Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

The Army in Argentina no longer have conscripts and the milltary has a force of 104,000

Never said they were, was comparing the resolve of conscripts and why the British army doesn't use them..

As for Argentine I don't even think they're stupid enough to try an invasion even with out current level of personnel in the area.. They'd lose a lot more than just a few personnel with sanctions from the economic community and that's before we kick their arses off the islands

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Exactly...and we only have one type 45 in the area.



No matter how Argentina complain about it being a hostile act. The fact is that it isn't hostile as we aren't planning to invade Argentina. It is just a defensive measure to protect against possible Argentine aggression. And that's how most of the UN would see it, as we have a right to protect our territory.



In the last Falklands war, we did use merchant cruise ships as troop carriers, and I believe a hospital ship. And those plans are already in place, just in case we need to use them again.

What ships would be used?

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

What ships would be used?

British merchant ships

I believe they used the QE2 last time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchan...nited_Kingdom)

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

British merchant ships

I believe they used the QE2 last time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchan...nited_Kingdom)

The QE2 and Canberra!

[Kymmy]

Lets' look at the argies capabilities.. for example look at the current anti-aircraft capability of the Argentine Army.. 3 outdated Roland SAM systems, They did have 4 but they left one for us back in 1982.. and a lot of various anti-aircraft guns without any automated fire control.. Probably all useless against the speed and stand off capability of the eurofighter.

Look at the navy.. defensively even the aspide system they currently have is outdated and designed against sub sonic aircraft.. Again they rely on exocets ship launched (well we know what happened to the General Belgrano)and air lanched which the SuE's (the only aircraft capable of launching them) have less than a dozen aircraft left, no carrier and reports are that most of the squadron is non-operational..

To put is simply the Argentine attack capabilities is a lot less than in 1982.

Britain would currently have at very least a few days notice of an attack on the islands through current surveillance technology, by then the air force and army can get immediate reinforcements by air and the type 45 can lay back for a long range defensive role close to the island.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Lets' look at the argies capabilities.. for example look at the current anti-aircraft capability of the Argentine Army.. 3 outdated Roland SAM systems, They did have 4 but they left one for us back in 1982.. and a lot of various anti-aircraft guns without any automated fire control.. Probably all useless against the speed and stand off capability of the eurofighter.

Look at the navy.. defensively even the aspide system they currently have is outdated and designed against sub sonic aircraft.. Again they rely on exocets ship launched (well we know what happened to the General Belgrano)and air lanched which the SuE's (the only aircraft capable of launching them) have less than a dozen aircraft left, no carrier and reports are that most of the squadron is non-operational..

To put is simply the Argentine attack capabilities is a lot less than in 1982.

Britain would currently have at very least a few days notice of an attack on the islands through current surveillance technology, by then the air force and army can get immediate reinforcements by air and the type 45 can lay back for a long range defensive role close to the island.

The type 45 has a kill range of 70 miles. That would only cover a fraction of the Falklands on it's own. So it can't protect all possible landing sites.

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------

PERSONNEL

Total Population: 41,769,726 [2012]
Available Manpower: 19,918,490 [2012]
Fit for Service: 16,718,928 [2012]
Of Military Age: 684,870 [2012]
Active Military: 100,000 [2012]
Active Reserve: 450,000 [2012]


LAND ARMY

Total Land Weapons: 4,732
Tanks: 257 [2012]
APCs / IFVs: 981 [2012]
Towed Artillery: 289 [2012]
SPGs: 543 [2012]
MLRSs: 58 [2012]
Mortars: 1,754 [2012]
AT Weapons: 850 [2012]
AA Weapons: 375 [2012]
Logistical Vehicles: 5,021

AIR POWER

Total Aircraft: 404 [2012]
Helicopters: 94 [2012]
Serviceable Airports: 1,141 [2012]

NAVAL POWER

Total Navy Ships: 42
Merchant Marine Strength: 43 [2012]
Major Ports & Terminals: 8
Aircraft Carriers: 0 [2012]
Destroyers: 4 [2012]
Submarines: 3 [2012]
Frigates: 0 [2012]
Patrol Craft: 8 [2012]
Mine Warfare Craft: 0 [2012]
Amphibious Assault Craft: 2 [2012]


http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...y_id=Argentina

[Kymmy]

Along with the rapier systems already on the island I think they'd have it covered

[Tim Deegan]

And then there is the UK, with a much stronger military. However they are very stretched at the moment. And most are 1000's of miles away from the Falklands:

PERSONNEL

Total Population: 62,698,362 [2011]
Available Manpower: 29,164,233 [2011]
Fit for Service: 24,035,131 [2011]
Of Military Age: 749,480 [2011]
Active Military: 224,500 [2011]
Active Reserve: 187,130 [2011]


LAND ARMY

Total Land Weapons: 11,630
Tanks: 420 [2011]
APCs / IFVs: 4,347 [2011]
Towed Artillery: 138 [2011]
SPGs: 120 [2011]
MLRSs: 42 [2011]
Mortars: 2,563 [2011]
AT Weapons: 4,000 [2011]
AA Weapons: 653 [2011]
Logistical Vehicles: 16,011

AIR POWER

Total Aircraft: 1,663 [2011]
Helicopters: 606 [2011]
Serviceable Airports: 505 [2011]

NAVAL POWER

Total Navy Ships: 99
Merchant Marine Strength: 527 [2011]
Major Ports & Terminals: 10
Aircraft Carriers: 1 [2011] out of date, should say 0
Destroyers: 6 [2011]
Submarines: 11 [2011]
Frigates: 13 [2011]
Patrol Craft: 23 [2011]
Mine Warfare Craft: 15 [2011]
Amphibious Assault Craft: 10 [2011]


http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...United-Kingdom

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

PERSONNEL (snip)

Someone can cut/paste.. yippee...

How many of those do you think would be deployed to the islands and they don't come close to explaining the levels of armament which is a major factor??

No good publishing total figures as that doesn't mean a lot apart from a logistical nightmare if they decide to move any more than a couple of thousand.

That's why they got the island so easily last time in that it was a small fast moving force taking over an undefended island.. This time it's nothing like that and I'm sure that the costs involved and fear of the Argentine people alone in being "defenceless" would soon cause uproar in their government.

The argies would be stupid to try and attack

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Along with the rapier systems already on the island I think they'd have it covered

You seriously think we have enough to cover the whole coastline against a sustained attack?

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

You seriously think we have enough to cover the whole coastline against a sustained attack?

That question seems to assume an amphibious force could get close enough to the coast to need repelling. They have 300 miles of open ocean to cross first, and satellites watching their every move.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Someone can cut/paste.. yippee...

How many of those do you think would be deployed to the islands and they don't come close to explaining the levels of armament which is a major factor??

No good publishing total figures as that doesn't mean a lot apart from a logistical nightmare if they decide to move any more than a couple of thousand.

That's why they got the island so easily last time in that it was a small fast moving force taking over an undefended island.. This time it's nothing like that and I'm sure that the costs involved and fear of the Argentine people alone in being "defenceless" would soon cause uproar in their government.

The argies would be stupid to try and attack

The figures do mean a great deal, as they may not match us for technology, but it wouldn't be difficult for them to overwhelm our defences, as Argentina is only a couple of hundres miles away.

Do you have any idea how long it took for the British task force to reach the Falklands last time??

Yes they may be crazy to attack. But maybe they are crazy!!

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Submarines: 3 [2012]

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

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Chris

That question seems to assume an amphibious force could get close enough to the coast to need repelling. They have 300 miles of open ocean to cross first, and satellites watching their every move.

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

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.