Argentina imposes shipping rules to the falklands.

Well I think everyone is giving HMS Daring a hard time she almost took out an UFO last year if I remember correctly (alleged by The Telegraph) and you all think she can't handle a few Skyhawks?!?

Joking aside we know there is the potential and this time there is something more than pride to protect. HMS Daring will be fixed in time and when she is will have cost 3x the amount of a more than equivalent Arleigh Burke with the hull still made in the UK. You are right she will not be on station in the Falklands she'll be attached to a carrier as she has no surface capability of her own. But ship capability aside (and I would like to see us go the same way as Korea, Japan etc and buy from the US) Argentina would be fools to try again and they know that. Political will needs popular support and whilst there is popular support for the regaining of the islands there is less support for looking pretty stupid again. And this time their 17 yr old conscripts would be facing experienced and combat tested troops.
 
maustin said:
And you are presuming we would have no prior knowledge and be acting on that prior knowledge.
Click to expand...

If we had a carrier group on station in the flakland islands the Argentinians would not invade, the type 45 will only be used as part of a carrier group so that is what you are implying.

Biohazard said:
We could not millitarily do the falklands again with our navy.
Click to expand...

I agree! this may change somewhat with the deployment of the new carriers as they will allow us to extend a much greater air born capability from a single unit and negate somewhat the need for additional ships with there massive transport capabilities.
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
It is not twaddle, the general opinion of the British military is that we would struggle to mount an operation similar to the last Falklands war due to a massive lack of available sea power.
Click to expand...

I agree, but times move on and we wouldn't need to mount a similar operation.

ps. We struggled the first time round too btw, and the military will never say they have enough - it'd be suicide.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I agree! this may change somewhat with the deployment of the new carriers as they will allow us to extend a much greater air born capability from a single unit and negate somewhat the need for additional ships with there massive transport capabilities.
Click to expand...

You assume the loss of mount pleasant, that's a pretty big assumption.
 
Britain's military strength per man will be considerably less than in 1982 I would have thought.

Wasn't the army closer to 200,000 back then compared to around 110,000 now ?
 
Last edited:
Von Smallhausen said:
Britain's military strength per man will be considerably less than in 1982 I would have thought.

Wasn't the army closer to 200,000 back then compared to around 110,ooo now ?
Click to expand...

Navy is smaller now too.

Yes, some ships are more advanced and yes I know there are more in the pipeline if we still have the money.

It was news and talk this week about mooting France and Britain having to join forces in the long run, accepting that further reductions in force numbers would severely affect our capability for defense.. which would not be augmented by future military technological advances.
 
a1ex2001 said:
If we had a carrier group on station in the flakland islands the Argentinians would not invade, the type 45 will only be used as part of a carrier group so that is what you are implying.
Click to expand...

There are more ways than a carrier group to prevent an attack. I love the way people say we can not retake the Falklands like we did last time. I seem to remember people saying we would not retake them last time. However, the big presumption is that diplomatically, economically and militarily Argentina has the capacity to take the rocks in the first place. So to that effect people who say we could not retake them are saying that we would have no prior warning or that against such a prior warning we would be able to nothing at all with whatever forces we had available be them surface combatants, submarines, air force or army assets. Such an operation, by Argentina, would not exactly be along the lines of - you know what tomorrow lets get all the lads and start a conflict with the British. Moreover, you are then presuming we would be able to do nothing diplomatically using the UN, Europe and the US. Sorry can't see it happening the world has moved on a bit then and we have a hell of a lot more leverage especially with the potential of all that oil.
 
Seeing as this is legally ours, surely any military advances on the side of the Argentinians would be illegal under international law?

If that's the case surely we'd get help from the likes or Nato?
 
Biohazard said:
You can't say that imo.

We barely held on to our naval supremacy then, our guys in the skies were pretty pushed as well.
Click to expand...

We wouldn't need to mount a similar operation because:

If you don't lose the islands in the first place, you don't need a carrier force.

If you have tomahawk cruise missiles you don't need long range bombers.

Resupply would be much easier given the international airport that is now on the island.
 
Telescopi said:
You assume the loss of mount pleasant, that's a pretty big assumption.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that bigger leap of faith, you talking four fighters with limited quantities of missiles and spares, I don't think they are expected to hold out long just make it a slightly more frightening prospect than the last time when the Argentines could have arrived by pleasure cruiser.

maustin said:
There are more ways than a carrier group to prevent an attack. I love the way people say we can not retake the Falklands like we did last time. I seem to remember people saying we would not retake them last time. However, the big presumption is that diplomatically, economically and militarily Argentina has the capacity to take the rocks in the first place. So to that effect people who say we could not retake them are saying that we would have no prior warning or that against such a prior warning we would be able to nothing at all with whatever forces we had available be them surface combatants, submarines, air force or army assets. Such an operation, by Argentina, would not exactly be along the lines of - you know what tomorrow lets get all the lads and start a conflict with the British. Moreover, you are then presuming we would be able to do nothing diplomatically using the UN, Europe and the US. Sorry can't see it happening the world has moved on a bit then and we have a hell of a lot more leverage especially with the potential of all that oil.
Click to expand...

Your proposal was that we would have two Type 45 destroyers to prevent the invasion as these will only operate as part of a carrier group that would imply a carrier group was on station? I am aware that considerably less force than that would make the Argentine forces relectant to invade.

We had no significant prior warning of the invasion last time, we had no warning when Saddam invaded Kuwait these things are possible in a country the size of Argentina without drawing masses of attention to yourself.

Why would the US, Europe and the UN be any more inclined to side with us this time than they were last? The presence of some untapped oil wealth is not a negotiating tactic that can be used to get a decent UN resolution and I really can't see the US for all the special relationship crap sending there boys to die in a fight over some british rocks.
 
Last edited:
maustin said:
There are more ways than a carrier group to prevent an attack. I love the way people say we can not retake the Falklands like we did last time. I seem to remember people saying we would not retake them last time. However, the big presumption is that diplomatically, economically and militarily Argentina has the capacity to take the rocks in the first place. So to that effect people who say we could not retake them are saying that we would have no prior warning or that against such a prior warning we would be able to nothing at all with whatever forces we had available be them surface combatants, submarines, air force or army assets.
Click to expand...

What do you think happened in the falklands?

It took us a month to get there, it was a bit of a suprise, and we couldn't try diplomacy as there was none - we were in no direct communication with Argentina.

Who is to say that could not happen again? And it was not a triumph for the british, we sustained far more deaths and lost craft than we should have.
 
Telescopi said:
We wouldn't need to mount a similar operation because:

If you don't lose the islands in the first place, you don't need a carrier force.

If you have tomahawk cruise missiles you don't need long range bombers.

Resupply would be much easier given the international airport that is now on the island.
Click to expand...

How could we keep the islands if an invasion was decided at the drop of a coin?
 
godinman said:
Seeing as this is legally ours, surely any military advances on the side of the Argentinians would be illegal under international law?

If that's the case surely we'd get help from the likes or Nato?
Click to expand...

It was only ever going to amount to economic sanctions from NATO (america) and/or the UN, hence we had to go in ourselves..

America couldn't be so stupid to jump into south america.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom