The Falklands

[DarloRich]

..... are British. (at least until such time as the people who live there choose something else)

End of story. Goodbye

 

[IanXC]

I wouldn't be so sure about fixed wing being a disadvantage, you must remember that our poin defence systems are much improved, and te new Type 45 destroyers are the most capable air defence ships in the world. And then for ground support, we have apaches, that could actually prove more useful than a harrier.

Absolutely, in addition as a Trafalgar Class submarine has been seen in the South Atlantic this year the Tomahawk cruise missiles are clearly being used as a deterrent too.

They have to take the islands first and seeing as the plan isn't to allow that to happen I'm not too worried just yet. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread the islands are far better protected than they were in 1982 (4 Typhoons and 500 odd troops compared with no jets and about 50 royal marines last time) and there are plenty of plans to reinforce the islands rapidly (as in less than perhaps 36 hours) should it look like Argentina is going to try and invade again.

Also I wouldn't be so dismissive over the impact of the SSNs. Right now I would be very surprised if there wasn't one steaming nearby to the islands so any invasion force is going to have to be very careful or risk losing it's transports to torpedoes/harpoons.

The strategy has to be defence is best. The potent combination of SSNs, Type 45 destroyers and Typhoons is the key to that, all of which have been at some point in the South Atlantic this year.

It must be clear to Argentina that whilst in 1982 the Vulcan mission was the demonstration that we could target the mainland if we wanted to, our ability to do this is both enhanced and simplified using Tomahawk.

If the islands were lost, I believe the only hope we would have of recapturing them in battle would be as part of a multinational coalition. An Anglo-French force would have the ability, and given France's support, and offers of much greater support, in 1982, would not be beyond the realms of possibility.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe in the open ocean but over land those T45s defences are going to be much weaker as their radar is going to suffer from being blinded by hill/mountains and the ships themselves are going to have to get closer to land as well again leaving them more vulnerable to air attack. The only thing that might help would be deploying the AEW version of the Sea King but I'm not sure if they can operate from a platform like HMS Ocean or not and even with those you're still left with T45s needing to get very close to land to provide air cover for ground troops (and of course splitting your very limited AAW assets between covering the task force at sea and the ground troops ashore). I still maintain that without fixed wig aviation retaking the islands would be hard verging on the impossible.

The ASaC7 Sea Kings remain in service so I suspect they can operate from Ocean. In fact I'm sure I've seen them operating from Argus in the past so I can't see why they couldn't. In any case Illustrious is still in service as a Helicopter platform.

I wouldn't be so concerned about the ability of the T45s to provide support to land forces. The testing installation of the SAMPSON radar at Portsmouth was able to simultaneously track activity at every major European Airport, and theres the capability of "tracking an object the size of a cricket ball, travelling at Mach 3". Sea Viper is apparently so good that in order for the Americans to have a chance in exercises it has to be turned off... hock:

 

[ainsworth74]

In any case Illustrious is still in service as a Helicopter platform.

How did I forget about Lusty...

Sea Viper is apparently so good that in order for the Americans to have a chance in exercises it has to be turned off...

Always nice to have kit that can beat the Americans

 

[IanXC]

Always nice to have kit that can beat the Americans

Plenty more where that came from, in 2004, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."

- In June 2005, a Royal Air Force Eurofighter trainer two seater was reportedly able, in a chance encounter over the Lake District, to avoid two pursuing F-15E fighter-bombers and outmaneuver them, and obtain radar lock on both aircraft.
- In the 2005 Singapore evaluation, the Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s.

 

[Badger]

The Vikings invaded England before the Normans. Therefore, going by the logic everyone is using, the Nordic countries should have England back.

No? Why is that any different?

 

[IanXC]

The Vikings invaded England before the Normans. Therefore, going by the logic everyone is using, the Nordic countries should have England back.

No? Why is that any different?

Err that the population of the Falklands want to remain British, and the British (even descendants of Vikings) have not expressed any wish to be ruled by Norway.

 

[Oswyntail]

The Vikings invaded England before the Normans. Therefore, going by the logic everyone is using, the Nordic countries should have England back.

No? Why is that any different?

There was an indigenous population that did what it always did, and always has done, assimilated the invaders into being "British". AFAIK, there was no indigenous population on the Falklands - as opposed to Argentina, but there is little trace of that!

