Falklands 'could not be re-captured'

HAVE YOUR SAY

05 March 2012

This is so "Yawn..."
Paratroopers in a C130 would suffer horrendous casualties to Typhoon and HMS Dauntless...
A marine Brigade would need specialist equipment to get them from Argentina to the Islands without any vehicle over 20 tons as our SSN would neutralise them.
Finally we have a significant number of trained personnel on the Island that may not "Just give up..."
Lets assume it all did go pear shape though...
We could hit Argentina with Tomahawk from any number of places and boats. We would blockade the islands.
We would land our own "Special forces and Paras...." and with local assist take back the islands.
Tornado and Typhoon would operate one of strikes as required using extreme refueling, (Black Buck)...
Finally a couple of Ships would land overwhelming force back on the Islands and hey ho.. We`re back....
What is frustrating me, is we use the Falklands to say why we need a carrier.. I feel these prominent figures should be highlighting to the public other reasons as to why we need the carriers.
Degradable - UK

05 March 2012

As an outside observer (Australian), I can't help but think that all these people saying "if they invade, we can't retake it" are just dooming the Falklands to an invasion, say it often enough & loud enough & the Argentines will take notice & just do it!
PacificSentinel - Australia

05 March 2012

From the MOD's news blog:

Defending the Falklands
The Times reports that retired Royal Marines officer Major General Julian Thompson has claimed Argentina is likely to invade the Falklands again because the Islands have been left vulnerable by Britain.

The Times piece carries a statement from the current commander of British forces in the South Atlantic outlining the true position. Brigadier Bill Aldridge, Commander of British Forces in the Falklands, said: "I am entirely confident that I can do the job that is required of me. Deterring aggression is my top priority but I am fully confident that I have the capability to defend the Islands. I am not expecting to hand the Islands over to anybody and therefore put us in a position where we would have to retake them."

Unlike in 1982 we have a well defended airfield with ground-based air defences, and continue to have the ability to reinforce by air and sea. People should be reassured by the contingencies that we now have in place compared to 30 years ago. That said, there is no evidence of any current credible military threat to the Falkland Islands.
AlMiles - Bristol, UK

05 March 2012

The proposition by the retired general is wrong.

It is not about retaking the islands but about stopping them being taken in the first place.

There is now enough fire power on the land, in the air and at sea to make even the most gung-ho Argentinean general / admiral think twice.

Another nonsense argument by a man who should know better.
RM - Abroad

05 March 2012

I suppose what this piece highlights is the stop-start nonsense of military procurement in the UK which, I think, is the major issue and which was caused by the Labour party as it tried to slash by stealth to fund other black holes. Military commanders must be exasperated by their political "masters".

I can't think of another area of government spending where huge capability gaps could be brushed off by spin. Could we imagine a situation where government said we could do without any A&E in hospitals for 10 years, or sixth form teaching etc. No, they'd be asking for cuts but not outright removal.

The problem with the current crop of politicians, whether socialist or so-called conservative, is that they have little to no experience of the military and are amateurs on the world stage.

Cameron's contemptable and disgraceful nonsense of "let me do the talking, you do the fighting" has taken this to new levels of depravity.

We need men or iron. Or maybe women. Or one woman in particular. But then again, even she appointed John Nott to help slash our fleet before the Falklands got in the way...
Michael - Hertfordshire

05 March 2012

Degradable - UK/RM - Abroad

Agreed a C-130 would be shot down before it landed at MPA however just supposing a Aerolineas Argentinas 747 (or whatever) that seemed to be on a scheduled flight to say South Africa made an emergency request to land. It would be on the ground in minutes and instead was full of Argentine special forces who piled out and shot the place up. Once they have the airfield and have neutralised the Typhoons and Rapier they can simply fly in as many troops as they like on commercial airliners into MPA.

I know its very Frederick Forsyth what I'm saying is it's feasible but still highly unlikely as if they failed to secure MPA it would fall apart quickly but we could not totally rule it out and so should train for such an attempt if we are not already.

BTW I notice the Argentines are saying they will only allow flights to the Falklands from their airspace if they are carried out by Aerolineas Argentinas instead of LAN Chile in the future in contravention of a 1999 agreement.

Hmmm interesting ....hope they are not getting any ideas !
Graham - High Wycombe

05 March 2012

following on from my previous post here is the regarding switching from LAN Chile to Aerolineas Argeninas.

