falklands round 2.

[Godalmighty83]

based on a thread at another forum.

what would happen if argentina tried to retake the falklands today vs. in ten years time.

some interesting arguments cropped up, from a unlikely south american alliance to a joint US/UK response.

as it stands today the RN is probably at its weakest point in terms of power projection, forces tied up in iraq/afghanistan, sea harriers killed off with no replacements and no new ships. but on the other hand technology has improved to a new level and essentialy argentina has not advanced its fighting forces either. the bulk of its fleet on sea and air is the same as it was in 82.

in ten years time? will the type 45's, jsf's + whatever aircraft we have then coupled with possibly a new carrier and subs be able to put the falklands out of argentinas reach for another 25 years?

[STEED]

Simple, America will bail us out of the you know what again. I'm talking about the supple situation like last time.

[Linton]

If the US got involved I think there would be a South American alliance led by Venezuela opposing us.Argentina could walk into the Malvinas today as the RN has even less assets available today than in 1982!

[bradclark1]

sea harriers killed off with no replacements I'd say that is a really bad mistake and that would knock you out of being an agressive force. Could you even make an assualt without air support? Could you even protect your fleet without air support, relying on just missiles. I doubt it.
We probably would not support you with ground troops, but we would supply the air power and like last time, logistics.

[Kapitan]

Dont ever under estimate the royal navy we still have three carriers even though one is mothballed, the FA2 harriers have been mothballed but still in use, we can have tornados down there within a few days taking off from bases not far from the falklands doing air to air and air to ground recon ect missions.

We have long range nimrod aircraft nuclear submarines and they fear these the most!.

Basicaly we could put 5 submarines off of argentina and launch tomahawks till the cows come home and there would be very little they could do about it, they dont realy have the technology let alone funding tor equipment to hunt us down.

i realy doubt argentina would even invade the falklands this side of the next 25 years.

[bradclark1]

If the US got involved I think there would be a South American alliance led by Venezuela opposing us.Argentina could walk into the Malvinas today as the RN has even less assets available today than in 1982!

Yep, if I was Argentina I would give serious thought to go for the Malvinas because the U.K. wouldn't be a serious enough threat to stopping them.
The Americans would be the big question mark.

[Kapitan]

As it goes america tried to enter the first falklands war but we refused thier help, so they went on to ask us if we wanted an air craft carrier and 5 air warfare cruisers again to which we declined.

Our attack submarine force is enough to keep them away from our waters in the falklands.

[Skybird]

"We"? - With all respect - but have you even been born back then, Kapitain?

[Kapitan]

I generalised the term we there skybird, the we means britian as a whole trying to narrow it down into logical form.

[STEED]

"We"? - With all respect - but have you even been born back then, Kapitain?

I think he may have Skybird, or he was a wee nipper.:hmm:

[Kapitan]

Falklands happend 6 years before i was born chernobyl happend 2 years before i was born the berlin wall came down when i was 1

work it out :D

[STEED]

Ok I got it wrong :oops:

your 18.

[Kapitan]

I was born on the 16th day of february 1988 at 1528

[STEED]

And your first words were, pass me the vodka. :p

[Kapitan]

nope they were Dad to which my mother never forgives me to this day for saying that.

[STEED]

It's all down hill after you pass 21 make the most of it. :up:

[Kapitan]

I realy dont know whats worse steed going grey at 16 (i have grey hair :| panic !!!!) or everything else life brings.

[STEED]

You wait still your hair drops out like me, if I loose anymore I am going for the KOJAK look. :lol:

Ok that's it back to the topic.

[XabbaRus]

Hmmm I have read about the Falklands war including the Task Force commanders book about it and far from helping us some in US Govt were more than determined to try and stop us going down there.

Assistance was offered eg Acension Island, the use of and the AIM-9L missiles, but that was about it.

This might be floklore but I did read that the SAS stole some US kit for us to use and that the US Military (read not the govt.) behind the back of the Whitehouse lent us some stuff but I can't recall ever reading that we were offered a carrier. Would have been too blatent show of support for our side.

As for the offer of a carrier that was a joke.

[micky1up]

it may interest you that the US did get involved in an indirect way the sidwinder missle they provided gave us the edge in airpower back in 82 but i think we would win again the submarine and naval force mutipliers have increased in the royal navy we are far more potent than we were then

[Kapitan]

The americans offerd us a conventional powerd aircraft they said we would train you in the how to use it all you have to do is man it, this is on the internet i have read it many times but it would be obvious that americans would help britian anyway, afterall who gave us satalite pictures of the islands to show where they were entrenched?

Wasnt russia

[XabbaRus]

Yep I know, but that was about it. Just rereading a site about it and there were a few in the US govt who did not want us down there.

[XabbaRus]

Kapitan the offer was a joke. ie "You guys need a carrier?" Hee ho ho.

Sure we could have done with one but there was no time to train British crews to man a carrier in the time needed. We knew that the Americans knew that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_war#Shuttle_diplomacy_and_U.S._involveme nt

Read section Shuttle Diplomacy and Us Involvement

"Casper Weinburger jokingly offered the use of an American aircraft carrier"

[Skybird]

I was born on the 16th day of february 1988 at 1528
An Aquarius - believe it or not, but I could have bet on that when seeing your pic! I go two days befor you, mate, and then some 20 years more...

[STEED]

I was born on the 16th day of february 1988 at 1528
An Aquarius - believe it or not, but I could have bet on that when seeing your pic! I go two days befor you, mate, and then some 20 years more...

What he's with us Skybird, now I need a drink. :lol:

[Godalmighty83]

just a quick note, dont forget that since 1982 logistics and deployment has certainly been improved on (a bit too much practice of recent years perhaps) and compared to 82 communications have vastly improved. even if ground troops still use mobile phones. theres no longer a several day delay in orders,

there is also-

hms ocean (+whatever helis we may have in the next decade)

phalanx/goalkeeper use, far more widespread then the ships had back then. those older ships had little more equipment then a 1946 destroyer.

new torpedoes, i think todays spearfish are a little better then the 1948 mk8 used to sink that big battle-cruiser last time round.

sub launched tomahawks.

and a small taskforce at stanley airfield (a few jets and supplies).

but a lot of the issue does seem to boil down too just how much damage our big subs could put out once they are there and if the taskforces present around the falklands can keep the argentine forces busy long enough for the airpower to come over.

[Kapitan]

For a start we have a squadron of tornadoes down there not to mention others on the near by islands, our submarines alone could tie up thier entire navy and keep them in port as they did the last time. (dont think they want another belgrano incident)


As for air power we could keep them busy for a while at least for a few weeks hamper thier landings, also HMS Ocean could double up as a harrier carrier and bulwark and albion could also become helicopter cruisers, we would re enlist the invincible we have the ark royal and illustrious, not to mention DDG's FFG's and newer more advanced weapons and ships.

All we would need is to land rapier missile systems and then the air side would be secure enough to land more troops.

[horsa]

America were embarrased by the Falklands war because she courted the South American countries but was a close ally of the UK ( remember the "even handedness" that Regan offered. ?) . Any offer of obvious help in the way of ships or troops was out of the question. At the time many people , including politicians critisised what they saw as America's lack of help.

In actual fact the US lent very valuable help with technology and intelligence information. The sidewinder missle that Micky1up mentions didn't just give the edge it was absolutely crucial because it was a heat seeking missle which the Brits did not have themselves.

The whole point of invading in 1982 was that the islands were occupied by a small token force of marines who had no serious hardware, and all major British forces were thousands of miles away. It was expected that the islands would be taken with minimal if any casualties making it easy for the UK to concede the territory rather than risk retaking them by means of a full invasion against an entrenched and well armed Argentinian garrison.
It was judged that the UK had no particular wish to hang on to the islands.

