Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Daily Telegraph - Defence chiefs prepare new plans to defend Falkland Islands

However true that hypothetical situation is it would be an Argentine military which hasn't been upgraded (rather degraded) in 30 years, against a military that's been fighting the last 10 years with top kit....

Op Certain Death it is.

indeed - thats the point. my view is not that they have a chance of successfully overwhelming the defences (they obviously don't), but that they can attack the Islands, and probably cause losses in blood and treasure. moreover, there is a school of thought that says that CFK will get as much political kudos both domestically and in LatAm from an attack thats a complete military failure as she would from one that resulted in success - in that she would be able (to the feeble minded, but they make up a large part of the population of the world) to portray Argentina as the underdog, the victim of the vastly militarily superior nasty Brits.

the comment about CFK despising her military is correct - and while she certainly fears giving them any kind of political legitimacy by involving them in any 'great patriotic cause' over the FI, it also means that she's likely to be not overly concerned by the prospect of Argentine Super Etendard and Skyhawk pilots going for an enforced bath in the South Atlantic. thats a fairly widespread view in Argentina, she would not face massive demos from the Beunos Aires branch of Help for Heroes in the event of some needless waste of lives.

i would also take issue with the idea that we've learnt all the lessons of Falklands 1: what allowed Falklands 1 to happen was politicians and 'tunnel thinkers' within the MOD and FCO refusing to believe that the Argentines would be so beastly as to a) finally do what they had repeatedly threatened to do, and b) to do something which would make the same politicians and tunnel thinkers look frighteningly incompetent. theres also the 'C' word, which i won't utter here, but which we found to be rather neccesary when our brilliant Plan 'A' turned out to be utter shit.
 
Why would an Argentinian pilot climb into their sixty year old aircraft for a joyride over the South Atlantic and a cold swim hoping that nice big yellow helicopter my President was whining about HRH flying was going to hove into view soon?

Personally if I was given an attractive offer to commit flamboyant suicide in order for Kirchner to move her drinks cabinet six inches closer to Stanley I'd take the couple of years banged up and let some other stupid ****** find out whether the ground crew have actually been doing their job for the last thirty years and if Typhoon's much good at air to air or not.

Same goes for if I was one of their naval officers offered a game of hide and seek with Astute/Trafalgar.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
I see their p3s are flying and assume they have the full sub package, sonabuoys etc... I'm sure the old soviet doctrine of a mass scramble behind an active sonar screen would do enough to upset any sub drivers day especially one with the wrong gearbox. the p3 I gather does work as advertised unlike the nimrod which never picked a sub up that hadn't deployed a smoke marker first.

Rule No1 there are no rules

Rule No2 see above.
 
I see their p3s are flying and assume they have the full sub package, sonabuoys etc... I'm sure the old soviet doctrine of a mass scramble behind an active sonar screen would do enough to upset any sub drivers day especially one with the wrong gearbox. the p3 I gather does work as advertised unlike the nimrod which never picked a sub up that hadn't deployed a smoke marker first.

Rule No1 there are no rules

Rule No2 see above.

And your information on the Nimrod comes from....? At the risk of name-dropping, years ago I knew a P-3 driver by the name of Harry Harris when he did a term at Oxford as part of an in-service masters he was taking at Georgetown (he's moved on in the world - now Assistant to the Chairman of the JCS after a tour as boss of US 6th Fleet), and given the conversations we had about the respective merits of various MPA, I'd wager he'd probably be a little surprised to hear of this....
 
Yes, but would you be willing to risk your Government's survival on it?

Surely the important question is not "How many?" but "WTF are they?".

THAT you won't be told.


If you were determined to have a pop at the Falklands (and for clarity, its fairly certain that will not happen. Mrs Argentina seems to be playing the downtrodden victim of colonial power quite effectively) you only need a 24 hour window of being reasonably sure of not having a Trafalgar standing in your way
You can forget Astute at the moment, its spends more time advertising its location on the telly.
The remaining five Trafalgars aren't all at sea at once and I'm sure its not impossible to establish how many are tied up at home

They would probably only have to make an educated guess about the location of two or three Trafalgars. Thats the downside to the RN only having six subarines to play with.
Take out those on maintenance and those that the televison reveals the location of (eg when Libya was going on) and the gamble that there is one in the South Atlantic gets smaller and smaller.
A Trafalgar or Astute may be a game changer but if can establish the location of half of the RN's submarine fleet at any given time you can play the odds

The prospect of Argentina invading the Falklands is tiny, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see some kind of propaganda stunt like a flag raising atempt. Kirchner seems to be fairly convinced she can play the publicity game to great advantage.

