You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Military Aviation

This is not your parents’ Falklands war.

Yet all is not the same as it was in 1982, starting with those military forces, and “what-if” questions are emerging across the Atlantic. Could Argentina take the Falklands if it chose to today? Could the U.K. prevail, especially with austere budgets in London already triggering interservice rivalries? While the arguments are old, the weapons and tactics have changed quite a bit.

The British Defense Ministry position is simple regarding Falklands security: RAF Mount Pleasant, home to four multirole Typhoon fighters, has grown in capability substantially from 1982-2012. An attempt to attack the Falklands by air would be met with these fourth-generation aircraft (versus no such deployment in 1982). And any Argentinean forces that leak through today would then have to face British ground-based air defenses, unlike 30 years ago.

By comparison, pitting Typhoons with advanced-medium-range-air-to-air-missiles against severely aging Argentinean aircraft (AW&ST Jan. 26, 2009, p. 240) seems one-sided. The late President Nestor Kirchner’s planned military buildup last decade fizzled against worsening economic conditions. Argentina reportedly even considered buying Lockheed Martin F-16s, but has had to make do with legacy A-4s, most recently purchased in the mid-1990s.

But some observers suggest that rather than a “conventional” strike, an Argentinean offensive could revolve around asymmetric attacks. One potential scenario could entail Special Operations Forces attacking Mount Pleasant, crippling the Typhoons with mortars and explosives, and leading the way for follow-on forces arriving by air and sea.

Still, the imminent arrival of HMS Dauntless, the second of the U.K.’s newest class of advanced destroyers, also is seen as a sign that London can deploy the necessary capabilities. News reports—neither confirmed nor denied—say a nuclear-powered attack submarine, likely equipped with conventional Tomahawk land-attack missiles, is a near-constant presence in the region.

Still, any talk of the Falklands is muddied by interservice rivalry in the U.K. The decision to retire all fixed-wing naval aviation assets under the 2010 Strategic Defense and Security Review saw the question posed almost immediately by Royal Navy proponents: “How could we retake the Falklands?” It is the one area in which the U.K. clearly lacks military capabilities that it possessed in 1982.

By comparison, looking at the situation with frigates and destroyers leads to a more favorable conclusion. The Type 23s and 45s are leagues ahead of the vast majority of ships deployed in 1982, as are their subsystems and associated equipment. As for amphibious assault ships, the outdated HMS Fearless was being retired in 1982, and HMS Albion and Bulwark, plus auxiliary vessels today, are far improved over those of the previous generation. Still, one gnawing question is how many vessels will be available without gutting other, equally important commitments elsewhere, like the Persian Gulf.

As for the British troops to send ashore, they are vastly better equipped and more experienced today, with close to a decade of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan under their belts. The one significant difference in the 30-year span is that the U.K. has now deployed and demonstrated the use of attack helicopters from assault ships, which would be very valuable in any campaign. Argentinean troops specifically, and the military generally, have been nowhere nearly as battle-proven.

Yet perhaps the greatest factor concerning the Falklands is will and determination. In 1982, the U.K.’s decision to withdraw a permanent naval presence in the South Atlantic seemingly was seized upon by Argentina as a sign that there was no will for a fight. Then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher proved this assumption wrong. But given today’s budget austerity, would David Cameron do the same?

During an interview to the British newspaper “The Times”, Malvinas’ war veteran and major general Julian Thompson said the United Kingdom would lose the Malvinas islands if Argentina decided to invade the archipelago.

Thompson, who commanded the brigade of Royal Marines during the 1982 conflict, said the South Atlantic territory have been “left vulnerable” by defence cuts, and it would be 'end of story' if Argentine forces took the British base on East Malvinas.

Boris wrote:Not everybody thinks the British are in such good shape in the South Atlantic, including a British general who fought there in 1982...

During an interview to the British newspaper “The Times”, Malvinas’ war veteran and major general Julian Thompson said the United Kingdom would lose the Malvinas islands if Argentina decided to invade the archipelago.

Thompson, who commanded the brigade of Royal Marines during the 1982 conflict, said the South Atlantic territory have been “left vulnerable” by defence cuts, and it would be 'end of story' if Argentine forces took the British base on East Malvinas.

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/articl ... -argentina

ANCFlyer wrote:I would make an educated bet if the Brits fell afoul in the Falklands, that, by treaty, there'd be some assistance . . . it's a rule. They've had our backs, we'd have there's. Unless by some strange concoction in DC, we don't partake in NATO any longer . . .

President Obama was effusive in his praise for the Special Relationship when he visited London recently, but his administration continues to slap Britain in the face over the highly sensitive Falklands issue. Washington signed on to a “draft declaration on the question of the Malvinas Islands” passed by unanimous consent by the General Assembly of the Organisation of American States (OAS) at its meeting in San Salvador yesterday, an issue which had been heavily pushed by Argentina. In doing so, the United States sided not only with Buenos Aires, but also with a number of anti-American regimes including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua.

“Our position remains the same. This is a problem between two of our partners. We do not want to change our position. We prefer that both countries negotiate a diplomatic solution in that matter,”