Argentina Upping the Ante
Share by EmailWe have discussed the ‘defencibility’ of the Falkland Islands and how the defences sit within an escalating scale that matches risk levels but the issue seems to crop up at regular intervals.
The last post that I detailed the situation was here
The Daily Telegraph started the latest wailing and gnashing of teeth with a story about Argentina stopping Spanish fishing vessels;
Argentine patrol vessels have boarded 12 Spanish boats, operating under fishing licences issued by the Falkland Islands, for operating “illegally” in disputed waters in recent weeks.
Argentine patrol commanders carrying out interceptions near the South American coast told Spanish captains they were in violation of Argentina’s “legal” blockade of sea channels to the Falklands.
For reasons of local politics the current Argentine government is engaged in a campaign of harassment, they are trying to keep the issue alive whilst the rest of the world is looking at the Euro and various other financial troubles.
This is nothing more than the action of a weak wristed bully who knows full well that should they actually step over the line from harrassment to actual military action they will have their arse embarrasingly handed to them a second time
Like all bullies, they can’t resist puffing out their chest but walk very rarely matches talk.
We should not be alarmed by all the noise and heat but I do wonder how this plays across the pond.
I always like to see how our US cousins view these things and a couple of snippets from two of my favorite blogs set the scene.
Britain has let their navy decline to the point where it has no credible deterrence capability. Not surprisingly, Argentina is suddenly not deterred
Bring the Heat, Bring the Stupid
Hope those Typhoons are capable in the maritime strike arena, cause what Sharkey was worried about appears to be happening…the Falklands appear to be endangered
How can normally sane and level headed bloggers see things so differently from reality?
Do they not understand the comparative force levels, the degree of training and expertise, equipment capabilities, graduated reinforcement plans or just how difficult it would be for the Argentine forces to do anything militarily useful.
That said, perceptions are important, so perhaps we are too close to the reality to appreciate the seriousness of the slow ratcheting of tensions and need to remind our cousins from the land of great football and corned beef that Blighty is not to be intimidated?
We should emphasise that the door is always open for sensible cooperation on hydrocarbon and fisheries exploitation but certain issues are off the table and just to reinforce the point it is about time we carried out a very visible reinforcement exercise with a spot of live firing.
Is it time to put the bully back in their box?
Category: Land, Sea and Air
About the Author (Author Profile)
Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
The trouble with the British media is that it is generally useless for defence reporting. Every article resorts to hyperbole and drama of the type you expect from tabloids. Sadly, the Times, Telegraph & Guardian are all guilty of it.
If British people start believing it then why wouldn’t foreign watchers? You would hope though that those in control in Argentina knows full well it would have its ‘arse handed to it’ as you say.
hey TD.
not just US bloggers but if you read Sharkey Ward’s blog you’ll find that he’s worried about this scenario for a while. and lets add another dimension here. its about being able to deploy and support a credible naval force 8,000 miles from home. the Argentinians have much shorter supply lines, haven’t been bleed fighting two wars, don’t have world wide responsibilities and have the support of the S. American nations.
additionally the defense cutbacks that have struck the RN appear to be rather drastic on this side of the ocean.
@Solomon
The point of having a standing garrison of 1200 4 typhoons HMs Clyde and the FIDF is to make it too costly to envisage taking in the first place.
a garrison of 1200 troops is smaller than a Marine Corps MEU. you’re talking about how many trigger puller with that? say maybe 700 with the rest being support troops? HMS Clyde is a patrol boat with its biggest weapon being a 30mm gun (a boat by the way that was denied a port visit to Brazil in Jan of this year in support of Argentinian claims to the island) and i don’t know what a FIDF is but i’ll assume its a flight of Typhoons.
hey guys. we’re not saying that the islands are about to fall and that they’re steaming toward them right now. all we’re saying is that it appears that the war drums are beating and that the UK doesn’t appear to be responding at all.
but the question that no one wants to answer is this. if the islands fell. IF they fell could the UK retake them as they did in 1982?
