Click on the graphic below to make it readable:
Things are hotting up again in the South Atlantic between Britain and Argentina. That’s right, the Falkland Islands are back. The long-standing tensions between the two countries flared up again earlier this month when Britain announced plans to begin offshore exploration drilling near the remote islands. The problem is that Argentina still claims sovereignty (sovereignty over the Falklands is even written in to the Argentine Constitution) over the archipelago nearly three decades after the end of the Falklands War in which more than 1,000 people died (including 649 Argentine and 255 British service personnel).
Last year Argentina submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean that overlaps the Falklands and Britain’s exclusion zone. The Argentinians are claiming rights over the area based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the Falklands.
The history of the Falklands is complex. The British had a small settlement there from 1766. When it was abandoned in 1774, the territory became part of Argentina. Then, in 1883, the British seized the islands by force. The Argentinians briefly recaptured the islands during the 1982 war, but Britain reclaimed them after just 74 days.
Despite this, Argentina has always maintained sovereignty over the islands, which it calls Islas Malvinas. It has previously threatened any company exploring for oil and gas in the waters around the territory.
Why now and what’s at stake? Geologists estimate there are up to 60 billions of barrels of oil and many, many trillions of cubic feet of natural gas in the seabed near the Falklands and Desire Petroleum (a British company) is due to begin drilling 100 miles north of the islands before the end of this month.
Below is a picture of the massive oil drilling platform, Ocean Guardian, which has now arrived in the Falkland Islands:
Sixty billion barrels is a lot of oil. That’s 60,000,000,000 barrels of oil. Wars have been started for a lot less and Britain is stretched awfully thin right now. As I always say – Weakness, or the perception thereof, is provocative…
So, suppose Argentina decided to invade the Falkland Islands again. Does the United Kingdom of 2010 have what it would take to wrest the islands back again from Argentina?
Britain has 1,076 “service personnel” from all three forces on the Falklands, but the territory has a total population of only 3,000. So, even if some of the 3,000 inhabitants chose to help defend the Falkland Islands along with the British service personnel from Argentine invasion forces, this is clearly not a sufficient force to resist a determined invasion.
Consider these comments from Captain Michael Clapp who participated in the 1982 conflict:
We approached the Falklands in almost perfect conditions. The thick fog hid us from the prowling Argentine bombers. Unfortunately, our luck didn’t last. The following morning, the clouds lifted, the sun came out – and we became sitting ducks.
As Commander of the Amphibious Task Group, I had 5,000 troops and huge quantities of arms, ammunition and supplies to disembark in San Carlos Bay, an area that soon became known as ‘Bomb Alley’.
It didn’t take long for the first Argentine jets to arrive. Hidden by the high ground until the very last minute, they screamed overhead, dropping their bombs on anything they saw.
Thank goodness our two aircraft carriers, HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible, were stationed well offshore, near enough for their Sea Harrier fighters to give our Argentine attackers something else to think about, but far enough away to be largely out of danger. For make no mistake, had one of our carriers been sunk, we would have lost the war.
Many other ships, however, couldn’t be kept out of harm’s way. We lost ships in San Carlos Bay: the frigates Ardent and Antelope – the latter to a heroically brave but unsuccessful attempt to defuse an unexploded bomb. No one can forget the later attack on the Sir Galahad, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary landing vessel on which so many brave Welsh Guards lost their lives in an appalling inferno.
Those losses stay with me now. But those men died doing what they were trained to do and in the execution of one of the most ambitious and daring sea-borne invasions in British naval history. At times, it was undoubtedly a close run thing – but the objective of reclaiming the Falklands for Great Britain was achieved magnificently.
So as as the sound of political sabre rattling returns to the South Atlantic, could we repeat that success today? I’m not doubting the resolve of our armed forces – our soldiers, sailors and airmen have a long and proud track record of plucking success from adversity – but I’m sorry to say that we no longer have the ships and equipment to launch a sea-borne attack on an enemy on the other side of the world.
When I was helicoptered on to the decks of HMS Fearless on April 6, 1982, in filthy weather and in the middle of the English Channel, I was joining a task force that would eventually number 111 ships. Today – after spending cuts that have seen defence budgets slashed from 5 to 2.5 per cent of GDP – the once formidable Royal Navy now numbers barely 40 major ships and submarines.
True, not all of the 1982 Task Force ships were Royal Navy vessels – there were civilians ships, too. Twenty-two belonged to the Royal Fleet Auxilary, and the Merchant Navy came up with 42 of their own, such as the Canberra, the Atlantic Conveyor and even, of course, the QE2, the Cunard liner that transported the Army’s 5th Brigade the length of the Atlantic.
Those commercial ships provided vital support then – but we certainly can’t take any comfort from that now. If the Royal Naval fleet has shrunk spectacularly since 1982 – it had 55 frigates and destroyers then; today it has 24 – then the British merchant fleet has all but disappeared. Who knows where we’d get the ships to support a war in the South Atlantic from now.
Fewer ships doesn’t always mean a less effective fighting force, of course. The vast and almost brand new amphibious landing vessels, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, are a vast improvement on Fearless, which was nearly 20 years old when we sailed for the Falklands. Even so, they were beset with problems while they were being built and there are certainly doubts about their effectiveness in a combat environment.
We are also down to one effective aircraft carrier, HMS Illustrious. Unfortunately, its pilots and Harrier GR9 bombers are now stationed almost permanently in Afghanistan. The Sea Harriers that proved so useful in the Falklands have long since gone to the scrapheap.