 

[exile]

We handed Hong Kong over (though we were obliged by treaty only to hand back the New Territories in 1997, not Kowloon and Hong Kong Island) on the grounds that had we had very little practical choice in the matter, whatever the wishes of the inhabitants.

Why can't some deal be struck where the Argies get the rights to oil and the Falklanders retain their links with the UK?

 

[IanXC]

We handed Hong Kong over (though we were obliged by treaty only to hand back the New Territories in 1997, not Kowloon and Hong Kong Island) on the grounds that had we had very little practical choice in the matter, whatever the wishes of the inhabitants.

It's a bit like the Jim Hacker Quote from 'Yes Minister':
Hacker: 'We should defend the weak against the strong'
Sir Humphrey: 'Why not attack the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, then?'
Hacker: 'The Soviets are TOO strong'

Why can't some deal be struck where the Argies get the rights to oil and the Falklanders retain their links with the UK?

Argentina's reasons for wanting the Falklands are nothing to do with Oil, and date from long before Oil Exploration was even suggested.

 

[WestCoast]

There was an indigenous population that did what it always did, and always has done, assimilated the invaders into being "British". AFAIK, there was no indigenous population on the Falklands - as opposed to Argentina, but there is little trace of that!

You're right, there was no indigenous population on the Falklands. The British Crown was responsible for populating the islands.

 

[Lampshade]

The Vikings invaded England before the Normans. Therefore, going by the logic everyone is using, the Nordic countries should have England back.

No? Why is that any different?

If we're using that stupid argument it could be said Angola have a backdated claim to the entire world.

 

[yorksrob]

The Vikings invaded England before the Normans. Therefore, going by the logic everyone is using, the Nordic countries should have England back.

No? Why is that any different?

If Denmark, for example, had continued to govern their part of Great Britain during the intervrning thousand or so years, and if the population of the Danegeld area chose to maintain a constitutional link with mother Denmark, then it would indeed be right and proper for Denmark to continue to govern the country. You will have no doubt noticed, however, that this is not the case.

Incidentally, the Faroe Islands do actually continue to have a constitutional link with Denmark precisely because of their Viking history. Do you see us pursueing some childish, ill-founded and baseless claim just because they happen to be nearer geographically to us ? No you do not.

 

[Badger]

If we're using that stupid argument it could be said Angola have a backdated claim to the entire world.

That's my point though (that it's stupid). Somebody being there before somebody else, when we're talking about this kind of timescale, shouldn't matter. The current generation were born years after the event and therefore they should have the right to decide.

 

[Butts]

The Argentinian argument is that when they got Independence from Spain The Falklands came as part of the package. About 1810 I believe.

The Argentinian Airforce are famous for disposing of dissidents by inviting them to leave an aircraft, mid-flight, over the ocean, without a parachute - saves on forensics !!!

During the last conflict they should have sent the RN Submarines into harbour and sunk the entire Argentinian fleet never mind just The Belgrano. They could have also used missiles to "take out" the airfields and aircraft.

If you examine the amount of territory Argentina has "half inched" from Chile and it's other neighbours it is all a bit hypocritical

 

[ainsworth74]

During the last conflict they should have sent the RN Submarines into harbour and sunk the entire Argentinian fleet never mind just The Belgrano. They could have also used missiles to "take out" the airfields and aircraft.

Would have been dangerous and probably overkill to sink their fleet at the pier side (remember the storm that got kicked up about sinking the Belgrano and that ship was at least at sea!). Also I don't the UK forces of 1982 would have had any missiles that could have been used to attack enemy airfields*, the Tomahawk cruise missile wouldn't enter services the US until 1983 and the RN didn't get them until 1998.

Well other than Polaris but that would have been just a bit of an escalation don't you think

 

[IanXC]

During the last conflict they should have sent the RN Submarines into harbour and sunk the entire Argentinian fleet never mind just The Belgrano. They could have also used missiles to "take out" the airfields and aircraft.

Would have been dangerous and probably overkill to sink their fleet at the pier side (remember the storm that got kicked up about sinking the Belgrano and that ship was at least at sea!). Also I don't the UK forces of 1982 would have had any missiles that could have been used to attack enemy airfields*, the Tomahawk cruise missile wouldn't enter services the US until 1983 and the RN didn't get them until 1998.

