Argentina withdraws from 2016 pact with UK over the Falklands, wants to restart negotiations regarding ownership.

[ianh]

Hi All,

As reported over a wide range of media this morning, Argentina has decided to withdraw from a 2016 pact with the UK as they wish to restart negotiations regarding the ownership of the Falklands. Our foreign secretary James Cleverly has tweeted out the UK's official, unchanged, position on the Falklands in return -

https://twitter.com/x/status/1631330227698925569

Here's some media reports, ranging from what I would suggest is a more neutral tone from Reuters to the like of the Daily Mail which take a slightly different approach.

James Cleverly says Falklands are British as Argentina ends deal

Argentina has broken a co-operation deal and is calling for talks over the sovereignty of the Falklands.

www.bbc.co.uk

Argentina asks UK to resume negotiations over Falklands

The Argentine government has again asked the United Kingdom to restart negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, the Argentine Foreign Ministry said on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

Argentina withdraws from ‘agree to disagree’ pact over Falklands sovereignty

Foreign minister Santiago Cafiero renewed demands for negotiations as James Cleverly reminded him ‘the Islands are British’

www.telegraph.co.uk

Argentina RIPS UP Falklands pact with UK

The UK-ruled Falkland Islands, known as the Malvinas in Spanish, were the subject of a short but brutal war after Argentina invaded in 1982.

www.dailymail.co.uk

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21576823/ministers-fury-argentina-demands-fresh-talks-on-falklands/

I spent a lovely 4 months down at MPA in the Falklands back in 2013 whilst still in the RAF so, understandably, my opinion on this veers towards the more aggressive side of "hands off" in this debate. However previously Argentina has used the Falklands as a smokescreen to hide their own internal problems from the population so I wonder if that is what is at play again or if they've seen how overstretched the UK military is supporting Ukraine and just fancies adding to our problems? Sadly my understanding of Argentina's current internal situation is virtually zero so it's time for some interweb research so that I can become an instant expert within a few seconds and then use that hard earned expertise to form an unchanging opinion that I will die to defend

Anyway, more potential "conflict" is really not what the world needs right now and it'd be nice if people just chilled the hell out.

 

[ianh]

who is kitting out the Argentinians now. (Iran , chinese ?....)

No-one at the moment, their Air Force is a shell of its former self, unable to keep many fast-jets flying (just 6 skyhawks available at last count) and we keep veto'ing the sales of any new fast-jet aircraft they try to buy.

Eventually I think they'll drop into the arms of China which keeps offering the J-10/JF-17 combo. If they eventually decide to go that way and spend a huge amount on rearming then I think that rebuilding of their military will be aided via foreign funds as that would keep a US ally (us) tied up far away from China.

It's all a moot-point anyway as effectively Argentina has absolutely no way to militarily take back the Falklands within this decade at the very least, probably the next 2 decades to be realistic, so I think that the "sabre-rattling/request to restart negotiations" again is for their own populations consumption rather than a genuine effort to find a way forward, even just a political one.

 

[ianh]

I've no idea what your talking about. The Harriers did attack the airport with bombs and cluster. The GR harrier entire purpose is to drop bombs on things.

Yeap, the Sea Harriers (which are multi-role) were the first to attack Stanley airfield two days before any Vulcan raids and long before the GR3's arrived near the end.

The BlackBuck raids while amazing airmanship were of dubious value.

They burnt an incredible amount of fuel and money to achieve one limited if stunningly impressive success. The follow ups to the initial run achieved next to nothing beyond demonstrating our ability to project non nuclear force to the Argentine mainland if required. It is an endless debate, was blackbuck necessary? Were the harriers used effectively?

I'd disagree with "dubious value" as the response from the Argentinian Air Force (forced by the Junta post BlackBuck) was to withdraw its fast-jet fleet from Stanley back to the mainland. So whilst the actual military effect on Stanley's runway from these raids was virtually meaningless, the perceived threat to the mainland that the Vulcans brought had a huge strategic effect overall, way surpassing the simple military value of the very few bombs which hit Stanleys runway.