In fact, the Navy has so few available planes that they had to ask the U.S. Marine Corps for some of theirs, just to provide Illustrious’s crew with a bit of practice.
But the figures are grim wherever you look. We had 320,000 armed forces personnel in 1982; now we have 188,000. And with so many serving in theatres around the world, where would we now muster the thousands of elite troops it took to win the 1982 conflict?
And so it goes on. In 1982, we had 17 destroyers and sent eight to the Falklands. Now we have only seven – and many of them are engaged in policing waters elsewhere.
Worryingly, we no longer have enough ships to adopt the ‘chuck it all in and we’ll sort it out on the way’ approach that worked – just – in the Falklands. As Major General Julian Thompson, who commanded 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines during the Falklands conflict, said: ‘We still have some excellent soldiers. The problem is getting them there.’
So what should we do? Well, in honour of the 258 brave men who gave their lives in 1982 and to support the proudly British Falkland Islanders, it is essential that we do something.
What we’re seeing may just be a bit of sabre-rattling, an attempt by Argentine President de Kirchner to distract the electorate from her own problems, but sabre-rattling quickly becomes something more when you can scent weakness in your enemy.
After all, we must remember that one of the events that prompted the last Argentine invasion was the announcement of plans to withdraw the Antarctic patrol ship, HMS Endurance. That was just one ship; now it’s the woefully depleted state of our entire fleet that could be sending a similar message.
The continuing uncertainty surrounding the two new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, due to enter service towards the end of this decade at a cost of billions, needs to be resolved as soon as possible after the forthcoming General Election.
The Falklands campaign was a triumph for Britain’s armed forces, one that from a naval point of view required flexibility, ingenuity and an awful lot of ships. The simple truth is that we don’t have that capacity any more.
The Sea Harriers that proved so valuable in the Falklands have since been retired:
I actually think that the UK could mount a better task force now, than we did then!
Yes we have less overal ships but we do have at least one Invincible class carrier available, plud the HMS Ocean helicopter carrier which could be used for Harriers if need be.
We have 2 massive assault ships which are way better than the Intrepid and Fearless (which were already very old in 1982)
We also have 4 x Bay Class landing ships with huge decks for Harriers, Apaches, Chinooks, Lynx etc.
Also, one lesson learned from the Falklands war itself was the installation of a CIWS on every ship to shoot down incoming air threats!
Also, we have the Type 23 Frigates which are much more modern than anything Argentina has.
The ONLY thing we no longer have is a long range bombing ability. Maybe the Globemasters can be fitted with something suitable to drop on em!
http://www.muzzerino.com/2010/02/falklands-war-ii-coming-up.html
Things are very different now, the falklands have an international airstrip, and four typhoons backed by an early warning system. Forget the harrier, a typhoon would take out 20 of them, and no im not joking.
The Argies could send up there entire air force, and they would lose their entire airforce, no ifs or butts, typhoons could engage dozens of airraft each. Thats before we look at the nuclear sub capability, and the 1,000 grenadier guards heavily armed and dug in on the island. Plus helicopters, re fueling tankers, and frigate`s….. The Falklands are secure, and nothing in Argentina can change that. The Argentinians would suffer massive losses and not get near the place, this would result in govermental changes over there which the current regeme would not want to risk. —Falklands -Safe as houses.
Dont we still have some Harriers still in Service?
Apparently the The GR9 Harrier is expected to stay in service at least until 2018, no Sea Harriers though, you are right…
Surely they would be up to the job!
we now have:
Tomahawk cruise missiles
these can be fired at the argentine fleet, and destroy it from hundreds of miles away.
Also the argentines do not have any amphibious capability. that means they do not have the means to transport sufficient amounts of combat troops in a hostile environment.
The question is not can we take back the falklands, (which we could) but is how many obselete aircraft are the argentines prepared to slaughter against top spec RAF typhoon fighters? How many bases would they be prepared to be decimated by cruise missile fire? How many ships destroyed by antiship missiles?
etc. Our armed forces, while are much smaller than in 1982, have a supreme capability advantage over argentina, one which would result in a quick and brutal defeat, should it come to a war, which i do not think it would.
the argentines lack the ability to get troops to the falklands without them being blown out of the water by Typhoons. Task force is irrelevant. would be more of a retaliatory strike.
Argentina in affect could possibly damage the Falklands and “possibly” take them. I agree with the Typhoons being a far more capable aircraft that could shoot Argentinians out of the sky. However, imagine 20 Argentine aircraft heading to the island. Prudence would suggest we deploy our handful of typhoons to engage them. Now imagine they intercept the Argentinian aircraft and they are unarmed. The British government, due to our poor politicians would not allow us to engage. Instead the Argies put on a show and fly around causing us to watch them until fuel requires the Typhoons to turn for home. Meanwhile coming in from another direction are three dozen aircraft in ground attack role. They attack, the airbases (whilst taking losses to rapier installations) damaging fuel installations and runway and hitting troop barracks and installations. The Typhoon have no place to land. The Aircraft are forced to ditch. Meanwhile Argentine special forces (inc Buzos Tactico) and commando brigade mount divisionary attacks across the island after being deployed by submarine (albeit ageing ones). Royal Marines based on the island retaliate to the attacks whilst the Argentines enjoy air superiority using their resources to inflict damages, although this is limited by distance from the mainland. Argentinia play it safe and deploy there Anti-submarine warfare assest carefully and sustain casualties but damage a UK hunter killer submarine in the process. Casualties would be sustained by both sides. Britain would respond and inevitably send a task force and would have no major problems in once again taking the islands. But at the end of the day the point is the Argentinians would not commit to conflict – they don’t have the money. Everything here is hypothetical but in war you can’t say things will be a walk over.