Well other than Polaris but that would have been just a bit of an escalation don't you think

Indeed I'm not sure it would be possible to sail a 4,000 odd tonne submarine underwater into an enemy harbour and expect it to return from the mission.

The Vulcan flights did of course demonstrate to the Argentinians that we could hit their mainland airfields if we wanted to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just been reminded that the 4 aircraft of 1435 Flight at Mount Pleasant are named; Faith, Hope and Charity fly operationally, with Desperation appropriately in reserve.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Couldn't they rename the 4th aircraft "Glory"?

 

[DarloRich]

Would have been dangerous and probably overkill to sink their fleet at the pier side (remember the storm that got kicked up about sinking the Belgrano and that ship was at least at sea!). Also I don't the UK forces of 1982 would have had any missiles that could have been used to attack enemy airfields*, the Tomahawk cruise missile wouldn't enter services the US until 1983 and the RN didn't get them until 1998.

Well other than Polaris but that would have been just a bit of an escalation don't you think

I have never understood all the stuff about the Belgrano. It was a war, it was a war ship, it was sunk. End of issue. I dont care where it was when it was sunk or in what direction it was going.

It was a MASSIVE ship of war armed with huge guns, missiles and god knows what else. The Royal Navy sank it - I would have sent them after every other ship in the Argentinian fleet.

 

[Anon Mouse]

and crewed by lads with families, lads with no choice but to fight against the enemy....

 

[ainsworth74]

I have never understood all the stuff about the Belgrano. It was a war, it was a war ship, it was sunk. End of issue. I dont care where it was when it was sunk or in what direction it was going.

It was a MASSIVE ship of war armed with huge guns, missiles and god knows what else. The Royal Navy sank it - I would have sent them after every other ship in the Argentinian fleet.

In my mind it has always been the correct tactical decision. The Belgrano represented a threat with it's own weapons and the missiles of it's escorts and the danger of trapping our task force between the Belgrano and Veinticinco de Mayo it was always the best call to sink it (and it also had the effect of ensuring that the Argentine surface fleet never left port for the rest of the war).

However, I can see why it would cause something of a storm. The Belgrano was outside of the exclusion zone (though that was for neutrals not belligerents) and was probably at the time sailing away from the Falklands. It also was the single largest loss of life and ensured that any diplomatic solution was off of the table.

Personally, I agree with you. It was a war, the ship was a threat and therefore should have been sunk and if we could have taken a shot at Veinticinco de Mayo I would have supported the sinking of that ship as well.

 

[yorksrob]

In my mind it has always been the correct tactical decision. The Belgrano represented a threat with it's own weapons and the missiles of it's escorts and the danger of trapping our task force between the Belgrano and Veinticinco de Mayo it was always the best call to sink it (and it also had the effect of ensuring that the Argentine surface fleet never left port for the rest of the war).

However, I can see why it would cause something of a storm. The Belgrano was outside of the exclusion zone (though that was for neutrals not belligerents) and was probably at the time sailing away from the Falklands. It also was the single largest loss of life and ensured that any diplomatic solution was off of the table.

Personally, I agree with you. It was a war, the ship was a threat and therefore should have been sunk and if we could have taken a shot at Veinticinco de Mayo I would have supported the sinking of that ship as well.

Exactly. The sinking of the Belgrano was horrific, But we mustn't forget the fascist government that sent those people to their deaths in the first place. No one forced Argentina to invade someone else's land. The Belgrano was an enemy vessel. End of storey.

 

[Old Timer]

The current Falklands issue in Argentina is simply being driven by exactly the same reasons that the original invasion was.

There is a huge economic problem over there, and a President whose is unpopular. Dont be fooled into thinbking that the vast majority of the Argentinians actually want to take back the Falklands.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the President sees the Falklands as a way of deflecting attention away from her own problems. The average Argentinian sees no reason to take on the Falklands and would prefer that relationships with the UK were placed on a better long term footing

 

[ainsworth74]

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the President sees the Falklands as a way of deflecting attention away from her own problems.

I found it deeply amusing when Argentina accused David Cameron of using the Falklands as an attempt to distract the British public from domestic issues.

