What would happen if the Falkland war II broke out?
 

Watching this on Military Channel and without a real air capability anymore, I'm thinking The UK would't have a candle to hold in reclaiming them this time around. Their Navy is a phantom of what it was in 1982.

-S

What you are really asking is what If Britain stopped subsidising (paying) Argentina for the use of Islas Malvinas?

On their own Britain couldn't hold the islands, but they couldn't hold it last time without allied help. It is half a globe away from Britain.

Lets put it this way, I don't think Argentina is forgetting about it. You should watch this video. It is only a matter of time I would think.

-S

Is Argentina rattling sabres?

Would Argentina risk it being against UK and possibly it's allies? :hmmm:

Britain couldn't hold its home islands in this century. Australia could take them....make England the penal colony...:oops:

I've got alot going on in the good ole USA to not give a horses patoot what's going on there. :yep:

May the best man win. :)

What if Superman was a Nazi?

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78jwhatif.phtml
:D

I can tell you all what happen, if...

I lost all the times I played the scenario, on my FC.

Markus

Turn it into a real thought instead of Superman thoughts. This type of ignorance led to WWII.

-S

The Argentinians underestimated us last time to the extent that they did not
think we would even try to hold on to the islands, let alone deliver a
devastating blow that would quickly lead to the toppling of the Argentinian
military government. Even they are not capable of thinking that they could
acheive it now.

The Argentinian military was very much at it's peak during the Falklands;
mainly due to the extremely pro-military government. Whilst Argentinian
technology has advanced, the military has shrunk in size and they still lack
the highly trained infantry that the British continue to excel with (SAS,
Blackwatch, etc; most of which have trained on the Falklands at
sometime!).

Our Navy has the same number of carriers available as it did during the
Falklands and the amphibious ability of the Royal Navy has improved
dramatically. Our Submarine force is still highly potent. In six years time
will will posses the world's newest carrier class with a second ship to follow
in 2018. Our current conventional ground/sea missile force was almost
non-existent during the Falklands.

The Falklands it's self is now heavily garrisoned by fresh troops and
hardened veterans of the Middle East. Fortifications have been built on
parts of the island. It's a regular venue for training and wargames. All
manner of scenarios are rehearsed.

At any given time one or more infantry battalions and aircraft carriers are
on 24 hour notice to be deployed to the Falklands. Commitments elsewhere
would not significantly impede first reactions.

Argentina's air force consists of ~35 A4 Skyhawks (from 1976) and 11
Mirage 5 jets (1979). This is contrasted by the 80+ jet aircraft fielded in
1982.
Whilst these planes where a threat in 1982, they are not of serious concern
to the Tornados or Typhoons that could be deployed in much greater numbers by just one of our carriers.

According to THIS report:

Our average age of military in the US is 30 years too.

Thanks for the insight though Letum. Though I question some of the Navies ability from some of the threads here. The UK Navy is way underfunded compared to what it was. What do you think about that? They were losing their carriers last I read too. Budget cuts.

-S

That is utterly ridiculous.

How so?

We are not losing any carriers any time soon and are in the process of
replacing them with the QE class. we currently have two in action, one in
reserve and two under construction. As well as out helicopter carrier.

The main cut backs have been in the destroyer force.
We currently have 5 aging destroyers (and one in reserve).
It was planned to double this force by building 12 new destroyers. However
cut-backs mean that the five old destroyers will only be replaced by 6 new
destroyers.

Our position as the 2nd largest NATO navy is safe.

Why bother New Zealand is closer and is less defended.:yeah:

Back to Topic, I believe that there would be an obvious build up if Argentina was going to try again. They could take the islands quiet quickly as it would take time to get any reinforcements there (7100 NM or 13,150km), but the trick is to hold them, and I doubt they could do that as they would agaist some very high tech equipment and very little support.

The british admirals have admitted that last time they escaped defeat very closely, because an Argentinian submarine fired a full broadside of torpedoes at their carrier and flagship - it's just that in the heat of battle the crew wired the torpedoes in a wrong manner, loosing control of them immediately after launch althoug having reached very ideal firing position. It has been reported in the media repeatedly without the government objecting to that description. I have quoted that repeatedly here over the past years.

On that day Britain simply had more luck then one could imagine, since all torpedoes fired were wired wrong.

Again: L-U-C-K.

The British navy has admitted that if that broadside would have hit, it probably would have crippled and sunk that carrier, and that this loss would have forced the British armada to give up and retreat - with air coverage gone.

On the other hand, long before the British fleet reached the island there were rumours of a British submarine already operating at the islands, which made the Argentinian navy no longer operating in vicinity of the islands, although that rumour was not confirmed any maybe just had been spread by the British to hamper Argentinian operations by bluffing them. Later, obviously, there was a British sub present indeed.

I would not count on the Argentinian sailors to misconnect their torpedoe-wires again. Also, Argentinian air force repeatedly penetrated the British air defences.

In today's hightech age, you better do not wage a hightech war against an enemy with weapons as sophisticated as your own. And such weapons spread worldwide.

Anyhow, the colonial days are over, and waging a major war about some rocks with few people on them that are some ten thosuand miles away to me does not make much sense - no matter that "pride of our nation" thing. The balance of gains and investments is always negative.

And then this: the smaller a navy is in size and the more sophisticated and expensive it'S units are - the more serious and costly is the loss of just one of them.

Holy crap! :haha:

The UK Navy may be underfunded, but it still outclasses a fully funded Argentine Navy. One Royal Navy attack sub could sink the whole thing.

Never bet against England ;)

You still sit in the middle with your analyasis. GB won the last time.

And a rerun unless someone steps in will turn out the same.

This is a nobrainer unless you a dreamer.