Leighton- currently Argentina can’t get more than 10 attack aircraft into the air. No money, no resources. They’re broke, hence the fuss about the oil!
Your history is screwed – Argentina didn’t exist in 1774. It was Spain, and they abandoned the islands too. And just because we’d popped out didn’t entitle squatters to move in. British forces ejected trespassing Argentine garrisons in 1833 and 1982, I reckon we could do it again.
I think we should be less concerned about the Argentine forces and consider those of Venezuela. Chavez has been raving for years about what he would do if the Royal Navy goes to the South Atlantic again, as well as pressing for united South American forces. Check the Wikipedia entry for the National Armed Forces of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. What if we factor in 24 SU-30s, 40 anti-ship missiles and 50 cruise missiles – just to mention a few. It’s true they don’t seem to have much of a navy, but they do seem to be constantly on the point of buying quantities from the Russians. And I’m sure that Chavez is quite capable of “coming to the assistance” of hard-pressed Argentina. Would Mr Obama send a couple of carrier battle groups to assist us? Somehow I doubt it. We need to be prepared for the worst. How about basing the Brigade of Gurkhas on the Falklands? I reckon the expectation of meeting 3,400 Gurkhas might put a lot of South Americans off.
You are forgetting one major difference between now and then. The Argentines now have the support of all of South America and much or the Western world. Argentinas ex President is now head of the South America Political alliance and one of the Worlds Super Powers is now very much behind Argentines claim. Whatever way you look at it there claim is a valid one. One way to avoid another war might be for Argentina to buy it off the British. They certainly need the moeny.
@tango kiwi have you forgotten what the war was about,it was about what the people living on the island wanted and what they regarded themselves as being,they did not want argentine rule,especially at that time under militay dicataorship were they were killing anyone they pleased,can you blame them for dreading that again.Britain had a job to protect these people and it would do again so argentines claims have no meaning as it is not what the people of the island want
The Mavinas are a pawn in larger game. Hong Kong is similar example where the old empire lost a colony. The British Empire at that time was a rich one made weathy by being the worlds largest slave traders. The history is that it was taken from Argentina not Spain in 1883. Yes the Islands are now full of English desendents but that it was resettled and enthnicly cleanesed does not make it right.
“The history of the Falklands is complex. The British had a small settlement there from 1766. When it was abandoned in 1774, the territory became part of Argentina. Then, in 1883, the British seized the islands by force.”
It’s not complicated, it is exactly the same as Gibraltar, amazingly straight forward. The Islands are British, discovered by a Briton and claimed by the British. The settlement was abandoned in 1774 due to Britain fighting in North America against the US, but the British left a plaque stating their intention to return, clearly the Argies didn’t read it. The Spanish also abandoned their settlement in 1811 and in 1816 Argentina became independent from its colonial master and another country that got rich on the slave trade, not to mention exploiting native populations, and claimed the Falkland Islands as their own, merely because it was close by (Argentina had never had a settlement at this point).
In 1833 (not 1883), the same year that slavery was abolished in the British Empire (53 years before the Spanish did so), the British returned and kicked out the squatters. The Argies have been complaining ever since.
It is worth noting that the Argentinians also claim the South Georgia Islands, and the Sandwich Islands, despite never having a settlement on either.
Very interesting comment from Lord West…
NAVY CARRIERS WON’T HAVE JETS FOR A DECADE
The Strategic Defence Review will be unveiled today
Tuesday October 19,2010
By Macer Hall, Political Editor
THE Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers will go to sea without any jet fighters for the next decade under swingeing defence cuts to be announced today.
Whitehall sources last night confirmed that all Britain’s Harrier jet fighters, which played a crucial role in the Falklands War in 1982, are to be scrapped to save money.
A new £2.5billion supercarrier, HMS Prince of Wales, will be built with a “cat-and-trap” system for launching American-built Joint Strike Fighter aircraft by catapult, the sources said.
But the giant warship is not due to be fully in service and armed with the jets until 2019.
Although the decision has already been dismissed as “nonsensical” by Lord West, the former First Sea Lord, Government insiders say the debt crisis means the Navy will have no alternative.
One source said: “Labour is to blame for leaving the Ministry of Defence in this mess. They ordered two massive aircraft carriers without having any idea about what aircraft they were going to put on them.”
Another supercarrier, the Queen Elizabeth, will be used as a “helicopter platform” when it comes into service from 2016.
But because of the huge costs of running two carriers, that vessel is expected to be effectively mothballed once the Prince of Wales is deployed.
The Queen Elizabeth could even be sold off to a foreign navy to raise more cash.
The moves, to be announced today in the Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, have enraged Navy chiefs.
Lord West said at the weekend: “If, God forbid, the Argentinians invade the Falklands, it would be totally impossible for this country, even if we had an Army of ten million, to do anything about it.”
Ministers have agreed to order a new generation of seven Astute-class hunter killer submarines. But thousands of troops are expected to be axed, along with scores of tanks, aircraft and warships.
The strategic defence and security review is also expected to cut thousands of troops, along with scores of tanks, aircraft and warships. Renewal of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent is also likely to be delayed.