‘and have the support of S.American nations’
Only ‘support’ in the way you agree with the the next door neighbour that you’ll cut their grass to stop them nagging you for 5 minutes.
That’s a long way removed from a democratic government launching an attack on behalf of another country that contravenes international law.
‘the Argentinians have much shorter supply lines’
What are they going to invade with? Are they going to swim?
Sol, FIDF is the Falkland Islands Defence Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Defence_Force
The point is not to lose them again
‘all we’re saying is that it appears that the war drums are beating and that the UK doesn’t appear to be responding at all.’
If the war drums are beating then Argentina are bringing a pea shooter to the supposed fight. The UK government does not comment on every little propaganda stunt. Maybe you’re just being a drama queen again Solomon and going all yehaaaw on us?
call it what you like but as i said earlier…Sharkey Ward and several other Royal Navy thinkers have warned about this very scenario.
you can discount Argentinian capabilities but combat in Iraq and Afghanistan should show how silly and dangerous that can be.
As I have said a couple of times here we don’t have to fight a war to loose the Falklands. The Argentines only have to create an incident at an opportune time. I can’t see Cameron telling APT(S) to stop any Argentine naval vessel. And I definitely can’t see a Labour government doing it for sure.
I find it amusing they only boarded Spanish vessels. I wonder if it was a deliberate or did the captains take the line of least resistance with regards to language?
Perhaps the Spanish could send a ship south to protect their trawlers?
@ Solomon can you please demostrate where in Iraq or Afghan we suffered anything other than the demonstration that well motivated and equpped guerilla force can achieve devastaing results. both conventional campaigns were cake walks.
Argentina needs to mount a succesful invasion over 250Nm against aq garrison of 1200 troops with 4 state of art fighters, ground based radar, a patrol vessel and normally supporting frigate, a local defence force company strenrth with latest equipment tranied by Royal marine raper air defence batteries and the ability to put 350 extra soldiers from spearhead battalion on a Ba 777 who will arrive innside 48 hrs to collect equipment from onsite stores.
@ APATS,
the force of 1200 (if that’s what the real number boils down to) actually translates into a reinforced rifle company, a TA infantry company, some air defence assets in the form of Rapier and 4 Typhoons, and a dinky little boat. Them’s what do the fighting. The rest are mouths to feed.
That reinforced infantry company is effectively immobile without helicopters. The FIDF are mostly on their farms scattered over 50 miles and remote from their C3 enablers and weapons, unless called up. They will mostly rely on a single road to report for duty, a road that is eminently severable by a two 4-man SF patrols either side of their isolated barracks / drill hall. Last time I was there in 2002 when conducting the annual PJHQ OPEVAL, their comms and procedures were inoperable with the infantry company, and over 65% failed either their annual personal weapons test or combat fitness test. Their land rovers were at less than 50% availability due to lack of spares. They had not had anything greater than section training in the calendar year, and it was early November. No sections weapons training had been conducted for about six months. I’d give that lot about six minutes of combat time before they lost, badly.
The most sensible voice among the garrison was the infantry company commander, who was training his company to learn to live off the land, having evacuated MPA accommodation with no more than 24 hours rations and as much ammunition as they could carry, and had raised a case for his company to be issued with shoulder held anti-air weapons to be able to continue to make any potential invader’s life a misery if air reinforcement was considered. Smart thinking.
What colour uniform do the majority of those 1200 ware? Just askin’……….
James.
wow.
All politicians are the same & Andy.
wikipedia is probably inaccurate but that decrepit Argentinian Navy that you all talk about has German subs (one is a type 209..the other the classification escapes me but its supposedly robust)…it has MEKO corvettes and they alone effectively outgun a frigate that will be on call to deploy there in Feb of next year. any discussion of the HMS Clyde being able to fight off one of those MEKO’s is pure silliness not mention the subs.
drama queen? i think James put that bit of talk to bed with his analysis of the situation.
yelling heehaw? i just ask you to read articles by your own RN leadership.
complacency is not your friend. neither is arrogance based on past performance.