 

[yorksrob]

The current Falklands issue in Argentina is simply being driven by exactly the same reasons that the original invasion was.

There is a huge economic problem over there, and a President whose is unpopular. Dont be fooled into thinbking that the vast majority of the Argentinians actually want to take back the Falklands.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the President sees the Falklands as a way of deflecting attention away from her own problems. The average Argentinian sees no reason to take on the Falklands and would prefer that relationships with the UK were placed on a better long term footing

I certainly hope that you're right Old Timer. But with Mrs Kirchner stirring the situation, I just don't trust Argentina at the moment.

 

[Yew]

Waitt.... Have I agreed with old timer twice on one day?


Remember that really, the Belgrano wasn't a particularly big ship for the time she was built. (a light cruiser in the us navy, Atlanta class iirc) however due to budget cuts. The royal navy decided to scrap the most modern battleship in the world after barely 10 years service, and no shells fired in in anger. Sounds a bit like 9f's doesn't it

 

[Schnellzug]

and crewed by lads with families, lads with no choice but to fight against the enemy....

exactly like the Bismarck and the U-Boats in the World Wars; they'd have sunk your ships if you hadn't sunk them.

 

[Oswyntail]

and crewed by lads with families, lads with no choice but to fight against the enemy....

War is a terrible thing, and people die. I can guarantee that your thought went through the minds of the men on the submarine as they sank the ship; but I can also guarantee they thought that is what they were there for, and, by ending lives they might well be saving more. Complex

 

[Butts]

exactly like the Bismarck and the U-Boats in the World Wars; they'd have sunk your ships if you hadn't sunk them.

The situation would be even worse today with the 24 hour rolling news and various social media outlets available to individuals.

It must be frustrating for the Military trying to fight a war with one hand tied behind their backs. Whether this is a good or bad development depends on your standpoint.

One thing for certain the casualties we suffer today whilst tragic are miniscule compared to those in WWII, yet headline news

 

[Anon Mouse]

I found it deeply amusing when Argentina accused David Cameron of using the Falklands as an attempt to distract the British public from domestic issues.

well, it did save Thatchers bacon
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

exactly like the Bismarck and the U-Boats in the World Wars; they'd have sunk your ships if you hadn't sunk them.

exactly, and lets remember many of the German soilders, were conscripts with no choice in the matter.

The difference was, the Bismark, The U Boats etc were in the war zone. The Belgrano was not.

BTW I'm not taking sides here, politically I feel the Falklands are just one last outpost of Empire and should belong to Argentina. However given that 99%, if not 100% of the population there wish to remain British so its their views that should be respected. I have another solution, allow the Falkland residents to govern themselves as their own Independent Country but I doubt we would like that as it would be a further part of the British Empire gone and theat the new found oil would have to be paid for. I also doubt the Argies would want that as they would have to buy the oil thats just been found and they would lose a hell of a lot of pride and face if it happened. Or maybe we could have a compromise where the Country is split and jointly governed by both Argentina and the UK?

 

[yorksrob]

The difference was, the Bismark, The U Boats etc were in the war zone. The Belgrano was not.

The Bismark etc were effectively in a "warzone" the moment they left port. Even before. This is a more realistic view of war than trying to draw an imaginary line in the sea and pretending that we're all friends until someone paddles over it.

BTW I'm not taking sides here, politically I feel the Falklands are just one last outpost of Empire and should belong to Argentina. However given that 99%, if not 100% of the population there wish to remain British so its their views that should be respected. I have another solution, allow the Falkland residents to govern themselves as their own Independent Country but I doubt we would like that as it would be a further part of the British Empire gone and theat the new found oil would have to be paid for. I also doubt the Argies would want that as they would have to buy the oil thats just been found and they would lose a hell of a lot of pride and face if it happened. Or maybe we could have a compromise where the Country is split and jointly governed by both Argentina and the UK?

I don't believe that Mrs Kirchner is capable of acting in good faith. When Argentina says that "it only wants us to come to the negotiating table" the unmistakable subtext is that it wants us to come to the negotiating table just so long as we submit to everything they demand, regardless of the wishes of the residents.

BTW, by saying that you feel the islands should belong to Argentina, you are taking sides.