Cameron Unveils U.K. Defense Cuts
By ALISTAIR MACDONALD
LONDON—The debt-strapped U.K. government announced an 8% cut in its military budget, undertaking a delicate attempt at cutting personnel and military hardware without jeopardizing the country’s place among the world’s biggest military powers.
The cuts announced Tuesday by British Prime Minister David Cameron mark the Ministry of Defence’s biggest one-off reduction since the dawn of the Cold War. They call for eliminating more than 40,000 military and civilian jobs, retiring naval vessels, tanks and aircraft, freezing or deferring new materiel and pulling U.K. troops out of Germany a decade earlier than planned.
Washington has raised concern over how sharp reductions will affect the military services of the U.K.—the biggest military ally of the U.S., and a leading partner in this decade’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Europe last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised concerns that Britain’s cuts would reduce its ability to contribute to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Mr. Cameron on Monday phoned President Barack Obama to reassure him that the U.K. will remain a big military power. On Tuesday, Mr. Cameron predicted that spending would begin to increase again after 2015.
“Britain has traditionally punched above its weight in the world and we should have no less ambition in the decades to come,” he told Parliament Tuesday. He said that even after the cuts, Britain would have the world’s fourth-largest military budget and would be able to meet its commitment to NATO of spending more than 2% of gross domestic product on defense.
The latest reductions follow a longer-term trend that has accelerated since the end of the Cold War, leading analysts to question Britain’s future as a top-tier military power. “These cuts don’t push the U.K. past the tipping point, but it brings it dangerously close to that tipping point,” said Thomas Donnelly, a director of the Center for Defense Studies in Washington.
The cuts are the result of a strategic defense review ordered up by the U.K.’s Conservative-led coalition government shortly after it took office, the first such review in over a decade. One primary impact will be major personnel reductions.
Mr. Cameron said the British army will lose 7,000 of its 103,000 personnel by 2015. Naval manpower will fall by 5,000 to 30,000. The Royal Air Force will lose 5,000 of its 38,000 positions. An additional 25,000 civilian jobs will be lost.
All of the services will lose equipment as well. The British Navy, which once claimed to rule the seas, will lose four frigates and battleships. The Royal Air Force will lose the Harrier aircraft that was a source of British pride for 40 years. The U.K. will also postpone replacing its seaborne nuclear deterrent until after the next election in 2015.
In a cut that isn’t spelled out in the review, the UK. will slash its order for the Joint Strike Fighter—a new high-tech jet being jointly developed with the U.S. and mainly built by Lockheed Martin Corp.—to about 40, with an option to buy more later, one person familiar with the matter said. The U.K. was once expected to buy 138 of the jets.
Many political observers said the reductions could have been worse. On Wednesday, Mr. Cameron will release his broader blueprint for cutting the U.K.’s record deficit. After a battle between the Treasury and Ministry of Defence, the government has kept the defense cuts well below the 25% reductions it is expected to seek from other departments.
Late Tuesday, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research issued a study warning the broader budget cuts run the risk of pushing the U.K. economy back into recession. The U.K. research institute’s study said the chances are one in five the spending cuts will cause economic contraction next year, which could force the government to put austerity on hold and provide some stimulus to growth.
Long the world’s dominant armed force, the U.K. military remained relevant even after being eclipsed by the U.S. and Russia after World War II. Britain’s active military and nuclear deterrent has given, giving the country heft on the global stage even as its comparative economic size fell. Frank Miller, a former member of George W. Bush’s National Security Council, said the capabilities the U.S. values in the U.K.—including a nuclear deterrent, special forces, intelligence-gathering and the ability to deploy a brigade overseas—remain in place.
The new military budget is aimed at repositioning the U.K. for what Mr. Cameron calls the “age of uncertainty,” in which Cold War fears of conventional state-on-state conflicts are replaced by terrorist threats, insurgencies and cyberwarfare.
To that end, he announced 40% cuts to tanks and heavy artillery and plans to withdraw the 20,000 British troops stationed in Germany by 2020, some 10 years earlier than planned. He promised to invest in special forces and cyberwarfare.
Arguments on the defense budget have proved heated in a country whose identity is tightly bound with its military history.
Like many ex-service personnel, Stuart Tootal took the afternoon off work to hear Mr. Cameron’s statement. “Anyone who has served is going to feel the pain of this,” said Mr. Tootal, a former paratroop commander in Afghanistan. Mr. Tootal said he worried the cuts may affect morale of soldiers set to deploy to Afghanistan, where 340 British soldiers have died.
Mr. Cameron blamed the need for cuts in part on the overspending and mismanagement of programs by the previous Labour government that further stretched the defense budget. One project being cut is the Nimrod reconnaissance plane, which was eight years late and triple the original budget.
One of the most controversial decisions involved whether the U.K. should continue building two multi-billion-pound aircraft carriers, even as it was cutting costs and concluding that threats to the U.K. were less likely to come from conventional warfare.
On Tuesday, the government announced that it is going ahead with the construction, but with delays and odd consequences.
One carrier will be completed—and then immediately put on “extended readiness,” or mothballed, to save costs. The carrier may be sold to another country later. The other will be delayed so it can be fitted with new technology that allows a wider variety of planes to land on it, including the U.K.’s version of the Joint Strike Fighter.
The moves come as the U.K. is also retiring both its Harrier jet fleet and its flagship carrier, the Ark Royal. The upshot is that the British will have no carrier-strike capability for almost 10 years.
Ed Miliband, the leader of the opposition Labour party, said this will leave Britain with “aircraft carriers without aircraft.”