@james you could haven just posted 2002 and left it at that, thankfully things have improved. every single member of the garrison is trained to OM 525 standard and has there own rifle upon deployment.
As all the company has to do is hold the airfield and await instructions why would they move, to engage argentinian dropped 40 miles away? Embedded Rm NCos have improbed the FIDF beyone recognition, they are a bunch of lean fit farmers with state of art equipment and comms, normally usin quads but whose Landys are better maintained than the garrisons they are not there to do section attacks and above but cause chaos with guerilla tactics they have HMG, LAW and snipers plus motivation (BOERS ring a bell), MANPAD and Javelin are now used by FIDF the port troop and other units.
Solomon, so just how many troops can Argentina land 40 miles away from Mount Pleasant on a meko and a sub? Are we forgetting an SSN that will be deployed or the T45/T23?
They certainly wont be landing with anything heavy.
Over 20% of 18 to 24 year olds are not in education employment or training. Should be easy enough to conscript a couple of cheap rifle battalions from that lot.
Claim Job Seekers Allowance for six months and you get packed off down south for the next six. L67.50 a week (minus food and uniform charges, of course).
Seems the most cost effective way of increasing the size of the island’s garrison. And might also inspire a few of society’s less ambitious young folks.
@ Brian Black unless of course we have learnt nothing about the perfrmane of Argentinian conscripts against our reg forces last time.
Not a replacement for the garrison, just a supplement, APATS. I’m sure they could man a few cold and remote OPs. Stare at the sea through their tears for six months, looking for landing ships.
And I was wrong, it’s 53.45 a week for under 25s, even cheaper.
oh they so could and just maybe we could harness their aggresive tendencies
you really need to read your history. the Battle of Goose Green is required reading in the USMC and it wasn’t such an easy affair.
@ APATs,
I’m not familiar with OM 525, but if it is anything less than trained combat infantryman (i.e. a regular Army or RM standard), I’m not impressed. As for his own rifle on deployment, is that his own rifle in his house, or his own rifle in the armoury 50 miles away? If it is the latter, does he have his own route to the barracks, or does he rely on the single road?
No Solomon i have walked the grlound thta is waht happens when you have an elite force attacing a conscript force. The impossible happens
@James FIDF rifles ares kept at home in MPC they are in armoury, 525 is the trained soldier shoot. 90% of the FIDF live in stalnley so your sf have so far cut the road, shut the airfield and stoped the FIDF taking part, we really need ed you on red cell with your argy terminators.
that’s a pretty flippant answer to a complex tactical problem. my point is that the entire battle was in doubt for more than a few seconds and it took incredible bravery and fortitude for the tide to turn toward the British.
i just don’t understand the almost cocky attitudes that i see here with regards to a small garrison, a tiny air presence and a virtual nill naval force on a protectorate thats 8000 miles away.
i keep reading attitudes that knock the combat capability of the Argentinian forces but a quick Google search shows much more capability than indicated here.
you gents might really want to reassess your views on this subject. the arrogance is awe inspiring.
Solomon the battle was never in dout from the moment UK land forces were on the ground in force. For fs sake the argentineans vactated a position that psyops told them would be assualted by the gurkha rifles.
Anyone assuming that Argentina somehow needs a full panopoly of amphibious and air power to retake the Falklands really has no imagination. The Typhoons are effectively useless against anything other than an air threat, so that just leaves the guard ship. Since we are about to lose even more frigates and destroyers, I’ll assume that will be withdrawn shortly, so a pair of RO-RO steaming into Mare Harbour and/or Stanley will do the job nicely. I’m sure the FIDF and garrison will put up a fight, but once the Argentinians hold or can deny MPA, it’s game over, however many TLAM’s we launch against the presidential palace in BAA. Without carriers, no air cover, no way of recapturing the islands.