To be truthful its a game she may play better than the UK, I'm not sure how the rest of the world see's it.
 
They would probably only have to make an educated guess about the location of two or three Trafalgars. Thats the downside to the RN only having six subarines to play with..

OK, so they have to draw a 720 mile radius circle and assume that one of them might be in it.
Bit of a bugger with the Falklands being 440 miles off their coast.




Sanitize that with a handful of ancient P-3's that have precisely zero hours practicing tracking top of the range hunter killer submarines.
 
Sanitize that with a handful of ancient P-3's that have precisely zero hours practicing tracking top of the range hunter killer submarines.

And presumably possible only after the penguins have taken out the Tiffins.
 
OK, so they have to draw a 720 mile radius circle and assume that one of them might be in it.
Bit of a bugger with the Falklands being 440 miles off their coast.

Sanitize that with a handful of ancient P-3's that have precisely zero hours practicing tracking top of the range hunter killer submarines.

Thats not the point I was trying to make.
What I am saying is that it is probably possible to narrow down the wereabouts of the UK's six submarines and reduce the odds quite substantially.
In 1982 the RN had 30 or so submarines, its a lot easier to figure out where 6 are than it is to figure out where 30 are.
A Trafalgar might make a mess of anything Argentina can put to sea, but only if there is one there.

Its academic anyway, the Argentines don't have the desire or the ability to launch an invasion of the Falklands
 

CREATURE5334

Old-Salt
About a dozen serviceable and now rather ancient jets, most of its navy has no sea time and is unserviceable, the navy's ammunition stocks are nearly all time expired, probably no better for the air forces munitions.

Where the septics not key in their training and preperation prior to the invasion in 1982?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that amphibious arm was on loan from the US for the initial invasion, mand that maggie asked ronnie to decide what side he was on, and get a grip of his life.

Bearing in mind how much they like oil, I would'nt put it past them to have a pop.

Then there's the frogs, I seem to remember them being a bit cheeky and and supplying munitions.

Other than that, like her or not, maggie had balls of steel to commit to the falklands in 1982. I don't think there has been a politican since that even comes close.
 
Where the septics not key in their training and preperation prior to the invasion in 1982?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that amphibious arm was on loan from the US for the initial invasion, mand that maggie asked ronnie to decide what side he was on, and get a grip of his life.

Bearing in mind how much they like oil, I would'nt put it past them to have a pop.

Then there's the frogs, I seem to remember them being a bit cheeky and and supplying munitions.

Other than that, like her or not, maggie had balls of steel to commit to the falklands in 1982. I don't think there has been a politican since that even comes close.

No the marines and their landing ship were Argentine. The Amtracs had been bought from the US several years earlier, the LST was IIRC a locally-made copy of a US type.
 
...Other than that, like her or not, maggie had balls of steel to commit to the falklands in 1982. I don't think there has been a politican since that even comes close.

just to check, because i wouldn't want to look like a fool, this is the Maggie Thatcher who sent a junior Foreign Office minster called Nick Ridley to the FI in 1981 to persaude the Falklanders that they wanted to become Argentinian?

this is also the same MT who was told on the 20th March 1982 that SIS were certain that the Argentines were going to invade on 1st April 1982, and who did nothing?

the same MT who did not order HM Submarines Spendid and Spartan to sail to the FI until 30th March 1982?

the same MT who did not immediately order a military response, but who was in a state of some confusion, and who did not finally decide upon a military response until told, forcefully, by Admiral Lewin, that she must order a military response?

because, you know, i wouldn't want to get your Margaret Thatcher and the Margaret Thatcher who's actions and inactions allowed the war to happen mixed up...
 
just to check, because i wouldn't want to look like a fool, this is the Maggie Thatcher who sent a junior Foreign Office minster called Nick Ridley to the FI in 1981 to persaude the Falklanders that they wanted to become Argentinian?

this is also the same MT who was told on the 20th March 1982 that SIS were certain that the Argentines were going to invade on 1st April 1982, and who did nothing?

the same MT who did not order HM Submarines Spendid and Spartan to sail to the FI until 30th March 1982?

the same MT who did not immediately order a military response, but who was in a state of some confusion, and who did not finally decide upon a military response until told, forcefully, by Admiral Lewin, that she must order a military response?

because, you know, i wouldn't want to get your Margaret Thatcher and the Margaret Thatcher who's actions and inactions allowed the war to happen mixed up...