The government argues that the country has been without carrier-strike capability before and that the delay allows the second carrier to be fitted with so-called “cat and trap” technology that will allow it to fly a version of the Joint Strike Fighter. That would let Britain buy a cheaper version of the JSF and allow the U.S. and France to land their jets on the ship, the government argues.
fuck you britishes we have our boiling heart waiting for an opportunity we will send you back to that muddy floated tiny and shitty island where you belong one and for all
YOU ARE THE TERRORISTS
knob
twat. yeah i’d say that basically covers it.
ENGLAND TILL I DIE !
estoy de acuerdo con vos General SM. soy argentino y UK no cuenta con que los argentinos simepre tenemos un plan B bajo el brazo. podriamos fabricar misiles de plastico en una semana y tirarselos. “LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS”
Falkland Islanders deny defence cuts leaves them vulnerable
Retired commanders say decision to scrap HMS Ark Royal and Harrier Force amounts to invitation to invade
* Matthew Weaver
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 November 2010 15.06 GMT
HMS Ark Royal HMS Ark Royal has been decommissioned. Falkland islanders deny that the defence cuts leave them vulnerable to invasion. Photograph: Chris Ison/PA
Prominent Falkland islanders today dismissed allegations by Royal Navy chiefs that defence cuts left the Falklands vulnerable to another attack by Argentina.
In a letter to the Times, five retired commanders including Sir Julian Oswald, admiral of the fleet, singled out the scrapping of the Harrier Force and HMS Ark Royal. It said this decision amounted to an invitation to invade the Falklands.
“Because of these and other cuts for the next 10 years at least, Argentina is practically invited to attempt to inflict on us a national humiliation on the scale of the loss of Singapore,” they wrote.
But leading members of the community insisted the islands were not vulnerable.
Gavin Short, a member of the Falkland Islands Assembly who oversees defence, said: “There is a very capable British, protecting presence on the islands. It would be extremely foolhardy of any government to contemplate a foreign adventure here in the islands.”
“We are not concerned that any of the cuts announced by the British government will in any way increase the possibility of a sucessful attack.”
John Fowler, deputy editor of the islands’ weekly newspaper Penguin News, was more forthright.
He said: “[The commanders] are clearly trying to defend their corner by using the Falklands as an emotive subject. But it doesn’t reflect the reality. We should move on from this language suggesting war is likely.”
Fowler, the islands’ superintendent of education at the time of the Falklands war in 1982, said he was reassured by the attitude of the government in Argentina.
“The main thing that is preventing us trembling in our boots is watching Argentina. It doesn’t seem particularly interested or capable of mounting an invasion. There’s no popular will for that in Argentina, the strength of their armed forces have been much reduced since 1982.”
Some on the island said they shared the concerns expressed by the retired naval commanders. Neil Watson, who farms 2,000 sheep on Long Island, said: “I think it is stupid for Britain not to have a fixed-wing aircraft that can land on an aircraft carrier. It will affect other parts of the world, too, but we are the most vulnerable.”
“If Argentina invaded again we would be outgunned in the air and outgunned on the sea,” he added.
Charles Dickson, who manages two sheep farms, said the islands would be defenceless if Argentina attacked Mount Pleasant Airport.
“We would be left dangling in the wind before anyone could get to us, if there isn’t an aircraft carrier to get planes here quickly.”
He added: “I’m grateful for the way they look after us, but with no aircraft carrier the insurance isn’t so good.”
Argentina says it is committed to recovering sovereignty of the islands by peaceful means.
Fowler said there was no sense of alarm on the island about the cuts. “Nobody on our letters pages has been raising these concerns recently.
“We will wearily include a story about it on Friday, because we are not particularly excited or upset about it at the moment. We feel that we are very well protected for the size of population.”
He added: “We were very surprised at the time of the invasion, so I’m a little bit cautious about saying everything will be fine. But the situation has changed so much since then.”
Tony Blake, a former member of the Falklands government, suggested relations with Argentina are improving. An Argentina veteran of the 1982 invasion is coming to stay at his home next weekend for the second time, as part of a visit with two other veterans.
“They come here to bury the ghost. People here don’t show any aggression to them,” he said.
He added: “I don’t think people here are concerned at present. There appears to be no weakening of the political will to defend us.”
This is a most interesting discussion on what is a highly controversial subject. I am a Kiwi living in Argentina who has a Real Estate business here and in a number of other Latin American countries I hear options on all sides. I have family in Scotland and the England and know their opinion. I can understand both sides point of view from a historical point of view. The sad thing for the Argentines is they would have been given the Malvinas /Falklands if they had not been so impatient and jumped the gun so as to speak. ( no pun intended ). Soon or later the Malvinas /Falklands will come back to Argentina hopefully by negotiation rather than force. Why because the worlds two past super powers USA and UK are broke politically and financially having lost every war they engaged in the past few years. Look how quickly Russian crumble when the rot set in. China and Indian and Brazil are the new super powers but they also have these issues with off shore territories under dispute. Whoever has the gold sets the rules. The best way forward for the inhabitants of the Malvinas /Falklands would be to start a dialog with Argentina again and look for ways of cooperation rather than conflict. Argentine is not the military dictatorship it was many years ago. It is a democratic which has lots to offer the Keplers from education to trade. War talk is not helpful in moving forward even if there is some pressure to fix this open wound before too long . Keep in mind all the Latin America counties support Argentines claim as do many of the other United Nations members..