We will then have plenty of time to reflect that having carrier air and opposed entry capabilities actually save money, since defending the Falklands in the absence of any way of retaking it means a brigade sized garrision along with a wing of Typhoons.
@RF of course your Ro ROs have sailed undetected form argentina never been detected and been allowed to sail through the 30M choke points that guard Stanley and ECP everyone just ignored them. great.
@All Politicians are the Same: I’m sure they won’t be ignored, but what exactly can 3 Tranche 1 Typhoon’s do about it, apart from strafe them…with their non-installed cannons? Argentina is a day’s sailing away: a coup de main is entirely plausible
Ahh the Falklands war! Always good for a feisty debate.
Presuming the Argentines were stupid enough to have another crack in the first place, as opposed to just playing diplomatic gains to try and get a deal over the oil, the chances of them holding on to their ill gotten gains after an invasion are slim.
The highlight of their fleet is a submarine force that consists of one nearly 40 year old and two nearly 30 year old SSK, versus a British ensemble of nuclear powered attack submarines equipped with some of the worlds most advanced sonar systems.
Aside from a squadron or two of low rate patrol vessels, the core of their surface fleet is built around four nearly 30 year old “destroyers” (the builders prefer the term “Frigates”). Yes, they are MEKO vessels, but very much old school MEKO.
Moving on to the air, the Argentine air force has a squadron of Mirage III fighters (1956 vintage), a squadron of Mirage V fighters (1969 vintage), about two squadrons worth of uprgraded A-4 Skyhawks, and about 3 squadrons of Pucara ground attack aircraft.
This mighty air package will be expected to sustain combat operations for weeks if not months against modern Type 23 Frigates, combining the excellent Artisan radar with the well proven Sea Wolf (vertical launch variety) and quite likely will also have to face the Type 45 Destroyer, arguably one of the best air defence Destroyers in the world today.
This is presuming of course that the well funded Argentine Air Force is better able to service and maintain its aircraft than the RAF, otherwise we’ll be looking at slight reductions in those swarming numbers before things even get a little feisty.
I also get very annoyed and disheartened reading things like this;
“Without carriers, no air cover, no way of recapturing the islands”
Last time around that air cover failed to prevent the loss of six vessels sunk and another 12 damaged, yet we still managed to pull it off. Of the actual attack aircraft (A-4) used against the ships, more were shot down by the ships themselves than the aircraft covering them.
Since then we’ve built new vessels that take account of the lessons learned, and have sufficient understanding of our tactical mistakes (it’s all there in the publicly available board of inquiries into the sinkings), to be assured that our losses should be lighter this time.
Meanwhile the Argentine air force has barely taken a step forward since the first war.
We took a pounding in ’81, yet the remaining forces pressed on and got the job done. Now we’re expected to believe that minus a few Harriers with sidewinders overhead that we should just abandon the islands as lost?
If that’s the case then the very next day the entire Navy should be laid up and paid off. All that money spent on modern, 21st century radars and missiles, and it can’t handle aircraft that were pushing their luck back the first time around? Why build them then?
Would a “Falklands take two” be a shitty deal if it had to be done tomorrow? Yeah, it would. But it would be doable. Perhaps through pure skill. Perhaps through pure luck. I don’t see any military reason why we couldn’t take back those Islands.
Us Yanks are just delusional I guess…
Bloody edit function!!
It should say ’82, not ’81 above.
Thanks for the link. Sorry I didn’t put more effort into that post, but I didn’t think it was that big a deal.
I don’t see Argentina going for a coup de main anytime soon. I think a lot of the sabre rattling is for domestic consumption.
But I also believe that Argentina is playing a long game here. If they can prevent the Falklands from generating revenue from selling fishing rights, deligitamize claims on other resources in the area (such as offshore oil and gas deposits) and generally make the sustainment of the Falklands a big enough loser for the British government, there’s a fair chance sooner or later Whitehall will sell out the islanders.