In the event nobody expected the UK to send half its fleet four thousand miles to retake the islands. Argentina had air bases only a few hundred miles form the islands, whereas the UK would be operating with a handful ( of largely untested ) Sea Harrier jets. She had only two small carriers used for ASW, not for launching mass aerial attacks like the American carriers. It was a huge gamble that paid off . The UK's campaign was greatly helped by :-

the diplomatic ineptitude of the Argentinians who made it easy for the UK to reinvade with the backing of the UN,
the fact that they set the fuses on their areial bombs incorrectly,
the incredibly static tactics of the Argentinian commander.
The use of inexperienced conscripts to garrison the island
An Argentinian fleet that ran for harbour as soon as they knew nuclear powered subs were in the area ( sinking the Belgrano)
The reluctance of the Argentinians to commit all their front line aircraft to attacking the British task Force, believing the Chileans might take advantage and attack them ( Some British secret forces were picked up apparently en route to Chile. They rather unconvincigly claimed they had "got lost" )None of that should detract from the generally very competent handling of the sea and land forces by the UK commanders and the professional performance of its troops.

The other wildcard nobody expected was Margaret Thatcher. She was largely unknown at the time. The Falklands War was when most people woke up to her fanatical single mindedness, for which later she became famous ( or infamous depending on your political leaning )

... but it's doubtful that the campaign could have succeeded without American ( somewhat covert) help.

Invasion by Argentina today would be political suicide because it would not be unopposed (there is a permanent base equiped with aircraft )

[bradclark1]

Falklands happend 6 years before i was born chernobyl happend 2 years before i was born the berlin wall came down when i was 1

work it out :D

Does that make me feel old. I have a piece of the wall somewhere. I'll have to hunt it down.

[Marcantilan]

South Atlantic War 2006 vs. 1982??

Argentina have better capabilities than in the ´80s

Three very good SSK´s (one type 209, 2 TR 1700) and now a healthy supply of AM 39 Exocets (more than 80, according to various sources)

Plus, the 4 Meko 360 destroyers are still modern assest and a dangerous plataform.

Latter this year, French Navy gonna sell to Argentina L´Ouragan BDT, so the amphibious plataform so much needed gonna be here again.

The army is now an all professional force.

Overall, good third world armed forces.

And sure, Venezuelan Chavez sure gonna help Argentina in a military crisis (hey, i´m NOT PROUD of that). If you think that he is buying Su 30´s...

But, not gonna be a walk in the park, specially for the Brits SSN´s. Don´t care about the 4 ADV´s Tornado based in the islands, not much a threat (a great aircraft, but not much a dogfighter, and the Sky Flash a not very good missile)

Anyway, there´s no chance to invade the islands in the near or far future. We are right now in excellent terms with the Brits, and hopefully the things gonna remain this way.

[Godalmighty83]

... but it's doubtful that the campaign could have succeeded without American ( somewhat covert) help.



i think it would have, but it would have certainly been more prolonged and bloodier. once the belgrano was sunk the falklands was safe from any landings from the sea (the argentine navy never recovered) and the british troops on the island certainly had the upper hand in terms of equipment and training. the greatest difficulty would have been air superioty. would the harrier had a 23:0 kill ratio?

i know the argentinians were annoyed that the royal navy took assorted nuclear weapons with them. despite MoD assurances they were never going to be used.

but thats the past conflict the main focus is what would happen in the near future.

[badhat17]

The sidewinder missle that Micky1up mentions didn't just give the edge it was absolutely crucial because it was a heat seeking missle which the Brits did not have themselves.

The RAF had heat seekers in service back in the 50's. Much is said about the contribution of the AIM-9L during the Falklands conflict and most of it originates from Raytheon. The all aspect feature of the AIM-9L made next to no difference in any engagement, every Argentine aircraft shot down by a sidewinder was targeted from the rear. One head on shot was made and that missed. British pilots had not undertaken any meaningful training with the weapon and hadn't prepared tactics to make use of it, they stuck with what they knew.
Previous versions of the sidewinder had been upgraded with improved seekers and better counter measures rejection which made them roughly equilavent in performance with the AIM-9L model.
The benefit which the supply of the new sidewinders did make was numbers, most weapons held by the British were NATO stock and to use them required permission from NATO which was a problem. The answer to the problem was timely fresh supply of shiney new sidewinders on a shoot first, pay later deal.

*edit* Originaly stated Argentina as NATO member which was incorrect.

