Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

PMSL

Amazing how the first edit I read had 11 submarines for 2011 now it's down to 3 and even those are 1970/80's diesels

And how many torpedos does it take to sink one ship???

You really need history lessons Kymmy

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

And who controls most of the military satelites??? Remember Obama isn't backing us on this one. We are on our own.

We don't need favours in order to get access to military satellite data (unlike in 1982).

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Chris

There's some interesting analysis here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373

The suggestion is that the only possibly viable attack vector would be a Trojan horse - special forces aboard a 'stricken' civilian airliner requesting an emergency landing.

Yes I did read that Chris.

Kymmy just has a bee in her bonnet, and really believes that we should risk the lives of our servicemen, rather than boost the defences of the Falklands, because she thinks that we can defend against a whole country's military with what we already have in the area.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

We don't need favours in order to get access to military satellite data (unlike in 1982).

We do to use American satelites (which most of them are).

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Chris

There's some interesting analysis here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373

The suggestion is that the only possibly viable attack vector would be a Trojan horse - special forces aboard a 'stricken' civilian airliner requesting an emergency landing.

Yep I posted that link yesterday.. http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35389323-post352.html

I don't think that would work.. It's too spread out for a single plane load to take efficiently and I'm sure with the current situation any emergency landing would be looked upon with suspicion and a force waiting to meet it on the runway away from any crucial areas..

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Kymmy just has a bee in her bonnet,

Kymmy is ex-forces, I'd say that bee probably has a potent sting when it comes to facts.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Kymmy is ex-forces, I'd say that bee probably has a potent sting when it comes to facts.

Many people are ex forces....your point is?

She still referred to the Falklands War as a "so called war". Which is extremely insulting to anyone who fought there.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Yes I did read that Chris.

Kymmy just has a bee in her bonnet, and really believes that we should risk the lives of our servicemen, rather than boost the defences of the Falklands, because she thinks that we can defend against a whole country's military with what we already have in the area.

Nah, just swatted that bee... it kept cut/pasting erroneous data from out of date sites..

Argentine may have more man and may be closer but the logistics and public fear of putting even a small percentage of them onto an island three hundred miles away from their home base would preclude any attack happening or at very least give us one hell of a warning (weeks perhaps to see the build up) Which means that we can get men and equipment in the air on route as unlike 1982 the airport is in our hands and those currently on the ground can dig in around Mount Pleasant. 1982 worked not because we didn't think they would do it.. it worked as we didn't know they had left, we didn't know they had landed and we had extremely few ill equipped on the ground to defend against the initial landing, never mind having no typhoons or destroyers in that area at that point in time.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Yes I did read that Chris.

Kymmy just has a bee in her bonnet, and really believes that we should risk the lives of our servicemen, rather than boost the defences of the Falklands, because she thinks that we can defend against a whole country's military with what we already have in the area.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------



We do to use American satelites (which most of them are).

My understanding is that the arrangement is more formal than 'favours'. I either case, the Obama White House's reluctance to make unequivocal pro-British statements on the Falklands is unlikely to have resulted in withdrawl of our ongoing use of the sats for intelligence gathering. There would most likely have been a very noisy diplomatic row about it by now.

Remember, their usefulness in this context is as early warning, not as tools to aid in an operation to re-take the islands in the event of their loss. If Obama's position was so pro-Argentine that he believed use of satellites should be withdrawn, then their use would already have been denied to the British military for ongoing monitoring.

As for Kymmy's "bee", I don't think her position is unreasonable and nor do the contributors to that BBC article. There is some disagreement over whether re-taking the islands again would be possible but there appears to be broad agreement over the deterrent effect of the forces stationed on or near the islands, so as to make re-taking them unnecessary.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Many people are ex forces....your point is?

Seemingly beyond you.

I'd take the opinion of an ex-forces person over someone who has little/no military experience. Unless you're going to reveal another unexpected feather in your cap?

I'm not saying someone from the forces can't be wrong, or someone without the experience can't be right, but in the absence of any other information I would lean towards the view of the one who has been there, seen it and done it.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Russ

Kymmy is ex-forces, I'd say that bee probably has a potent sting when it comes to facts.