At least, that seems to be the Argentinians thinking. I’m not quite ready to buy it. But if Britain had a more robust capability to instantly surge significant RN and RAF forces into the area, do you think this crap would be going on?
@ Chris B,
the main reason (among many) that the Argentinians lost in 82 was that they failed to put in place a ground force large enough, or support it adequately. They had two Brigades on the island. We sent two Brigades. Against a tier one NATO army, we would not have won, but against the Argentinians, we scraped through.
The Argentinians need to achieve three things:
1. Strategic surprise (ideal) or lack of knowledge in enough time to seize the islands. The current garrison is vulnerable to unconventional attack.
2. A Division of infantry (minimum 3 Brigades) on the islands. Ideally 4 Brigades.
3. Supporting arms, logistics and ground attack air on the islands.
It would be a huge operation for them. But it would be an even more huge operation for us to take it back. What we would need to do, having lost the islands:
Week One: Have in place enough T45 and Astute to close down sea and air lines of communication. To my eyes, that’s probably a pair of subs and 3 or 4 T45 to adequately cover all possible approaches from all possible points of departure from the mainland. That would make subsequently retaking the islands much easier (they’d get only a Brigade ashore in the first 2 days, not much if any logistics).
If not, and they do build up the forces in the first two weeks:
Weeks 2-10: generate an assault Division (+) of minimum 4, ideally 6 Brigades.
Generate an amphibious force to carry the Division south 8,000 miles.
Carry out an opposed amphibious assault in Divisional strength and retake the islands.
All of this against a backdrop of the UK could not even maintain a single ship in home waters for a few weeks recently, not enough combat ready Typhoon pilots and not enough Typhoon spares, no carrier air, only two aviation-capable ships, Astute and T45 coming on stream very slowly, an enduring commitment in Afghanistan (and if they invade during a Herrick roulement window, we have 2 Brigades committed)……
Personally, I side with the American views on this thread. You know my bona fides: 20 years in the Army, and Joint Staff College. If we let them get an infantry Division onto the islands, I believe we’ve lost, as time and force ratios would be against us.
If the Argentinians are able to acquire 4-6 land-based CIWS to negate TLAM onto key points such as logistics parks, they increase the advantage still further.
Let’s hope that our intelligence is good enough to spot preparations in enough time to find those 2 submarines in time and get them south, to send a squadron of FGR4 south as well, and the Spearhead Battalion. That would deter an invasion. If they keep spooking us with war-like preparations, we’d better get used to doing that on a regular basis.
On the size of the Argentinian ground force, James. The Argentine’s lack of tactical mobility played a part first time around. Not enough helicopters, insufficient support for those they did have, and a contested airspace. The British could get away with a less than overwhelming force size due to that lack of enemy manoeuvre.
The same could be true next time around, and at some level mobility is more important than just numbers. A new Argentine invasion force would need to address this.
We shouldn’t forget that in ’82 Argentina was a very different place with a much more belligerent regime. But even then, their calculation was that they could likely take the islands without a single shot being fired.
I’m sure many Argentinians would be happy for the Falklands to be taken within their jurisdiction, but there certainly isn’t public support for Argentine rule at any cost. It’s irrelevant as to whether today’s balance of forces could give them a win, the prospect of losing a Herc full of troops to a Typhoon, or seeing a couple of ships torpedoed rules out invasion. Their current nuisance tactics should be seen as a sign of their weak position, not as a prelude to attack.
were these ‘seized’ ships scuttled?
Were they auctioned and the proceeds given to the malvinas liberation front?
Were the ****ing fish even thrown overboard!!!
I’ve said before, i’d put a full squadron on the islands, but that makes sense for training reasons (alternate summer cycle) anyway.