[horsa]

Interesting info on the sidewinder Badhat. I've not really updated my reading since around the time of the conflict. I usually quote that technoogy to underline that the Americans DID help the Brits. In the light of your revised info ( assuming it's correct) it looks like I'll have to drop its tactical significance. I'm sure the yanks contributed some other technology but I can't remember now. :D

[NEON DEON]

Interesting info on the sidewinder Badhat. I've not really updated my reading since around the time of the conflict. I usually quote that technoogy to underline that the Americans DID help the Brits. In the light of your revised info ( assuming it's correct) it looks like I'll have to drop its tactical significance. I'm sure the yanks contributed some other technology but I can't remember now. :D

Well its been over 20 years so I might be off. But I think they refueled the Vulcan that bombed the Stanley Airport. Shhsh. Dont tell the Argentines.;)

[horsa]

I think they refueled the Vulcan that bombed the Stanley Airport. Shhsh. Dont tell the Argentines.;)
Well, well ... that would be a good one if it was true . The irony is it was almost an exact duplicate of the Doolittle raid in that it had a massive psychological effect but linflicted little real damage.

[NEON DEON]

I think they refueled the Vulcan that bombed the Stanley Airport. Shhsh. Dont tell the Argentines.;)
Well, well ... that would be a good one if it was true . The irony is it was almost an exact duplicate of the Doolittle raid in that it had a massive psychological effect but linflicted little real damage.

Well my memory must be fading. Looking it up, it apeared the refuel was claimed to have been done by leap frogging victors and not a U.S. KC aircraft. Or so goes the official account. Anyways I believe I was recalling the info from either a News Week article or a Time magazine article at about the time it actually took place. I also remember from those articles (probably just as incorrectly) that the Argentine Carrier The 25th of May tried to launch a strike force of fully loaded A4 Skyhawks against the british carriers, but the old Carrier was too slow, wind speed too low, and the weight of the aircraft too great to get the planes to launch.

Gosh I am an old fart! :cry:

One other thing comes to mind. I remember that the General Belgramo was formely the Heavy Cruiser USS Phoenix which was one of Mac Arthur's Flagships in WW II.

[mapuc]

I have an english friend who got the task to gathering the merchies. Man, what he told me about his trip around england to gather all those merchants and during the fight against the argentines.

Last night I fought a battle against argentina (FC)

Markus

[Kapitan]

First bombs to hit stanley were from a vulcan bomber, then the harriers took over.

[micky1up]

not forgeting the fact that even though the harriers we untested they were later to prove a fantastic fighter that has won all of its engagements at the top gun school and the us are using harriers now as support for the marine amphib units also the incorrect arming of the bombs on the argy planes helped alot most of them not exploding and thier tactics of going for the warships instead of the supply and troopships helped aswell but it dose go to prove i point ive have tried to make on many posts its not the equipment that wins wars its training and the quality of the people using the equipment if it happened again i sure we would have no problem defeating the argentinians we are a hell of a lot stronger now than then

[Linton]

Have any of you read Razor's edge by Hugh Bicheno?It is a warts and all account of the war written by a former intelligence officer.It has some particularly good maps and photographs and some very frank opinions.
I really think the only thing that will keep Argentina out is a Tomahawk equipped SSN in the South Atlantic.That is if one is available!Trying to find crews for the Shar and the Cvs at short notice would be impossible.You don't just jump into a shar and go to war-this is not 1940!
I think the kelpers better practice their spanish!
When is the computer game going to be released?

[Marcantilan]

I think they refueled the Vulcan that bombed the Stanley Airport. Shhsh. Dont tell the Argentines.;)
Well, well ... that would be a good one if it was true . The irony is it was almost an exact duplicate of the Doolittle raid in that it had a massive psychological effect but linflicted little real damage.

British sources claimed Victor tankers refueled the Vulcans.

In the other hand, the Vulcan raid was no more than a "show of force" to impress the Argies and persuade the surrender (no one could think to win the war with two bombers!)

But the Argies didn´t impress and the bloody campaing began the same day.

[Kapitan]

Dont want to worry you there but yeah we had two vulcan bombers maybe, but we also had a squadron of bomber capible victors and valiants, and besides a few raids with fully loaded vulcans would have leveled stanley.

[Marcantilan]

Dont want to worry you there but yeah we had two vulcan bombers maybe, but we also had a squadron of bomber capible victors and valiants, and besides a few raids with fully loaded vulcans would have leveled stanley.