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/01/argentina-wants-to-review-1999-accord-with-aerolineas-direct-flights-buenos-aires-falklands
Graham - High Wycombe

05 March 2012

I agree with all comments on this thread.

Our SSN's and TLAM would cause havoc.

Michael of Hertforshire's comment about our politicians being amateurs on the world stage and in military matters is the one which resonates with me the most.He hits the nail right on the head and until we have a generation of politicians made of the "right stuff" maybe an ex army afghanistan veteran who has been out on a limb through lack of numbers, then the sorry situation will continue.

Graham's scenario is actually quite frightening.

Although whether they could take out an infantry company plus support by themselves is questionable.

Intelligence is the key and we would reinforce this time if we got a sniff of whats coming, unless its a coup de main attack like Graham describes.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

05 March 2012

You don't need a frontal assault to disable 4 Typhoons! You just need a few agents on the ground to smash their canopies or throw something down their intakes. Then they can land at their leisure.
Chris - London

05 March 2012

Three and a half hour address ! Has she ever thought of boring the Islanders into surrender, or trying to bore them all to sleep, so that she can send an attack force. . . . possibly by hot air balloon.

It could be attempted, but I would guess that the second wave would never get a foothold. The islands are far too well defended for that. Not all the eggs are in the one basket, after all.
Ian R - Durham

06 March 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Agreed, very Frederick Forsyth.

But wouldn't there be at least one of the Typhoons in the air escorting the 747? Also, given the unusual and suspicious nature of the request to land wouldn't there be a rather large number of 'customs officials' ready to welcome the passengers?
RM - Abroad

06 March 2012

The Black Buck raids of '82 failed in their tactical objectives of the day. It must be also considered; that the current RAF tanker force could only support a small number of aircraft in The Falklands from Ascension Island; but not on a 24/7 basis.

The fact remains as a (so-called) major maritime nation, the recent UK governments (with assurances from the RAF) was stupid in doing away with the CVS's and jump jets (FA2 & GR9A together).

What done is done though.

What the UK needs to support its oversea dependencies are deployable forces which can be sent at a moments notice; initially by air and then obviously for endurance, by sea. This cannot be paper capability; but a real force which is exercised on a constant basis to hone the required skills the force is needed for.

For a Falkland emergency, or other major event; the UK would be hard pressed to provide:
1. Maritime - ARG with 2-5 amphibious vessels with perhaps 1600-3000 RM's supported by 4-6 escorts (2-3 T45's, 2-3 T23's) backed up by perhaps 2 Hunter Killers (A & T Boats). As always the RFA would provide the replenishment assets to support this force for a protracted period away. No offensive air or fleet defence fighter exist.

2. Airborne - In the case of this article; this is perhaps the force which the UK requires to counter such threats for short term periods. Deployed by 2-3 C-17, 3-5 VC10's & 3-4 TriStars (soon to be retired and the A330 is not in sufficient numbers to count) the UK could maybe deploy around 2000 troops + equipment. Additional units which would need to be deployed include field hospital, air defence systems, transport & fuel vehicles and armoured vehicle plus additional rotary assets.

For the sake of arguments sake, with The Falklands, one could assume that even with MPA taken, initial drops could include parachuting in. I would further assume 1-2 submarines are deployed. Negating the UN charter (like Argentina would in the event of an invasion like in 1982); I would target major Argentinean airports, airbases and naval facilities and key civilian infrastructure (such as power stations and telecommunications) with TLAM strikes. MPA would also receive denial attacks.

American support would be crucial for quick resupply of weapons (due to a lack of British industry having received little support to produce anything else), denying GPS satellites to the Argentineans and the like. Anything else could change the outcome.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

06 March 2012

...In 2 minutes the World Wide Web provides coords for power stations, dams, communications facilities and more....

One could expect the MoD to have such plans ready for dusting off if needed...
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

06 March 2012

Graham...
Excellent scenario, (Perhaps write a book), but once the air threat is diminished we still need to nullify the significant Ground, Surface and Sub Surface defences.
No, I do not believe this is even a remote possibility, of all the defences the Typhoon are most easily "disrupted", but that leaves massive capability. Additionally, we take no account of our own capability to deceive, and we are sadly very good at that....
Degradable - UK

06 March 2012

I have to ask...
Has the world changed as we "Maritime Fellows " look and perceive warfare...
Today Airpower is the dominant asset with boots on the ground second.
My perception is Ships and Maritime power as we "Oldies" refer to is changing
If we look at Airships again, we see that huge amounts of cargo (Soldiers, armour) will be able to be transported over vast distances with relatively rapid speed.
Provide fighter escort and ships truly have relatively minor value ?????
Degradable - UK

06 March 2012

RM - Abroad / Degradable / Daniele

If they used a commercial airliner making an emergency landing request to get Argentine SF's inserted they would pile down the escape chutes fitted to commercial airliners. Even if we had a couple of Typhoons scrambled to escort it once the airliner is on the ground they would be useless and would need to land at some point which would see them neutralised quickly.