But it would be handy to have a couple of typhoons ‘sparkle’ the argentine navy (or presidential palace) whenever they pull a stunt
Tom Clancy would know how to invade the Falklands!
Basing a defence strategy around re-taking an already well defended lump of beat bog is a very sorry path to take.
That place can be reinforced quicker than a rat up a drain pipe. There’s pre-positioned stores for a light role battalion and you could also get the ABTF down there.
Two battalions in probably 72 hours of shuttling. What if the runway is closed? Well, repair it and use the other one. If that’s closed, repair both and use Stanley. If they’re all closed stage the ABTF and lob them in.
Defending the Falklands won’t take some sort of wet dream amphibious assault fleet, some RoRos docking at Stanley would be all you’d need.
Soloman
Sharkey is a lunatic.
There, I’ve said it, I’m sure the man was a capable harrier pilot, but thats pretty much where it ends.
Remember that insane navy you were laughing about a couple of weeks ago? Yeah, thats mine, and Sharkeys single service bias makes ME uncomfortable its so blinkered…..
The Argentine Navy isnt a joke, for a medium regional power, its not bad.
How good do you think they are at hunting SSNs?
Its generaly believed we keep one down south, Meko against HMS Triumph? Pull the other one, you might as Bayonet a tank.
James
“The rest are mouths to feed.”
Thats a bit unfair
20 minutes training and you could stick me in a trench, I’d say its a toin coss wether I’d piss my pants or shoot back when someone shot at me. I might even accomplish both.
Getting me to storm an enemy trench is probably going to be a wasted effort, but I could probably shoot in the direction from cover.
“The most sensible voice among the garrison was the infantry company commander, ”
He sounds it.
If defence of the islands were up to me, and I can assure you, we are all grateful its not, thats basicaly what I’d do.
Deploy the clerks into fireing trenches around the airbase, and the “proper” soldiers into sections with the FIDF to play “lets ambush supply columns”.
BB
Oddly I agree, and I think more than a few auxilary inf batts could be raised that way.
Rupert
“Without carriers, no air cover, no way of recapturing the islands.”
See this bit I dont get. Are you seriously argueing that 4 Darings would be unable to protect the landing from A4s with unguided bombs?
Your Ro-Ro idea is, possible, but what happens if we learn about it in advance? The doors open, the troops charge off, and 20 HMGs and god knows how many light armour weapons open up on the ships?
Its a high risk move….
James
“2. A Division of infantry (minimum 3 Brigades) on the islands. Ideally 4 Brigades.
3. Supporting arms, logistics and ground attack air on the islands.”
They couldnt feed two Brigades last time, or keep them supplied with fuel and parts for land rovers, never mind fuel and spares for forward fighter cover and tanks.
We arent saying its impossible, but for Argentina, the risk of its paradrop being intercepted by a Typhoons is immense, and well beyond what they would risk.
Soloman
“you gents might really want to reassess your views on this subject. the arrogance is awe inspiring.”
I’d be very very interested on a rough guideline on how “you” would invade the Falklands, if you were Argentina.
Theres also a political angle.
The most consistant threat to the EU is British EUrealism.
Which comes in two forms.
Extreme Left anti free trade, which cant really be placated, and middle right the costs arent worth the benefits.
Imagine, the Falklands are invaded, The EU 27 under go a full mobilisation. A wall of eastern heavy metal is thrown up along the northern, eastern and southern borders of EUrope. A combined Anglo/Franco/Italian task force sails south, and retakes the islands.
Anyone attempting to say the EU wasnt worth it, would for a generation face the response “The Falklands *are* worth it, and it was EU blood that liberated them”
What would the UKIP/Chiuhuahs (conservative in the head, UKIP at heart) say to that?
Not sure I believe the EU could pull it off, but its got to be a worry.
Even if it was just a French Carrier providing the aircover,.
