RLC EOD teams. It is mainly based in Stanley but there is also a detachment at Mount Pleasant. The group destroys munitions from the Falklands War that did not explode at the time and briefs troops, tourists and citizens on the areas which are safe and the minefield marking which have been put in place.

There is also a Joint Communications Unit (JCUFI which incorporates the Signals Unit) providing the electronic warfare and command and control systems for the Royal Navy, Army and Air Force stationed there.

The Falkland Islands also maintains its own part-time volunteer force, the Falkland Islands Defence Force (FIDF

The RAF only has a flight of 4 ageing Tornadoes for air defence

 

[Jungle]

Which ironically they were in the process of doing in 1982 including selling off both carriers (Invincible and Hermes) prior to the new ones being ready (Illustrious was hurridly commisioned and sent to the region after the war ended) and both assualt ships. had the Argentines waited 2-3 months the Brits would not have been able to mount a military response at all and been forced to used diplomatic/economic means only.

There was also talk of disbanding 3 Commando Bde, and de-activating the Para Battalions. The UK, like Canada at the time, was concentrating on the Fulda gap; light, rapid-deployment forces were considered useless in that scenario. They went on to win the land war with incredible success, while 5 Inf Bde was struggling to reach it's objectives; they just did not have the trg and fitness levels that the Paras and Marines had.
Had it not been for 3 Cdo Bde, which included 2 Para Battalions for most of the operation, the outcome of the land war could have been much different.

 

[The Rifleman]

We (Brits) used to be the laughing stock of NATO in Germany. While we walked everywhere carrying our kit our allies would laugh at us as they drove past on trucks or in APC's. They stopped laughing when we walked across the Island and took Stanley by bayonet.

I know that 5th Brigade were not as fit as 3 Cdo but that was due to the two Guards battalions who were on Public Duties at the time. 2 & 3 Para were part of 5 Bde but went out with the Task Force. There was a huge outcry within the army at the time as we had spearhead battalions on a war footing just for this kind of operation who could have replaced them, but the Brigade of Guards has a lto (some say too much) influence at the MoD so they were quickly mobilised. Saying that, they still did very good, especially the Scots Guards at Tumbledown.

An often forgotten part of 5 Bde was the actions of the 7th Gurkha Rifles who performed exceptionally, taking Mount William in daylight!

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

  What????  My only response to this is that if there was an public disapproval of the UK by the United States (I do not remember seeing any at the time ) it was by no means an accurate representation of what was happening behind the scenes.  The U.S. was friendly with both the UK and Argentina, however forced to choose, well lets say, it wouldn't be a difficult one! 

I never said the US supported Argentina's keeping the Falklands.  The US and Canada both cravenly decided that this was not a NATO matter, and let the UK stand alone.  The US applied pressure to both parties to settle the dispute diplomatically.  I was ashamed of both North American governments non action in that matter, even as I was more impressed with the UK and Canada reacting more properly in Afghanistan when an unconventional, rather than conventional, assault on the US took place. 
As one of the second tier NATO powers, Canada really should take comfort in the knowledge that today when a NATO country is attacked, at least the English speaking powers will reply with force, and not empty diplomacy, in their defence.  Of course if we elect another Liberal, we will see our national resolve disappear again......

 

[The Rifleman]

we got the new fire & forget Sidewinder from the States and fitted it en route so I'd say that relations were very good

AIM-9L

AIM-9L Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) with inert warhead and rocket motor for training purposes.The next major advance in IR Sidewinder development was the AIM-9L ("Lima") model, introduced in 1978. This was the first "all-aspect" Sidewinder with the ability to attack from all aspects, including head-on, which had a dramatic effect on close in combat tactics. In its first combat use by Israel over Lebanon and by the United Kingdom during the Falklands War, the "Lima" reportedly achieved a kill ratio of around 80%, a dramatic improvement over the 10-15% levels of earlier versions. In both initial combat uses of AIM-9L, the opponents had not developed any tactics for the evasion of a head-on missile shot of this kind, making them all the more vulnerable. The AIM-9L was also first Sidewinder that was a joint variant used by both the US Navy and Air Force. The "Lima" was distinguished from earlier Sidwinder variants by its double delta forward canard configuration and natural metal finish of the guidance and control section.


There were rumours that there were US mercenaries with the Argies but that was never validated.

 

[Old Sweat]

I was serving in the US at the time and recall that a few American public figures expressed support for the Argentinians, whille official support was muted but real.