So strategically the BlackBuck raids were a huge success whilst tactically the Sea Harriers did far more damage in an attempt to shutdown Stanley.

However I also like the debate, so many what-ifs to go around!

 

[ianh]

The days of a cruiser sneaking up on it's targets ended mid WW2 with radar, never mind carriers.

It was escorting two destroyers both of which were armed with 40nm+ ranged Exocets and was deployed as part of a pincer movement, with the Belgrano group down South and the Ventinicinco de Mayo CV up North with the Task Force planned to be squeezed in the middle, only the sinking in the South scuppered that and forced the CV back to port. If it was just the Belgrano against the TF then it was absolutely outclassed in every way, even if as an "heavily gunned" (in modern terms) escort it had some morale use for the Navy.

A raid that took I dunno 20 aircraft and a oil tanker load of fuel to clip the runway with one bomb and miss with the other 20 isn't going to scare anyone. Didn't even deny the use of the runway. Runways can be fixed easily.

Not least an airforce that was willing to fly at wavetop height and drop bombs at point blank range against an armada of ships and missiles.

Imagine a single vulcan with no air cover going up against mirages on the mainland. Not even Walter Mitty would claim that as viable.

The point is the harrier is designed to carry bombs. It could hit the runways far more effectively than a Vulcan.

Yet history shows thats exactly what the Argentines were scared of, moving fighters from the their South upto bases in the North rediucing the amount of fighters available to escort the attack aircraft. So you can see exactly why the BB raids were a strategic "win" despite being an actual tactical "loss" as, quite rightly, we both said that the Harriers did a far better job attacking Stanley than the BB raids did.

Also, regarding fast jets using Stanley - the UK's intel at the time suggested that lightweight Mirage 5's "could" use the runway (vs the heavier Mirage 3 and less powerful Skyhawks) but I also can't find any definitive proof that they ever actually based any numbers at Stanley (probably a common misperception that I have also had). However the Argentines were definitely increasing the runway length to accommodate more than just the potential use Mirage 5's before the various BB and occasional SHAR raids - Sharkey Ward's book is great on the subject as he also quite rightly points out the tactical worthlessness of the BB raids vs using SHAR for them instead (as you would imagine from a SHAR pilot) whilst also missing the more strategic win the BB raids caused.

 

[ianh]

The destroyers were also WW2 vintage. An Exocet isn't going to help against a Nuclear Submarine.

Absolutely 100% correct, which is why I said it was to be used in a pincer against the Task Force (not the Sub) with the Argentine CV as the Northern attack group using strike aircraft and the Belgrano group as the Southern group using the Exocets on the destroyers.

Do you think a single unescorted unarmed Vulcan would be difficult for a Mainland Mirage to shoot down.

To be blunt no-one cares what I think today, what matters is what the Argentine Military thought in 1982 and they were so worried by the BB raids that they moved fighter aircraft away from Falklands escort duty to protect themselves from a potential (if incredibly unlikely) BB raid, and thats a strategic win for BB, (yay!) even if Sea Harriers did a better tactical job at damaging the airfield.

"...At the same time the RAF began asking questions about Port Stanley, Airport. Initially they were interested in the capability of the Argentines there and, through contacts in the Engineer and Railway Staff Corps of the Territorial Army (TA) with the consultants involved in the building of the airfield at Port Stanley, copies of the drawings for the airfield were obtained which gave details of its construction. There was a runway 4100 ft long and 150 ft wide designed to load classification number (LCN) 16 although, in places, it could be as high as LCN 30. The Air Staff were therefore advised that the Argentines would be able to operate lightly loaded Hercules transports from the airport but not fast jets...."

Here's the UK's classified (since declassified) Intel report from the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Intelligence) dated 7th April 1982 on the use of the runway which on page two, under "Argentine Offensive/Defensive Air Operations", mentions -

"The Argentine Mirage III, Mirage V and their A4 Skyhawks could operate from Stanley Airport with almost full payloads to defend the Island."

So there's definitely some discrepancy in the various intel reports being bandied about which always makes getting a definitive answer on these things far less obvious than it should ideally be IMHO.