Who every wrote this does not know much about militry matters. To start off with if Agentena invaded they would not be able to ship troops into the falklands because our sub would sink all of them. We also have 4 euro fighter jets there, you would need aleast 30 planes just to shoot down one of these planes, If the ilands where invaded we would not fight off troops comming in to the Ilands we would hold the airport until more airfraft came from home which can be fulled from the air so Aircraft carriers doesent even come into it. In terms of our ships of the 80s, its true that we had allot more ships then but each ship could only take on 2 targets at anyone time, the new type 45 destoyer can take on 33 diffrent targets at once, so now you would not even need a 3rd of the ships we had then to do what we did.
by DAVID AXE
She was the big ship that could — until she couldn’t. In early 1982, Atlantic Conveyor was nothing special: a mere civilian container ship belonging the Cunard Line. Then, on April 2, Argentine troops invaded the South Atlantic’s Falkland Islands, long a British territory. The U.K. Royal Navy quickly assembled a task force around two medium aircraft carriers with Harrier jump-jet fighters. The task force include 40 commercial vessels pressed into wartime service, including the 15,000-ton Atlantic Conveyor.
In just 10 days starting April 16, Atlantic Conveyor was modified to carry munitions, helicopters and spare Harriers, as well as a single operational Harrier launching from the helicopter pad for air defense. Thus equipped, Atlantic Conveyor sailed south with the task force, aiming to reconquer the islands.
On May 25, off the Falklands coast, two Argentine Super Etendard fighters attacked, striking Atlantic Conveyor with two Exocet missiles. “The attack was devastating,” Think Defense recalls. Twelve men died and the ship and much of her cargo were lost. Now, 29 years later, Think Defense has a fascinating summary of the ship’s impressive wartime service, along with many photos.
Atlantic Conveyor‘s story is one of innovation and adaptation by a stretched Royal Navy and courage from the vessel’s crew. But it’s also a warning: a properly armored and defended amphibious ship might have survived the Argentine attack and fully protected her crew. As the cash-strapped Royal Navy decommissions ships and planes wholesale — including both remaining carriers and all the Harriers — it’s worth remembering what can happen when a deprived navy must make do in the face of a determined enemy.
All other things being equal I wonder if we would now have the will and the determination to see the job through, not to mention the men capable of doing it. Britain was a very different country in 1980 and our armed forces were a good deal tougher than the current crop. We didn’t rely on technology in the Falklands so much as regiments who were capable of slugging it out in a nasty fight in challenging conditions (there is a world of difference between using a Tomahawk missile and filletting someone with a bayonet).The order of battle is usually Ghurkas, Paras, Marines, Guards Regiments, Scottish Infantry, the rest, though that may also say something about the British Army’s attitude to expendability.
In any case, compare what those troops went through (without complaint) to the behaviour of the Royal Navy personnel captured by the Iranians a few years ago. I heard one of them even started blubbing when they took his iPod away from him. An absolute disgrace and gives some indication of the deterioration that has taken place in the intervening years.
Having serving forces members in my family, I can say that not all of the current crop are worthless. You forget that most of them join the army with the want to fight, but get shipped off to peace-keep (aka sticking yourself between an innocent person and a bullet) in some other country. They are basically targets and hardly ever pro-actively attacking enemy positions… there aren’t any.
In the Falklands they had the chance to go toe-to-toe with someone who was expecting a fight, not get shot at by some pussy from miles away. In the Falklands they had the satisfaction of winning a straight fight – today’s lads don’t get that chance very often, certainly not against another army. These days it’s all about bombing and ariel attacks.
You also forget these days that if a true invasion occurred, it would definitely incur losses to both sides. There are a lot of British troops stationed there now. These losses would contribute to international opinion so the likes of the US and EU countries wouldn’t necessarily want nothing to do with it.
The question remains if there is enough national pride in the current stock of politicians – I guess the majority of the public wouldn’t want a war regardless of the principle of the matter.
As for the South American alliances, Britain has always been outnumbered in a fight – it’s the way we fight best. Put too many Brits into a fight and all you get is more casualties. Put less Brits into a fight and what you get is better warriors and a more favourable kill ratio.
Why’d you think the SAS / Commandos were so damn good in WWII? :-)
i’m sorry but this question is quite weird…i’m Leandro from Argentina and i have a couple of friends in the army and …dude…we don’t have a weak army…because…we do not have an army at all!!!! we lack everything…anyway…i never get why people keep talking about malvinas…it was just a small skirmish for us (we had civil wars much more violent, long, and important than that small conflict), and in here the civil population dont even get to feel the weight of the war effort…i would think in england, a country with many more wars in their history (including WWI and WWII), the people would be even less touched than we… so…i just dont get why is this important, we dont need those small islands and i would think a huge power as england (maybe the fifth more powerfull nation in the entire world) wouldnt need that little piece of rock,,, i just dont get this
ps: sorry for my english
Leandro, youre quite right, also your english is very good
The thing is Britain in the 70s DIDNT care for the fallklands/malvinas. At that time britain was going through a period of de-colonalization, so the falklands where pretty embarising for britain. They decided to try to sell the falklands to argentina since it was thought that this would boost southamerica-british relations. The problem was that when the islanders heard about this they where pretty annoyed, they consider themselves british. The British government then had the idea that they might loan the falklands to argentina since after the 70 years the falklanders would probably feel they where argentinian anyway, but the islanders didnt buy this either. The British government then put the matter on hiatus. Then of cource the Falklands War. In answer to your question its not so much that we want the isands, its more to do with proecting the rights and wishes of your the people that call themselves your own. If the islanders decided that they would rather be with argentina, then that would suit britain just fine.