@DominicJ: you appear to forget their Exocet armed Super Etendard’s, that the French are proposing to update? I’m a tad surprised, most people would probably say “Exocet” was the new word most associated with the Falklands war…
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=111848
Secondly, yes I am indeed doubting that 4 Darings can defend a task force. If there was two lesson the Falklands showed is that a) theoretically fantastic missiles proved a pathetic damp squib due to “system issues” ranging from radar, control systems to microswitches choked with salt. Since the Darings were delayed 6 years because of endless issues with the missiles and their control systems, and have still to be properly tested against representative targets, we can all assume they would fail these tests: that’s the safest option. b) missiles on a ship, in the absence of AEW can defend to the horizon. Aircraft can attrit from hundreds of miles away.
Defence decisions have time horizons measured in decades. Argentina will never buy anything more capable, eh? Never? You willing to stake your son’s life on that? I’m not
Finally, your fantasy fleet composed of the French and the Italians is just that, a fantasy. France’s major contribution to the last contretemps was to allow the Aerospatiale team in Argentina to complete the mating of the Exocet/Super Etendard combo. The leader of the team was interviewed by the Sunday Times after the war: he signalled HQ when the war started, they told him to proceed, with him finishing the job April 30th, nearly a month after the invasion. The current Euro nonsense is due to our supposedly communitaire partners refusing to share their financial burdens: what makes you think they’ll share blood on our behalf? Sarkozy was asked specifically about the Falklands at the announcement, and he avoided the question. It’s all you need to know
“How can normally sane and level headed bloggers see things so differently from reality?”
Graduated response is all very well, very appropriate, and likely very sufficient, however, what is missing for the next ten years is the insurance policy:
That we can always take them back, no matter how clever they think they can be about beating the graduated response.
“you appear to forget their Exocet armed Super Etendard’s, that the French are proposing to update?”
Not only that: France hopes to sell Argentina its own remaining Super Etendard when they retire them to replace them with Rafales.
And it will happen in the next few years.
They also offered to sell the LPD Foundre to them, but they hadn’t enough money at the moment, and it went to Chile for 80 USD millions instead.
There’s still another LPD, that France will probably retire in a few years time, when the 4th Mistral comes in service.
And Argentina has its eyes on it.
They are also developing nuclear propulsion and want a first “SSN” by 2015 by converting one of their diesel subs.
It is not like the Argies are entirely sleeping…
DominincJ…you want a rough outline of how i would take the Falklands from British control?
i would continue to saber rattle…extremely hard saber rattling. i would make it so loud that the British govt couldn’t ignore it and i would continue it till intelligence became lulled into a ‘its the Argies’ again type attitude…at least a one year operation causing either a rotation of ships larger than the Clyde class to the islands or till it becomes ignored all together.
i would strengthen ties with S. American nations. i would sponsor every military joint exercise i could. treaties would abound.
i would draw close to France by buying used hardware and new stuff. i would nullify the alliance between the Brits and French by creating a quasi-alliance between the Argentinians and the French.
i would draw close to Spain. i would still deny fishing rights around the Falklands but would open up fishing in other non-contested areas as a fig leaf.
as far as the naval blockade. i would formalize it and take it to the UN general assembly. not the security counsel. i would again state that the islands belong to Argentina and that any view that this colony should continue is old world thinking.
i would remind the US of the Monroe Doctrine. i would attempt to develop a new framework for such a doctrine in the 21 st century. the US would be looking at China while i would be looking at the British.
i would acquire at least one used LPD. mobility for my Argentinian Marines already exist in the form of LVTP-7′s. i would then acquire used MRAPs from all the western nations. hardened mobility in a box…and cheap too.
i would monitor air power on the island and would plan a saturation attack for an appropriate time. i might expect losses but a one day max effort at the airfield should be enough to knock it out.
once the field is down then its an amphibious landing…division plus…those old Meko’s are roaming the seas with added anti-air teams with whatever anti-air missiles in addition to the ships load i can get.