Once they have control of MPA it's over before you know it there would be an overwhelming number of Argentine troops flown in and they could be sustained with an air bridge.

For those of you who think it not possible I know someone who spends every two months at MPA and one month back in the UK. He is ex army and reckons that complacency is so bad that if the Argies tried it they would probably succeed and if they have control of MPA our naval forces would not be much use.

The runway at MPA is similar to Heathrow and takes two 747's each week from the UK so if that were to fall we would be in no position without maritime air power to recover the Falklands.

Now the Argies are saying they will refuse LAN Chile overflight rights and want Aerolineas Argentinas to operate a service instead. If that goes ahead they will have all they need to do something like this without even an emergency landing request in the scenario I put forward.

See the Mercopress (South Atlantic News Agency) link in my previous post.
Graham - High Wycombe

06 March 2012

Rubbish. If anything they would be easier to retake now than then. Argentina's armed forces have hardly updated it's kit in 30 years.
We are sans carrier but that would not stop the UK. The Type 45's and 23's are far more capable than the ships in 82 against the same aircraft. Submarines carrying cruise would be able to mount precision strikes against mainland targets...pretty much putting paid to any Argentinian Air Force being stationed on the island. The Argentinian Navy would stay in port as the sub threat would be too great.

Once boots are on the ground (and we have better marine landing capability and two large helo carriers that we never had before) Rapier and StarStreak would provide suitable air defence with Type 45's and 23's providing goalkeeper defensive positions.
Our troops are better equipped than in 1982 and we have far more helo's for transport.
HamishUK - GB

06 March 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

During the Falklands War, I believe a plan was put forward to land a plane (or planes but not sure how many and of what type) full of special forces on to an airfield in Argentina, presumably unannounced. This was totally rejected by the SAS as being a suicide mission. Would the Argentine special forces fare better, especially as the pilot of the 747 would have asked permission to land?
RM - Abroad

06 March 2012

RM - Abroad

Difference is that was actually during a war in this case it would be another commercial airliner landing at an airport that already takes a number of commercial flight's each week. Also in 1982 it was deemed suicidal as there was no reinforcements or escape route which would not be the case in the scenario I am suggesting.
Graham - High Wycombe

06 March 2012

RM abroad.

The 2 planes for the B Squadron SAS "suicide mission" were Hercs.

It was rejected as they thought they would be spotted by radar coming in, or blown out the sky on landing.

If they did land and remove the Etendards and pilots, they were to evade to Chile. Not easy with battalions of troops garrisoned at Rio Grande.

In any case, a pointless mission for SF. Much simpler to insert using subs, which it is alledged the SBS actually did, using the O boats that were down there.

The difference in Graham's scenario is that our plan to land in Argentina was clearly military during wartime, where this scenario uses a civvy aircraft which although our radar would spot they would not shoot down and thus the argies could get men down without opposition initially.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

06 March 2012

A little pointless, ok so they get a few special forces on the ground and disable Eurofighter. Now what...
No maritime support (Dauntless and SSN in way)
No air Support (Dauntless and SAM batteries in way)
No food as not welcome
No rest as being hunted by local community & local Garison
No Hope of getting anywhere or doing anything other than being annoying.
Then they realise that the Falklands may as well be the other side of the world as 400 miles is huge distance from argentina, when they eventually are returned home after capture by our inserted special forces they tell everyone it actually is a **** place to live and argentina ceases to claim sovereignty... This actually may work... :-)
Degradable - UK

06 March 2012

Degradable - UK

That assumes we have a T45 on station at the time, if not they would fly in as many troops as they wanted and take full control of MPA. With only 6 T45 (eventually) we will have to use T23 most of the time on patrol. By the time we get T45's in place its too late they will have several thousand troops and all the supplies they need. The 'international community' will be calling on the UK to negotiate and we wouldn't have an alternative.