From my point of view, the major asset the British had at the time was Margaret Thatcher, whose force of personality and leadership played a large part in mobilizing the nation. One might question whether Tony Blair, who is very much a lame duck, or his successor could and would rise to the occasion.

 

[cplcaldwell]

Just for fun, and to raise the hackles of some members on this board.

It should be noted that while the Americans moved back and forth finally coming to support the Brits, the French were 100% on side with the Brits from the 'git go' .

As a major supplier of military wares to Argentina they provided a lot in terms of specifications that were not widely known on the capabilities of Argie aircraft etc.

There are even fairly substantiated rumours that the French gave the Brits known weaknesses of the MM38 Exocet to aid the Brits with the ECM against these systems.

Thatcher went on the record to thank Mitterrand.

0.02. Argentina was alone in '82 and would be alone again if she tried anything.

 

[Journeyman]

2007 is a major year for Argentine elections, with voting for numerous provincial governors occurring throughout the year, leading up to the Presidential and district governors' elections in the fall.

Argentina has never renounced its claims to the Falklands, so this isn't new. Politicians will say whatever the constituents want to hear, especially in an election year, so this is likely a case of reiterating what plays well with the voters rather than any new sabre rattling.

Please put your rucks back in the basement. 

 

[geo]

In 82, Argentino was under the control of the Junta.  Political and economic strife were such that the Junta used the Malvina campaign to distract the nation.  In the end, the Malvinas was the end of the line for the Junta and created the oportunity for the return of democracy (of sorts) to Argentina.

My question is ... are there any serious economical / political problems happening in Argentina at this time?



Guess Journeyman gave me my answer.

 

[niner domestic]

Don't be too sure JM, as a young mother of an infant and wife of a Royal Marine living in Plymouth in March and April of 1982, the talk of the day back then was, dismissal that the Argentinians would try anything.  On April 1, 1982, the entire Stonehouse and Bickleigh establishments had their troopies go on block Easter leave.  Even the youngest of the RMs were quering the logic of releasing the bulk of the troops for a 2 week leave when Argentina had just walked onto the islands and contact with NP8901 had been lost. Even with the citizens of the Falklands held captive, and the British diplomatic corps working to resolve the issue the flavour of the day back then was that Argentina wasn't all that serious so the powers that be let the chaps go on leave.

My husband, daughter and I travelled all the way to Scotland only to be met by a message from the local police to return to Plymouth as there had been a recall.  On April 6th, the first of the fleet set sail.  My husband sailed on the Canberra, I never saw him again.  

Even as the fleet set sail, the newpapers, the diplomats and the armchair generals all predicted the fleet wouldn't have to sail past the Azores before Argentina backed down in fear of having to go up against Task Force. As a spouse, I wanted those predictions to be true.  Well we all know where those predictions went, don't we?  

This is the 25th anniversary of the Falklands, and the noises that Argentina are making should not be ignored, no one back then thought Argentina would dare attempt to claim and exert their sovereignty over the Falklands.  This is a repeat of the same noises that everyone thought they could ignore or diffuse with diplomacy.  I doubt very much that Argentina is going to sit quietly while the ceremonies of the 25th anniversary are taking place and especially not combined with an election.

Rifleman, I seem to recall that the Brits also asked for the loan of a Nimrod(?) from the US as communications in the SA were dismal and non-existent in so far as sats etc.  The US refused the loan and I believe that's when Uruguay stepped up to the plate to relay comms back to the UK. I recall that the concern was the inability to pick up the Migs in enough time to launch the sidewinders. I seem to recall the outrage of the press over the lack of assistance in that quarter especially after the Sheffield.  

As for Canada's role the only thing I can recall is that Peru asked for Canada's assistance to provide diplomatic and peacekeeping mechanisms as well as Canada placing a trade sanction on Argentina. Mark McGuigan the then MinDef, did quite a lot of go betweens with the UK and Argentina. IIRC, Peru had excluded the US from the invitation because of previous statements that bordered on the old isolationist rhetoric.  

 

[Kirkhill]

The big differences between 1982 and 2007 are that the Brits have lengthened and hardened the runway at Port Stanley and they have the C-17s in hand now.  As well they do have that flight of Tornadoes on hand.  This allows them to reinforce by air, an option not available to them in 1982.

If they reinforce BEFORE the Argentinians start shooting (instead of ignoring the signals as they did in 1982) then that would probably discourage the Argies.

Edit: niner domestic - I just re-read your post and although it is 25 years in coming, my condolences on your loss.