i would put my subs to sea early and would use their ultra silent electric power to loiter and wait for the Brit nuke subs to blunder into an ambush.
remaining airpower would be thrown at the surface ships that the brits would sortie.
the inhabitants of the island would be taken back to Argentina for their own safety and i would then go to the UN seeking an end to hostilities and would invite a UN peacekeeping force to the island immediately.
if my planning is good Brazil, Chile and a few island nations in the carribean would already be gearing up to deploy and if they don’t get UN approval then they would fly under the flag of “S. American” peacekeeping force.
in essence an umbrella to hide under nullifying whatever attempt to retake the islands could bring. all the while making it somewhat legal in the eyes of the world.
backroom communication with China and Russia should negate any moves by the UN security counsel.
two weeks its accomplished and the Brits are left to wonder …what just happened?
Soloman
But your campaign would take years of planning, aquisitions and training. The UK would have 5 years to counter those efforts.
The Falklands are an unsinkable aircraft carrier, but its only a bit of hard work to change that.
The Falklands defence isnt fixed, its set to counter Argentina, if they did what you suggest, we could integrate anti ship missiles on Typhoon and fly a full squandron down, we could enlarge the runway and taxi ways to prevent it being easily closed, we could deploy a CVRT Battalion to the islands.
The whole point of the defence is it changes to meet the threat.
We’ve done the retaking / losing of the Falklands to death… The fact is that the UK is taking a risk here. Probably, measured in the short term but if forever reason we do not get carriers in 2020 then the risk increases as Argentina will eventually re-arm.
What I think we are not thinking about is what we can do additionally now to help prevent conflict. Perhaps an additional Clyde to enforce the EEZ? Or send a couple of Reapers? Additional warships are okay, but we will be playing for the long term.
DominicJ.
i would contend that the outlines of what i proposed are already in place. the only new thing would be acquiring MRAPs but honestly thats probably overkill. Jeeps would do nicely.
the diplomatic work is already laid. Brazile and Chile have already come out on Argentina’s side. getting China and Russia on board would take weeks at best.
the US has already upgraded the Argentinian A4′s…the Israeli’s are still working to upgrade their Mirages and the French have sold exocet missiles.
like Repulse said. the UK is taking a risk and thats all i was pointing out on my blog.
the UK is in a position of unfortunately de-arming. to expect it to be able to protect an island 8000 miles away with its current force structure is pure silliness. in about 8 or 10 years it might be doable but not now.
oh and the thought that a patrol vessel is a proper warship still has me giggling. the Clyde will be easily sunk. thats the type of thinking that will see the Falklands fall into Argentinian hands.
We could use CVFs to tow the islands closer to the UK so that a Typhoon FSTA combo could reach the islands. We could then use Wightlink and Red Funnel ferries to land 3 Cdo directly on to Stanley’s beach. Simples.
In terms if extra FI defences; how about a Sampson radar and some lans based aster 30s?
A few 4.5″ guns located on the coast together with some soon to be out of date Exocets abd/or Harpoons. If you were an Argentinian ship would you risk them not working. Send some if the vikings not needed anymore to give the FIDF some additional mobility. Longer term, replace
Rapier with CAMM and maybe send a couple of T23s (that have been replaced by T26) as permanent coastal patrol vessels .
@ Phil D
I have for a while wondered if improving the roads around Stanley and giving the FIDF some light vehicles (say 12 Stormer, 30mm Rarden or that new CTA wotsit, chain gun, and some ATGW) would be a good idea. Any Argentine landing would be mauled before they reached the shore. Remember the pasting the RM gave the Argentines on South Georgia?
And I have wondered for a while how much thought has been given to making MPA defensible. Or does it just follow the ground plan of the typical RAF station here in the UK?
Personally, I think the best way to defend the FI littorals is to learn from the masters of this, the Finns, Norwegians and Swedes.
Its a good subject for a post, improving defences on a shoestring!