Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defence chiefs prepare new plans to defend Falkland Islands
telegraph.co.uk ^

Posted on 01/12/2013 2:58:56 PM PST by Sub-Driver

Defence chiefs prepare new plans to defend Falkland Islands

Defence chiefs have drawn up new contingency plans designed to prevent hostile action by Argentina towards the Falkland Islands.

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent

9:00PM GMT 12 Jan 2013

A series of military options are being actively considered as the war of words over the islands intensifies.

It is understood that additional troops, another warship and extra RAF Typhoon combat aircraft could be dispatched to the region ahead of the March referendum on the Falkland Islands’ future.

The options being proposed by planners at the Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood, north-west London are also said to include a “show of force” such as conducting naval exercises in the South Atlantic.

These could involve the deployment of the Royal Navy’s Response Task Force Group, a flotilla comprising destroyers, a frigate, a submarine and commandos.

Alternatives include deploying elements of the Army’s 16 Air Assault Brigade — the airborne task force which includes members of the Parachute Regiment — which has just completed a series of demanding exercises in Spain preparing for “general war”.

The Government is expecting a 100 per cent “yes” vote when the islanders are asked on March 11: “Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?”

Intelligence chiefs have warned David Cameron that a resounding “yes” vote could lead to an aggressive “stunt” by the Argentine government, such as the planting of the country’s flag on the island by a small raiding party.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: argentina; falklandislands; falklands; unitedkingdom

1 posted on 01/12/2013 2:58:59 PM PST by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Argentina should just coin some Trillion $ coins and buy it.


2 posted on 01/12/2013 3:05:27 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Argentina should just coin some Trillion $ coins and buy it.

Wouldn't work, the British would coin a Bazillion $ coin and buy it back.

3 posted on 01/12/2013 3:14:44 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Well then Argentina should mint a diamond-chipped quadrabazillion $ coin!


4 posted on 01/12/2013 3:19:22 PM PST by AD from SpringBay (We deserve the government we allow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

It cost about Great Britian $500k per Falklander to attack and free them 30 years ago. May not continue to be worth it. The U.S. should have stayed out of it and let the British bomb the mainland where everyone could learn of the consequences. In the US we used to hang cattle rustlers-not because of the lost cattle. It was because of the difficulty in keeping them from being stolen. Up the ante.


5 posted on 01/12/2013 3:19:51 PM PST by DIRTYSECRET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

If I was an Argentine soldier, I would not look forward to dealing with a British army with such recent combat experience.


6 posted on 01/12/2013 3:26:24 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

This is all bluster on be half of the Argentinian’s because their currency is worthless........And their PM just wants to divert attention.

I’ve been to Buenos Aires - most aren’t buying her crap.


7 posted on 01/12/2013 3:39:06 PM PST by Sub-Driver (Proud member of the Republican wing of the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Maybe the Limeys would do better to nuke Argentina this time around. They might get the point after that....


8 posted on 01/12/2013 3:40:20 PM PST by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay

“...quadrabazillion ...”

That’s impossible.


9 posted on 01/12/2013 3:46:45 PM PST by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
The Argentines invasion the first time was completely unexpected. This time, the Brits are ready. The Argentines will NOT be allowed to land troops.

Remember also that the Iron Lady order the Brit sub to sink the Belgrano while she was technically outside the exclusion zone, though headed towards the islands. That's how to fight a war..will Cameron have the same intestinal fortitude?

Also Reagan aided the Brits by giving them access to our satellite imagery..the Brits knew what the Argentines were up to. Will Obama do the same this time? I suspect not.

10 posted on 01/12/2013 4:01:06 PM PST by ken5050 ("One useless man is a shame, two are a law firm, three or more are a Congress".. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; Allegra; big'ol_freeper; Lil'freeper; TrueKnightGalahad; blackie; Cincinatus' Wife; ...
Splendid little war, it was. I made a mint... at gun shows selling t-shirts imprinted with "You Don't Falk With The Royal Navy!"
11 posted on 01/12/2013 4:03:43 PM PST by Bender2 ("I've got a twisted sense of humor, and everything amuses me." RAH Beyond this Horizon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

One dummy Trident D5 warhead over Buenos Aires would do it....