PS please respond, Id like to hear more of what you have to say
Just got to add this factoid…
We still have Sea Harriers – probably why we still have one carrier capable of deploying them if necessary (Lusty).
Just go for the RNAS Culdrose tour of the Dummy Deck. Just peel off the “DD” badge and hey presto – Sea Harriers with AMRAAM.
can i say i notice that there was some posts in 2010 saying we have harriers but they have been some saying we still have them we dont have ANY harrier thats why LUSTY the ex aircraft carrier is now a helicopter landing ship BUT we do have 4 typhoons on the island and we have more in flight refulling although we have no planes in the royal navy no untill the f35b come into service in 2016 but can only take of on a runway so it would need the QE aicraft carrier so we are screwed untill 2016
We definitely still have a squadron or so of Sea Harrier at Culdrose. They are “runners” and are used to train the guys with genuine noise and “jet blast”. They’d need some work to get back in the air, but they’re there. In addition it is said that there are around 5 Harrier GR3 based at Predannick airfield (just down the road from Culdrose).
Yes, Lusty is now a copter carrier, but both Lusty and Ocean can operate Sea Harriers if the need arises. Ocean certainly to a lesser extent, but we have fast jet, troop support if necessary.
As for QE and F35 being available in 2016, I doubt it, 2020 is the current target.
However, in my opinion we don’t really need Harrier to retake the Falklands. Daring and Dauntless positioned to the N and S of the Falkland Sound would provide total air denial whilst Ocean, Albion and a couple of Bay would land the whole of 3 Commando, with Apache support, heavy artillery (AS90) and Challenger II. The Point Class RoRo would then reinforce the force to the 10,000 troop mark. This would all of course follow a maelstrom of Tomahawk from Astute aimed at enemy positions, including possibly the runway if taken.
You have to remember that 30 (or so) Harriers had to do both air defence and strike in 1982. Generally the 24 Sea Harrier were tasked with combat air patrol, which we no longer need (due to Sea Viper on Daring).
good point I didn’t really think about the Apache helicopters from the helicopter carriers and the harriers i didn’t know there were still some i am a helicopter pilot in the royal navy and go to RAF bases a lot and just don’t see them no more, and the f35b which we were ament to have (vertical take of) we are instead using f35c which have bigger wings, longer distance can be travelled and more weapons on bored, i think the navy will be excellent by about 2026 with the type 26 frigs coming soon the QE the f35c will be more than capable of defending it then
Good Lord yes, when the Type 26, QE/POW and F35C are available I pity the nation that is on the receiving end of our military response. As it stands, even now, very few nations stand much chance against the Royal Navy. Even with our dwindling numbers we’re still a force to be reckoned with in terms of expeditionary warfare
My only concern is the reliance we are placing on HMS Ocean to provide troop support. Maxed out I’d guess she can operate about 24 copters, which might just be enough to support a couple of Commando Battalions.
yer i suppose only a couple of copters but we have bulwark, Albion and lusty as well all with capable of carrying troops and all new ships from now on are to have room for nes they type 45 has 45 extra bunks and the type 26 will be able to acomodate 50 so with at least 12 being built that’s a extra 600 marine accomdation
But would it be a Naval engagement? The last scrap was a near thing, especially when we lost our troop-carrying helicopters and I’m not sure it was really down to who had the newest equipment. I remember speaking to a Marine at their base in Dorset who reckoned they were getting tooled up with everything they could find in stores – even an old Vickers machine-gun. Hell, we even flew a Vulcan out from the UK and that was way past its sell-by date.
Mind you, on saying that, I suspect weapons systems like the Apachhe might have swung the balance quite definitively.
A Vulcan wow there old and a Vickers my Grandad said he used one of them in general service, I think we should never let the Falklands get taken over we have 4 eurofighters over there, with 1000 men and some anti air missiles, if tensions start to rise we should send support and never let it get taken over in the first place, then we wouldn’t have to worry about scraping together things that are way past there sell by date because David Cameron and Gordon Brown slaughtered the capability of the military.
Gordon, I’m not sure I really understand your question “would it be a Naval engagement?”. As far as I understand, it would for the UK, just like 1982, because we need to mobilise our force over 8000 miles of ocean. I agree, that once in place it becomes predominantly a land and air war, more so now due to dwindling numbers of RN ships and Argentine ships/subs.
The other point is that I think it was very much to do with who had the newest/latest kit. Exocet, Sidewinder and Sea Harrier to mention just a few that made a lot of difference (shame we didn’t have Sea King ASaC).
A second “scrap” would also be won or lost based on equipment: Aster, Tomahawk, F35, J10(?), etc.
hey you English, you are forgetting that Argentina is not alone any more, many South American countries support us, many of them with weapons that were bought from the Russians, chile your old friends no longer support your tactics.This time, those who will fight, will not be unarmed teenagers, this time our young people and men are full of patriotism and professionalism, this time they are no longer fearful youth torn from the arms of their mothers,This time will be a personal matter, You can kill many Argentine soldiers, but those soldiers who can reach the islands, will have as main objective, to kill your families,rape their women and slaughter their young,in the same way that your Gurkhas did with our youngs,Our parents, our brothers and our sons were killed in these lands,No, forget no forgiveness for you, now you never will sleep peacefully again, knowing that we’re stalking you, like hungry wolves waiting for their chance to jump to your necks,A war can not be avoided, only delayed for the advantage of the enemy, in this case you
greetings from Argentina,
“god save the queen” freddy mercury, of course
So, you’re saying that “many South American countries support us” … “to kill your families,rape their women and slaughter their young”.