Anyone can make mistakes.....like voting Labour 4 times in a row..;-)
 
Thats not the point I was trying to make.
What I am saying is that it is probably possible to narrow down the wereabouts of the UK's six submarines and reduce the odds quite substantially.
In 1982 the RN had 30 or so submarines, its a lot easier to figure out where 6 are than it is to figure out where 30 are.
A Trafalgar might make a mess of anything Argentina can put to sea, but only if there is one there.

Its academic anyway, the Argentines don't have the desire or the ability to launch an invasion of the Falklands



Actually, not in refit we had 8 SSN and 10 getting on a bit SSK.
There was also the little issue of the Cold War being a tad warm at the time and making demands on availability.

So in real terms, we probably have more SSN availability than in 82.
 
Actually, not in refit we had 8 SSN and 10 getting on a bit SSK.
There was also the little issue of the Cold War being a tad warm at the time and making demands on availability.

So in real terms, we probably have more SSN availability than in 82.

The RN sent 6 submarines to the Falklands in 1982.
Now they have six in total, less is definatley not more!

(Discounting SSBN's obviously)
 
The RN sent 6 submarines to the Falklands in 1982.
Now they have six in total, less is definatley not more!

(Discounting SSBN's obviously)

And in 82, a number of those SSN's were little more capable sensor wise than WWII submarines and deploying weapons that were in actual fact WWII weapons. It's a whole new world of capability now.

1982? Primary ship killer, MkVIII non homing torpedo, range 2.5nm
2012? Primary ship killer, Spearfish homing torpedo, range 30nm

How does an ancient Argentine frigate deal with an SSN that is faster than it, can hear you long before you can hear him and has weapons that outrange you?
That's of course if the Argentines can sort of the problem of the buggered engines, no spares and all the ordnance being time expired.
 
...That's of course if the Argentines can sort of the problem of the buggered engines, no spares and all the ordnance being time expired.

i'm not going to dispute the thrust of your post, because its true - but do you not feel a little uncomfortable making the above statements on, from what i can find, two articles from a media organisation (mercopress) that isn't that friendly with Argentina?

thats all there is - just the two articles, and somene has been through wikipedia attaching the same worded statements on all the Argentine warship pages - i can find no corroborating evidence for the two articles, i've used my schoolboy Spanish to look for official Argentine documents, or news reports from other agencies, or anything. but i can't.

i don't doubt that it may well be true, but two articles doesn't make it definately true.
 
If no one is selling the spares or ordnance, (and we know who makes the stuff that goes bang and the spares), and you know their ships are not casting off and sailing majestically across the southern seas and conducting live fire training, then x + y = z
 
Where the septics not key in their training and preperation prior to the invasion in 1982?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that amphibious arm was on loan from the US for the initial invasion, mand that maggie asked ronnie to decide what side he was on, and get a grip of his life.

Bearing in mind how much they like oil, I would'nt put it past them to have a pop.

Then there's the frogs, I seem to remember them being a bit cheeky and and supplying munitions.

Other than that, like her or not, maggie had balls of steel to commit to the falklands in 1982. I don't think there has been a politican since that even comes close.

Should you understand my fondness for the Parachute Regiment you.ll understand the following:
The Paras had balls of steel as did the Royals and all the other service personnel who put it on the line back in 1982. Thatcher did not.

Having fubarred, she used the military to dig her out of a political hole, be that her ability to be re-elected or the shit can that the FI had become.

And I still hope she gets run over by a bus.

Krom
 
i don't doubt that it may well be true, but two articles doesn't make it definately true.

Do you think bailiffs keep trying to repossess Argentine ships in foreign ports and no-one will sell them any spares or new weapons because (a) they're utterly****ed and no-one trusts them to repay any money they're loaned or (b) because it's all a cunning plan by Kirchner to lure us into a false sense of security before the amphibious forces they've managed to build and train in absolute secrecy launch towards the Falklands escorted by the secret fleet they've built while the air force they've also secret built clears the skies of the RAF?
 

Latest Threads

Top