What would happen if the Falkland war II broke out?

[SUBMAN1]

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.

[FIREWALL]

What if..... ( insert a ridicules scenario ) happened.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

What if..... ( insert a ridicules scenario ) happened.

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

[nikimcbee]

Is Argentina rattling sabres?

[Dowly]

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

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

[FIREWALL]

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

May the best man win.

[Letum]

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:

In a May 2007 op-ed to the conservative Argentine daily La
Nacion, former Defense Minister Horacio Jaunarena declared that the
average age of the country’s military hardware is thirty years. He reported
that the army was operating at 30% of its supposed strength, due to its
limited ability to house and feed its troops, as well as to maintain its
equipment and weaponry. The former official gave other examples, such as
that out of 31 military transport aircraft in inventory, only four were
currently operational. Although the Argentine navy is considered new in
comparison to those found in other countries across the continent, it
remains one of the less potent in terms of its inherent military capacity.

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

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

Why bother New Zealand is closer and is less defended.

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.

[clive bradbury]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

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

You wouldn't be the first person to make that particular misjudgement...

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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

You mean this:

[XabbaRus]

Skybird please confirm the whole broadside thing. AFAIK that is unconfirmed and still is.

CastleBravo. Yes you gave us access to the AIM-9L and with back channel supplies of stingers but in the most part the Falklands was fought by the UK alone. In fact there were quite a few in US govt. cirlces who were not happy with Maggie socking it to the Argentines.

Also there is a permanent fighter force on Falklands which could take out the Argentine air force way out from the islands.

Oh and please can you confirm about the UK subsidising the Argentines?

[Skybird]

Xabba, find the old threat(s) on the issue from some years ago, there I told names as well as links, plus it was BBC major news, if I remember correctly. I struggle to find it again. But it was confirmed by either the admiral commanding that expeditionary fleet, or the chief of the British navy . It has been revealed just some years ago, like it also was revealed just 5 or 6 years ago that the British had send nuclear weapons to the fleet, that then were transferred from the transporting frigates to the carriers. the argentininians had four submarines, two WWII-era boats, and two German modern Type-209, the latter definitely had the capability to penetrate the ASW screen of the fleet. that 209 also fired repeatedly at the fleet but over too great distances, thus all shots missed. The British failed to detect it for the whole duration of it's operation time - the entire war.

If I were the navy, I would not talk much about my capital ships escaping by sheer luck, too. It raises the question why politicians should pay for new carriers if these are so vulnerable to enemy subs.

One word on the human side of the war. Today, the number of losses on British side is counted to be smaller than the number of veterans of that war who have commited suicide due to posttraumatic stress syndrome since the war ended. Suicides on Argentinian side equal roughly two thirds of their KIA numbers.

[Skybird]

I searched more a bit and found Admiral Woodward, commander of the British, admitting that in his views the Argentinians had a solid chance to win the war if only they would have focussed their air war on the British carriers, instead of scattering them somewhat. I understand that he reveals that in his biography published in 1997.

Reader'S comments made me curious on that book, maybe I read it. I have read "Into the Storm" by Gen. Franks three times, too, an found it very valuable. Woodward'S book seem to describe the Falkland war from the same persective, on the same level of command and with comparable objective attitude.