12 posted on 01/12/2013 4:06:26 PM PST by Kozak (The Republic is dead. I do not owe what we have any loyalty, wealth or sympathy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

One squadron of Typhoon’s, one Type 45 Destroyer and one regiment of British troops would be enough to mangle any attempt by Argentina to land on the islands.


13 posted on 01/12/2013 4:27:08 PM PST by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
“...quadrabazillion ...”

That’s impossible.

Don't be so sure. Have you seen the national debt and Obama's spending lately?

14 posted on 01/12/2013 4:34:51 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
How Britian's current military forces compare to 1982:

1982

Armed Forces Personnel: 320,000

Ships: 2 Carriers, 2 Assault ships, 32 Submarines, 15 Destroyers, 46 Frigates, 1 Ice Patrol Ship, 12 Hydrographic survey ships, 15 Patrol ships/craft, 29 Minesweepers and minehunters, 45 Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Aircraft: 400 plus

2013

Armed Forces personnel:160,000

Ships: 0 Carriers, 9 Submarines, 7 Destroyers, 13 Frigates, 2 Assault/Helicopter Carriers, 2 Assault/Command Ships, 3 RFA Landing Ships, 3 Survey ships, 1 Ice Patrol Ship, 4 Patrol Ships, 15 Minehunters, 10 Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Fighter Aircraft: 130

15 posted on 01/12/2013 4:38:21 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

The Argentine military is a disastrous joke compared to 1982, too. Despite all their bluster, they haven’t funded their military in the last 30 years. Most of their aircraft (which are still A-4s, amazingly) are unflyable.


16 posted on 01/12/2013 4:38:57 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Sub-Driver.


17 posted on 01/12/2013 5:04:24 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ansel12

1 helicopter carrier 5 Destroyers, 13 frigates, 6 fleet subs.

THAT is the entire Royal Navy today. It is a pale shadow of what they were incapable of offensive power. There are no Harriers at all anymore. They have NO heavy bombers,,period.
They have the ability to shoot a few cruise missiles at the mainland. And also all out nuclear war.
But they have Typhoons and thats about it. They are restricted to one base they can fly from. And at max range they can annoy the argentine mainland, but accomplish little.
The British soldier is pretty good, but his nation is incapable of a repeat of the early 80s.

They couldn’t even maintain an air interdiction effort over Libya, from well established NATO bases without us doing it for them. Realistically, the British are only invlved in any of our wars because it’s a way for them to have some political say, and to insert Officers into cool career enhancing jobs.

They literally have more generals than they do tanks now.


18 posted on 01/12/2013 5:12:29 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

There are 4 typhoons in the Falklands, at one base. The Argies could open festivities at 4am some morning and wipe out the fighter fleet with sub launched Commandos, or a sub launched cruise missile or two.

Then speaking of Subs, they use the extremely silent German 209. Even nuke attack subs play sheer hell trying to find those in waters such as those in the Falklands Archipeligo.
And the Argie ships, A-4s and mirages carry exocets still.

It wouldn’t be the cakewalk the anglophiles think it would be.
The Brits could likely hold the islands, because it would be just as hard for the Argies to move in force to the island. But the Brits would suffer some nasty losses. Realistically they cannot project power much better than the Argies, especially down there. So the stalemate would contine.

The real nightmare is that the political situation has changed in south America. Brazil and other south Americans might ally with Argentina if that Argentine woman can cast this as Europeans against poor south America. And Obama would never help England. He hates them as much as he does us.
It could all get really weird.


19 posted on 01/12/2013 5:34:49 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Argentina is in even worse condition. Half of its pilots have lost their pilot’s licenses, because they cannot log enough flight time to maintain their pilot’s licenses. The Navy has only about 16 warships that are in a state of combat reeadiness out of some 60 ships. The Army is worse still.