Sure, but the entire fleet of Victor´s were commited for the nº 1 Blackbuck mission (Vulcan raids).

RAF couldn´t put more than 2 / 3 Vulcans over the islands, because the refuelling shortages.

Anyway, in a 2006 scenario you must forget about very (very) long range bombing ops.

[Kapitan]

I think that is why god gave us the tomahawk cruise missile, to save the expence of putting bombers ect....

[Godalmighty83]

and not much need to bomb stanley from afar if the forces there keep the argentine forces busy long enough for reinforcements to turn up..

and with the location of all our seaborn subs confidential there could be a few down there already along with the patrol boats.

does argentina still have exocets? and does britain still have the codes to turn them off?

[Kapitan]

Yes argentina has exocets but exocet isnt realy that good its range is pitiful, making it very easy pray for any CIWS or anti missile missile like the seawolf and sea dart.

Seawolf took out plenty or mirage fighters and its not realy designed for that, its roumerd they can even take out 4 inch gun shells !

as for forces on falklands theres always a marine detachment down there a fair few air craft one of our patrol craft, and no doubt a submarine some where.

Only reason they invaded is because we got rid of the first HMS Endurance.

[Kapitan]

oh and whats more britian might remember the war crimes commited by argentina.

[Marcantilan]

oh and whats more britian might remember the war crimes commited by argentina.

war crimes???

And yes, Seawolf was designed from the very start as a point defense missile, to deal with very low flying fighter size targets and sea skimming missiles.

By the way, HMS Endurance played a big part in the ´82 war. Was scrapped way after the war.

Last, I´m not in the mood to discuss "my army is bigger / better than yours". Sure UK forces are overall best trained and equiped than Argentine forces (same thing that in the 82), but my point is Argentina have better capabilities than in the ´80s and if (God forbidden) another war for the islands arises, gonna be fought in different terms.

[mapuc]

After the war, I red an article in a swedish tabloid "aftonbladet"(equal to the Sun)

In that article, it said that England had to bombers standing by somewhere in England with nuclear weapon onboard and the idea was to drop those on the second and third largeste city in Argentina, If England should loose the battle of the Falkland.

Markus

[micky1up]

oh and whats more britian might remember the war crimes commited by argentina.

war crimes???

And yes, Seawolf was designed from the very start as a point defense missile, to deal with very low flying fighter size targets and sea skimming missiles.

By the way, HMS Endurance played a big part in the ´82 war. Was scrapped way after the war.

Last, I´m not in the mood to discuss "my army is bigger / better than yours". Sure UK forces are overall best trained and equiped than Argentine forces (same thing that in the 82), but my point is Argentina have better capabilities than in the ´80s and if (God forbidden) another war for the islands arises, gonna be fought in different terms.




bollocks the uk navy has increased its strike potential 10 fold the argentines wouldnt last long the soildiers of the uks army have been in combat over the last 15 years and are in a more battle hardened state than in 1982 as the saying goes we would clean their chronometers

[bradclark1]

Ya'll are putting Marcantilan on the defensive. There is no sense in my dad can whip your dad bs comments.

[Kapitan]

the bombs in the planes may have been true but whats the point if they have a SSBN stationed in the atlantic within range?

Also our army has not been out of a war since the gulf war, argentina doesnt even have enough money to send its ships to sea, it has no money to even fight the inch war let alone falklands round two.

One war crime that came to my attention, argentine hospital ship put on search lights to aid thier own troops find and eliminate special forces the violation being that the argentina hospital ship is classified as nutrel and cannot favour any side.

[horsa]

it said that England had to bombers standing by somewhere in England with nuclear weapon onboard and the idea was to drop those on the second and third largeste city in Argentina, If England should loose the battle of the Falkland.

What in God's name would be the point of that !!! :stare:

[Godalmighty83]

i wouldnt believe that comment too much. this thread seems to be looking backwards in time a bit more then i was expecting.

[Marcantilan]

One war crime that came to my attention, argentine hospital ship put on search lights to aid thier own troops find and eliminate special forces the violation being that the argentina hospital ship is classified as nutrel and cannot favour any side.