I don’t believe that Chile and Brazil are into such things.
Goodness me, I would be quaking in my boots at your bellicose rhetoric…if you weren’t Argentinian.
hearing that makes me sleep better actually seeing that Argentina is full of immature people and have to grow up and let it be,
there’s island of Canada which the French own but Canada don’t care about and even if you did attack the Falklands the European union wouldn’t be to happy about that and to be honest your not getting past the British even if we are having a economic crisis at the moment
Oh boy you got everyone shakin in their boots… boy
Argentina solders are only good for attacking women & children like ALL Latinas they run when facing real Men .
He may be an idiot, but he has a point. Argentina has a decade to take the Islands, in which we can only watch. The rest of South America do support Argentina, and Brazil alone has a larger navy than ours (including an aircraft carrier) and almost as many fighter jets. It wouldn’t take much to blockade the Falklands, but it would take virtually the entire Royal Navy to break such a blockade. Would we risk that?
We wouldn’t have EU support either, Spain would see to that.
I don’t understand why this is such an issue to the argies, the islands were discovered by a Frenchman, we had a settlement there before Argentina even existed and the people that live there have done so for 200 years and want to be British. Most civilised and sensible people would accept that. It speaks volumes of the Argentinians that you pursue this so relentlessly.
You also claim the Sandwich Islands and South Georgia, on which you’ve never had a settlement!
Patriotism doesn’t win wars, especially when you are in the wrong, and you know it. Like last time, it will come down to the fact that your boys won’t have the stomach for it. We are fighting to protect British people; deep down your boys don’t even believe in what they are fighting for, it is just a rallying call for demagogues.
totally agree but if they did take the island im sure that Brazil wouldn’t get involved because if they did other nations would help Britain out for example France and England have built up a amazing friendship in the last 100 years although they have been enemy’s for centuries earlia
Charlie, I’m not sure I completely agree with you. You say it wouldn’t take much to blockade the Falklands – it would take their entire Navy. You ask “would we risk that” and I suggest “would THEY risk that”.
I see your point, but if Brazil goes head to head with the UK, it’s not a 1982-style skirmish (no disrespect intended), it’s full-on Naval war! Both sides have to be prepared to lose a great deal. I just don’t see Brazil going through with it for the sake of a neighboring country laying claim to land that is not theirs.
However, it is just a matter of time, I bet our stupid politicians are wondering how they will rise to a “challenge” with the majority of their naval force committed to the Iranian problem (which may escalate). I do so, so, so, hope we hear news that the Typhoon flight at Mount Pleasant is upped to squadron strength.
…or that HMS Dauntless is sent to the area.
Simon, sorry, I didn’t explain that very well. I didn’t mean a blockade in the traditional sense, but merely an extension of the blockade that is already in place. Currently no Falklands Island ship may dock in South America (at least on the Eastern side) and there was uproar recently when a Royal Navy ship was allowed to dock in Montevideo as this was seen as a breach of the ban, despite British ships not being included. There is already talk therefore of extending this ban to include all British ships, they would simply need to then extend this blockade further out to sea and ban British ships from the area and patrol with their combined navies. Britain would then need to send a lot of ships to ‘break’ the blockade and protect British shipping, leading to an inevitable confrontation.
Would we do that? Likely not, we’ve done nothing about the South American ban on Falkland shipping or on the stealing of the Falkland Island fishing stocks. The Falkland Islands are being slowly isolated like nowhere else on earth.
Argentina is also considering banned the Chilean supply planes from entering Argentinian airspace; further isolating the Islands. I am fairly sure that will be next.
Ahh, well, yes… I agree then. Trade then disappears with South America.
I thought we had good relations with Brazil – they are intending to buy our new Type 26 frigates, aren’t they?
They really need to start leaning on Argentina to avoid the inevitable (confrontation or embargo). I can understand South America standing together, but it’s madness not to keep your neighbours in check – even if it’s just to look good in the eyes of the world.
I find this funny YOU GET SCARED BECAUSE WE SENT A TYPE 45 DESTROYER TO THE ISLAND grow up u dick heads your scared of 1 of our ships we have 6 of them that one ships is capable of tracking over 1000 aircraft thats more than you have
Just going back to the main question, our military is smaller but stronger. The US is actually following suit, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars of military spending to make their military smaller but with equal if not more capabilities. Thing is the Brits and US can do this, we are technologically advanced. If a war does break out, Brazil will not help and neither will the US (unless we find oil..in which case the US will be there pretty quick with drilling equipment..) I can understand both sides of the argument – Argentina gets told the British are evil, vindictive cowards and nothing else, in Britain the media is huge and global, we can find out both sides in the click of a mouse, Argentina can’t do this to the same extent. Basically they’re brainwashed by the bitch of a president they currently have.
Nonetheless if a war starts – we win, Argentina won’t invade again, they’ve managed to convince other nations to turn against us, why throw away all that hard work? I really hope they do, so so much. Also if any of you want to know figures try wikipedia/forbes lists on military spending, Britain is the third largest country by military expenditure behind the US and China..puts a bit more faith in your country after all you hear on the news is cuts cuts cuts. :)
Bring the argies and their antiquated military on…..I could do with another medal