Basically it's possible is all I'm saying so we need to plan a proper response to such a situation. There should be exercises that make clear we are ready for such a scenario.
Graham - High Wycombe

06 March 2012

Graham
We appear to have a complete disregard for the significant "500 ground troops".
Ok so a few Typhoon have an issue, but we have very significant other elements on task, not to mention HMS Clyde and other units able to operate in the area.
In reality argentina is the nation that quite frankly would not be able to do any operation of the sort mentioned without causing an alert..
Then our units would belatedly take it seriously which, would be enough.
Don`t forget we have our Avatar "Prince William" who is able to project awesome powers, his eyes are like lasers.....
Degradable - UK

07 March 2012

As Graham alludes too, Argentina probably want to negotiate on the topic, since they know they have no legal grounds to challenge with the ICJ.

What The UK has to do is ensure they are not in position where they have to negotiate, so The UK must maintain a credible force well trained, equipped, and motivated. From the sounds of it, deployments for the garrison is not a career highlight.

Personally, I would increase the fighters deployed there to a squadron, with tankers (yes order more!); in the future a number of F-35's would also be a good option. Make an area off East Falkland a weapons training range and allow the training to take a realistic flair to it. Maritime deployments are always hamstrung by the non-existent support facilities to support a re-enforced maritime component. Given the likely exploration of fuels off The Falklands; Argentina will probably become more bellicose as it perceives the wrongs of The British Empire and the stealing of money (the fuels) from right underneath them.

6 T45s, 10-13 C1 T26, with no word on successive batches of ships. 7 A-Boats no matter how awesome are too few, 12-15 boats are required for all the tasks The UK asks of them.

I wont mention the CVF..
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

07 March 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Missed out on this one as I was away all day yesterday, the operation you described is essentially the same as the Coup-de Main operation I have mentioned in earlier blogs. True, it is unlikely to happen, however we would be foolish to discount the Argentine Armed Forces ability to take the Islands.

I believe that we need to have a force structure that would deter the Argentines from ever attempting such an operation. A complete Infantry Battlegroup, with Artillery, Air Defence, Light Armour and Engineers not just a roulemont infantry company. As Shaun suggested, a full Squadron of Typhoon and set up mini "Red Flag" exercise.

Degradable - UK

I love your optimism and to be honest I don't think it is something the Argentines would attempt but it would be easier and more cost effective to have a decent size force in place now, rather than attempt to take them back by force if they were lost.
Rob - Telford

08 March 2012

Rob..
I truly believe this is being played up, by many to be what it is not.
BUT, I would say it is more in the national interest to heavily defend these Islands than to lead in a strike against Iran
Degradable - UK

10 March 2012

As an Airman involved in the 1982 war,I saw collegues killed by Argi forces.Some respondents infer that Argi forces are inferior which is untrue,they are motivated by media claims that the islands belong to them. If we the British public do not want to see further loss of life as we are seeing in Afhganistan. We must petition our MP's now "To Keep the Falklands British" and build up the Garrison now before it's to late.
Beegee - West Midlands

11 March 2012

It might help to convince people that we were serious about keeping the Falkland Islands if we made more use of them. One possibility would be to establish a system of prison camps for 100,000 or so long term offenders.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

12 March 2012

It's very simple really. The Major General is saying we have taken a big risk with our security by scrapping Ark Royal and the Harriers- and he is right! However, should Argentina take the risk of an invasion they would be seen as the aggressor and I don't think de Kirchner would be prepared to do that. One can only assume that our secret agents are watching Argentine military preparations and would advise Downing Street accordingly. Obviously, it is easier to fortify the islands with troops, Typhoons and helicopters and any attack could not be supported just by the air. Our subs would destroy any Argentine shipping and potentially take out their air bases with cruise missiles if this became necessary. However, the Government has taken a big risk and I am not happy with that decision, just like Maj Gen Thompson!
Peter Hall - Worksop, UK

13 March 2012

Gibraltar and Diego Garcia could not be recaptured either, so why all the fus about the Falklands?
Steve - Adelaide

24 March 2012

To protect the Falklands for the foreseeable future increase the firepower by sending four Apache gunships as a permanent fixture, they can only land troops by submarine or parachute, but with the Radar system already installed it should be almost impossible to attack undetected. I don't think it will be if, but will be when as the oil acts as a magnet to the Argentines.
Ron G - London