Russ I don't think me being an ex-weapons tech has anything to do with my attitude apart from understanding equipment is what keeps the army moving, fighting and winning.... 1982 wasn't a war it was a skirmish, we took a few shots from them then walked all over them. Most importantly we learned from our mistakes hence Mount Pleasant exists, hence there's 4 typhoons on the island and hence with the first moans by the argies we've got a type 45 deployed there..

It's just all common sense looking at everything.. not only the army numbers but also the other factors (equipment, training, moral, logistics) which you have to take into consideration which certain people seem to be blinkered to..

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Nah, just swatted that bee... it kept cut/pasting erroneous data from out of date sites..

Argentine may have more man and may be closer but the logistics and public fear of putting even a small percentage of them onto an island three hundred miles away from their home base would preclude any attack happening or at very least give us one hell of a warning (weeks perhaps to see the build up) Which means that we can get men and equipment in the air on route as unlike 1982 the airport is in our hands and those currently on the ground can dig in around Mount Pleasant. 1982 worked not because we didn't think they would do it.. it worked as we didn't know they had left, we didn't know they had landed and we had extremely few ill equipped on the ground to defend against the initial landing, never mind having no typhoons or destroyers in that area at that point in time.

We only have 3 destroyers (including only 1 type 45), and 4 typhoons in the area. Hardly a deterrent against a determined (local) military.

Mount Pleasant is only one area of the Falklands. So yes, we can defend one mountain...big deal.

I don't know what your military training is, but it certainly isn't military strategy.

If we want to really put Argentina off making a serious attack on the Falklands, then we need to boost our defences now, and not just have a token defence force there.

---------- Post added at 14:30 ---------- Previous post was at 14:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Russ I don't think me being an ex-weapons tech has anything to do with my attitude apart from understanding equipment is what keeps the army moving, fighting and winning.... 1982 wasn't a war it was a skirmish, we took a few shots from them then walked all over them. Most importantly we learned from our mistakes hence Mount Pleasant exists, hence there's 4 typhoons on the island and hence with the first moans by the argies we've got a type 45 deployed there..

It's just all common sense looking at everything.. not only the army numbers but also the other factors (equipment, training, moral, logistics) which you have to take into consideration which certain people seem to be blinkered to..

You are continuing to insult British forces who sacrificed their lives last time.

Yes we have one type 45 there...that's all

I think you need to get your head out of the sand. Because that's when someone can come up behind you and kick you up the backside.

[Kymmy]

Yet that mountain has the capability of landing more men, equipment..etc..

You seem though to have fallen asleep when the capabilities were explained to you earlier in this thread concerning the type 45 and the 4 typhoons a lot earlier in this thread..

You have to remember that the military has to get to the island first or does logistics not count for an army of thousands????

---------- Post added at 14:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

You are continuing to insult British forces who sacrificed their lives last time.

PMSL.. You join up, you go to a conflict zone then tell me what I'm doing..

I've in no way insulted any British forces and you're the only one who thinks so.. After you've done your length of service then you'll understand what I was saying concerning the skirmish..

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan, mattress salesman

We only have 3 destroyers (including only 1 type 45), and 4 typhoons in the area. Hardly a deterrent against a determined (local) military ... we need to boost our defences now, and not just have a token defence force there.

Originally Posted by Peter Felstead, Editor, Janes Defence Weekly

It's quite a considerable deterrent force.

I know which analysis I consider to be more authoritative.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Do we know what types special forces the Argentinians have?

I'm thinking SAS / SEALS or similar. Though an all out attack is unlikely at the outset a sneak mission to disable the 4 Typhoons and whatever other damage could be done followed by a mass air/missile attack on the Type 45 to drain down its supplies of defence missiles as a prelude to a real invasion has to be a possible scenario.

Or maybe I've been watching too many animé where the same sneak plan actually works against a vastly more extensive defence force.

We have 86 Typhoon's and in the long term 160, lets bring some of the other 82 (soon 156) typhoons to the Falklands!

[Kymmy]

One of their para brigades was turned in to a special operations group with training in the US.. But they're more like our commandos than the SAS