That´s a violation of neutrality, not a war crime.

The only war crimes I heard of was those related in Vincent Bramley´s book (killing on the spot of 3 -or 2?- Argentinian POWs) By the way, the general impression (here and there) was the war was fought "fair" by both nations.

But, again, I think this thread is about a future and "what if" scenario, just a mental exercise about means and capabilities. Commentaries like "my soldier gonna eat your soldier kidney" are senseless IMHO.

Arguments about the use of subs, the lack of an Argentinian Carrier, the Phalanx CIWS, the renewed amphibious capabilities or Marine Corps, the AMRAAM in the SHA (now in reserve) are better suited here, I think.

[Kapitan]

DATE 2025 falklands round 2

We have the remaining trafalgars the astutes and probably a follow on from them, type 45 DDG and our new carriers with the new F35's.

Even with that i think britian stands more of a chance of winning than argentina ever will.

[Linton]

Just to finally put the who fuelled the vulcan topic to bed,one of my colleagues was the tanker leader for the Vulcan.He almost ran out of fuel himself on the way back.I have seen his photos and the mission plan on how they did the operation.A lot of other aircraft were going down there,nimrods and c-130s so it may have been them who got a top up from uncle sam

[VON_CAPO]

After the war, I red an article in a swedish tabloid "aftonbladet"(equal to the Sun)

In that article, it said that England had to bombers standing by somewhere in England with nuclear weapon onboard and the idea was to drop those on the second and third largeste city in Argentina, If England should loose the battle of the Falkland.

Markus
IMHO that kind of article is an invent from an ignorant of strategy, just trying to impress to the no informed mass.

No mature goverment with nuclear capatibilities will launch a nuclear strike in a conventional confrontation.

It is just common sense. The basic idea of "deterrance" is fear of a scalation. But if anyone scalate to a real nuclear attack, the deterrance goes to hell, and everybody will race to get such weapons to answer a real threat (not just hypothetical).
In other words, the today's "status quo" would disappear.

Consider this, if you live in a neighborhood where only a few are armed and they had not shot anybody in five decades, you sleep calmly.
But today one of them shooted to an unarmed guy, the logical consecuence would be that everybody will get weapons to defend theirselves.
The threat would be real.

Argentina and Brasil since the middle eighties have the capatibility to build nuclear weapons; but because of political reasons they didn't.

Any attack to continental soil would be considerated as a green light to begin the production of such weapons and its vectors of projection.

By other hand, references to Tomahawks are over-rated, this is a highly expensive weapon when you consider its cost-payload.
It is very dependant of satellites, and its guide has been showed as weak to interference.
It is excellent to attack well defended specific targets, but a excentric waste of resourses when is used indiscriminately.

About the specific topic of this thread:
Argentina is not able today to project its full power beyond their shores because its Air Force was rearmed wrongly with garbage (old but modernized A-4s again) :down:.

These planes are only good to keep in good shape the crews and to train a new pilot generation.

So, without a real air support, they better keep themselves into their shore.

[VON_CAPO]

Also our army has not been out of a war since the gulf war, argentina doesnt even have enough money to send its ships to sea, it has no money to even fight the inch war let alone falklands round two. When a war starts "available resources" is the key consideration.
Money is the key before the war.

So, if we analyse your affirmation from a close range, we will find out that only people and equipment matter.

Also, and of course IMHO, I would never underestimate those guys. They had already demonstrated that in very inferior conditions can give a tough fight. :|\\

[VON_CAPO]

The new A-4ARs:
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5963/0724989so9.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0724989so9.jpg) http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/540/0725955rk8.th.jpg (http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0725955rk8.jpg) http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9272/0729069zd2.th.jpg (http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0729069zd2.jpg)

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6378/0951485qz1.th.jpg (http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0951485qz1.jpg) http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/9735/0983013mo8.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0983013mo8.jpg) http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/4048/a4arc907iw0.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=a4arc907iw0.jpg)

The old A-4s in a Buenos Aires's museum:
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/994/0714715sk9.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0714715sk9.jpg) http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4569/1047205ny6.th.jpg (http://img228.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1047205ny6.jpg)