20 posted on 01/12/2013 5:38:13 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

The Falkland Islands and Our Pants
Think Defence | April 19, 2011
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/04/the-falkland-islands-and-our-pants/

Argentina military grapples with old stuff
disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only
by Staff Writers
Buenos Aires (UPI) Dec 20, 2010
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Argentina_military_grapples_with_old_stuff_999.html


21 posted on 01/12/2013 5:43:43 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

In 1982, the Argentine army deployed troops from a couple of Jungle Regiments to the Falklands. These poor sods had only their jungle kit and were totally unprepared for the bitter cold of the Falklands. The Brits, on the other hand, WERE prepared. Royal Marine Commandos had just finished a NATO exercise in Norway and when they returned to the UK, they were alerted to ship out to the South Atlantic and still had their Arctic kit. At the time in Jeddah, the British and Argentine embassies shared a common wall, and the two ambassadors were best of buds. The hostilities drove a wedge between them.


22 posted on 01/12/2013 6:00:19 PM PST by Ax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

They don’t new plans. They need new equipment.


23 posted on 01/12/2013 6:40:11 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

I was only addressing the ground troops, if I were an Argentine soldier, I would not look forward to facing actual killers and war fighters.


24 posted on 01/12/2013 6:45:37 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

The Argentinians don’t possess cruise missiles let alone sub-launched variants.

The 209’s and the exocet’s are anti-ship systems and while they might be useful in delaying any subsequent heavy lift into the area they are next to useless in ground operations.

The 209 and 1700 class subs are small (crew complement 25 to 35) and wouldn’t be able to land anything more than a handful of troops and that is the best and only capability they have for this type of operation.

Even if they did succeed, they’d have to also hold the base against 700+ UK troops to prevent the reinforcement of fresh aircraft and troops which could arrive within 12 hours. Frankly, that’s an absurd proposition

I agree that Obama wouldn’t lift a finger but he’s not going to be put into that position. The Brits learnt the lesson 30 years ago that it’s easier to defend and reinforce a position than it is to lose it and have to mount an amphibious operation to retake it, especially if it’s 12,000 miles from home. The fact the the Argentinians don’t have anything like a serious offensive capability helps a lot.


25 posted on 01/12/2013 6:45:59 PM PST by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Sounds as though trouble is brewing in Argentina and they new another Falklands brouhaha to distract from what is happening at home.

I was in Argentina in the 80s when the battle over the Falklands began anew. At that time, Argentina had an extremely high rate of inflation and most Argentines had 2 or 3 “make-work” jobs to make ends meet.

El Presidente at the time, Gral. Galtieri, tried to pick a fight with neighboring Chile over a longstanding border dispute, but the Chileans wouldn’t play. Unfortunately, the hapless Brits would and got sucked into Galtieri’s distraction from the economic problems at home.

So, they are rewinding the tape from the 80s and starting the movie over.

‘Scuse me, this is where I came in.


26 posted on 01/12/2013 6:56:53 PM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ax

At the time I was following the story pretty close.

I would meet with two friends for coffee, and we would all buy a different newspaper to read and share, one of the friends was an ex-WWII Brit commando, so he was well interested.


27 posted on 01/12/2013 7:01:37 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

In 1986, I got assigned to the US Embassy, Office of the Military Attaché, in Buenos Aires. There were still some old timers hanging on who’d been there during the hostilities and told me that the Argies were really pist at us for backing the Brits, and a lot of the Argie Army, Air Force and Naval officers gathered in front of the Embassy and threw their awards and letters of praise that they had earned on courses while in the States over the Embassy fence. Yet before I left in 1989, we were running exchange programs with the Argie Military. Even up to this day, the Argies still like the Brits better than they like us.


28 posted on 01/12/2013 7:15:54 PM PST by Ax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Has not Obumber said or hinted he favors the Argentines? Just asking.


29 posted on 01/12/2013 7:17:37 PM PST by BeAllYouCanBe (Until Americans love their own children more than they love Nancy Pelosi this suicide will continue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

“The real nightmare is that the political situation has changed in south America. Brazil and other south Americans might ally with Argentina if that Argentine woman can cast this as Europeans against poor south America. And Obama would never help England. He hates them as much as he does us.
It could all get really weird.”

Agreed.

If Argentina moves on the Falklands, the Brits probably have no better than a 50/50 chance of holding them. If any other nations of South America offer Argentina support and arms, the Brits may be done there, short of using nukes...


30 posted on 01/12/2013 7:32:46 PM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

Not a chance for Argentina. They simply cannot do it.


31 posted on 01/12/2013 8:48:09 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

the Brits still have some tricks up their sleves. See what the citizens of Buenos Aires think then their power grid gets dropped by a few of those nifty carbon filiment warhead Tomahawks fired from RN SSNs


32 posted on 01/12/2013 8:57:00 PM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve; AD from SpringBay
AD from SpringBay ~ “...quadrabazillion ...”

Born to Conserve ~ That’s impossible.

Not at all. But it still wouldn't do any good. The Brits would just strike a 5 sided pentabazillion coin...

33 posted on 01/12/2013 10:05:18 PM PST by null and void (Confiscating guns enables tyranny. Don't enable Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“Don’t make us come down there and kick your ass again.”


34 posted on 01/12/2013 10:08:40 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

The exclusion zone was for commercial traffic, any Argentine Navy ship was always a target no matter where it was in any Sea or Ocean.


35 posted on 01/13/2013 5:21:48 AM PST by Hawker Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ax
The mountain and arctic warfare cadre are a specialised troop in the Royal Marines, always ready to deploy
36 posted on 01/13/2013 5:22:12 AM PST by Hawker Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hawker Tempest
I think you're mistaken. The purpose of the exclusion zone was to keep ARA ships away from the Falklands. Much of the controversy about the attack on the cruiser had to do with reports that she was returning to Argentina.

Thatcher's decision was 100% correct..Why let enemy troops land, where they will have to be dug out by Brit forces, at the cost of considerably casualties. Far better to sink the ship..see if the enemy can swim/float

37 posted on 01/14/2013 7:23:57 AM PST by ken5050 ("One useless man is a shame, two are a law firm, three or more are a Congress".. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

There are a few misconceptions about the Falklands Conflict, first one is it was a ‘conflict’ and not a war. Calling the Falklands a conflict was an expedient and, as short lived as it was, it was still a war, it’s not about the longevity it’s about the intent. My point is my countrymen died in a war, as they did in the Gulf and now do in Afganistan, all wars require sacrifice and therefore a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for your country.

The second is that outside the exclusion zone any Argentine ship military or otherwise supporting the campaign would not be a target. If their Aircraft Carrier was 100 miles outside the exclusion zone it would have been sunk. If an ARA destroyer turned up off Ascenscion Island or decided to make a move on the Kiwi’s boat that took over from the Royal Navy’s pacific stations it would have been sunk by the Kiwi’s. If the ARA sailed up the Thames Estuary it would have been sunk.

The Belgrano was a legitimate target no matter where it was, and it was zig zagging at the time, it could’ve change course at any time and threatened the Royal Navy task force.


38 posted on 01/15/2013 9:19:04 PM PST by Hawker Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Hawker Tempest
We both agree 100% that the Belgrano was a legitimate target. Thatcher correctly decided that even though technically outside the exclusion zone, she posed a serious threat to British troops, and should be sunk. I suspect that few others in her position would have had the guts to make that call.

I was questioning your earlier statement that any Argentinian NAVAL vessel OUTSIDE the exclusion zone was still a legitimate target. You may well be correct; however, that is not my understanding of how the exclusion zone worked. Could you provide a source/link? Thanks

39 posted on 01/16/2013 7:14:12 AM PST by ken5050 ("One useless man is a shame, two are a law firm, three or more are a Congress".. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson