Another 'What If': Falklands II.

[Special-K]

OK guys, I appologize if this is the wrong forum for this. It's not exactly history, but it is a hypothetical. This story brought this question to my mind.

 

Argentine president lays 'inalienable' claim to Falklands Wed Apr 2, 4:11 PM ET

 

BUENOS AIRES (AFP) - Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands, which remain in British hands after the 1982 war between the two countries, is "inalienable," President Cristina Kirchner said Wednesday.

 

"The sovereign claim to the Malvinas Islands is inalienable," she said in a speech marking the 26th anniversary of Argentina's ill-fated invasion of the islands, located 480 kilometers (300 miles) off shore.

 

The April 2, 1982 invasion prompted then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher to deploy naval forces to retake the Falklands, known as the Malvinas in Spanish.

 

The short, bloody conflict led to Argentina's surrender on June 14, 1982 after the death of 649 Argentines and 255 Britons.

 

Historians saw the invasion as an attempt by Argentina's ruling military junta, which was then in power, to divert attention away from domestic problems.

 

In her speech Kirchner called for Argentina to strengthen its representation in international bodies to denounce "this shameful colonial enclave in the 21st century."

 

And Vice President Julio Cobos said in the southern city of Rio Grande that "we must recover this territory that is ours, that belongs to us."

 

The comments came as Kirchner faces her own woes, battling against farmers who have barricaded roads in a protest against a stiff tax hike on soybean exports.

 

The conflict has created shortages of meat and other staples in Buenos Aires and elsewhere, and tested the social fabric, with pro- and anti-government supporters holding dueling rallies.

 

Foreign Minister Jorge Taina said, meanwhile, that Argentina was awaiting authorization from Britain to allow families of Argentine military personnel killed in the war to fly to the islands for the inauguration of a memorial.

 

London is insisting the travel be carried out by ship, but Buenos Aires has pointed out that many of the relatives are elderly and would find a long return sea voyage too tough.

 

 

 

 

I don't expect this to really lead to anything beyond diplomatic mouthings, but hypothetically speaking, would the UK be able to retain the Falklands if Argentina were to make a determined push to "retake" the islands? One could make a case that it would help to take some attention away from internal problems, and the recent discovery of oil there would make them more attractive pieces of real estate to just about anyone. If the islands were to be taken, would the UK be able to take them back? I understand that the NATO treaty would not cover the Falklands because it's not Europe or North America. How much assistance would the US render?

 

To complicate things, I could see it as concievable that nations like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, and a few others (perhaps Argentina?) get together some day and form their own NATO (SATO?). I could see them supporting or joining an Argentinian invasion as matter of solidarity, kicking out western imperialists, strengthening their alliance, economic security (oil), furthering socialism, whatever.

 

So how would that change things if all of those nations were to actively support or join Argentina in invading the Falklands? Would the Falklands be able to hold long enough for reinforcements? Could they still retake the islands if they were to fall?

 

I apologize again if this is the wrong forum, or if this is an offensive question that I shouldn't be asking in the first place. I'm just wondering what the balance of power is and how it could possibly go down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-K

[p620346]

The last time I looked, the RN still had SSBNs so Argentina would have to be very careful about starting a war and biting off more than they can chew. During the 1982 Falklands War, I can remember hearing one, and only one, radio report that the RN had sent Polaris SSBNs into the South Atlantic. Always wondered if it was just psychological warfare, but I do believe tha Maggie "The Iron Lady" Thatcher was the one world leader at the time who might have launched a nuclear firs srike on Argentina in the even of a catastrophic British military loss in the Falklands.

[gnocci]

It wont happen.

[Grant Whitley]

¡No bombardeen Buenos Aires!

[Grant Whitley]

Seriously, I think the thing to keep in mind here is that while the Malvinas remains a convenient issue for Argentine politicians to harp about to try and distract people from other issues, that doesn't mean that Argentina is poised to strike. As for the balance of forces, my impression is that Britain's forces in the area are much stronger than in 82, while Argentina's capabilities have declined.

[TheSilentType]

I believe that the RN only has two operational CVLs, so if either of them couldn't be deployed it would make an attempt to retake the islands extremely difficult.

[shep854]

Re-taking the islands would be extremely difficult for HM forces, but the Falklands are much better defended than in the early '80s, so taking them in the first place would be at the very limits of Argentina's capabilities.

[Paul in Qatar]

Freakin' Peronists. Nothing but the Falange without the goose-stepping.

 

She is in trouble with the farmers, as Peronists always are. She wants to raise a little Hell to rally people around the flag. If someone gets hurt, if her words cause a situation, she simply does not give a damn.

[harryRIEDL]

I believe that the RN only has two operational CVLs, so if either of them couldn't be deployed it would make an attempt to retake the islands extremely difficult.

the CVL would secondary. As all the SSN could Tactom all the airfields to support the invasion.

 

also Argentina doesn't have any Ampbis or BVR capable planes

[Special-K]

Re-taking the islands would be extremely difficult for HM forces, but the Falklands are much better defended than in the early '80s, so taking them in the first place would be at the very limits of Argentina's capabilities.

 

 

 

Could you elaborate?

 

My understanding is that they have 4 Tornados there, but I'm not sure how thay would stack up to an attack - would there be enough of them to go around? Is my understanding incorrect? What if there were other air forces besides Argentina?

 

The Argentines have a number of Mirage fighters as well as the Skyhawks. Cuba has Mig-29's and Venezuela has Su-30's. Assuming there were more than one nation participating, how effective would the islands defenses be?

 

 

 

 

-K

Edited April 4, 2008 by Special-K

[Special-K]

the CVL would secondary. As all the SSN could Tactom all the airfields to support the invasion.

 

also Argentina doesn't have any Ampbis or BVR capable planes

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your post. I would think that having carriers would be of great importance to any invasion to re-take the islands. They can't do fire support with Tomahawks alone so I would think that the aircraft would be very important.

 

Regarding the lack of BVR capability in the aircraft and a lack of amphib capability, that of course would be a major problem.

 

Could they correct this any time soon? What if the scenario where they have allies helping them were to happen? Do the other nations possess those kinds of capabilities?

 

 

 

-K

[Cromwell]

The issue of relative strength has not changed. The UK is decisively more powerful than Argentina. But the question is whether it is decisively more powerful in the first week when British reinforcements are being assembled. The answer in 1982 was clearly not, the answer today is more complex. The British saw this deficiency and built a large airfield for rapid reinforcement by air. Further the British have almost certainly rebuilt its intelligence network in Argentina making a coup de main difficult without warning.

 

On the negative side, Chile is not being run by an obliging fascist regime that was very, very, VERY helpful during the 1982 War. Due to the potential belligerence by Chile, Argentina could not afford to commit ALL of it naval and especially airpower to the war against the British and indeed called it quits at the end of the land campaign even with considerable residual airpower left to “punish” the British. Though with RNAS “Sheathbill” in operation at San Carlos, which vastly increased RN air power over the islands, and with the loss of nearly 100 aircraft it was no longer a decisive force after the 25 May offensive.

But though Chile is no longer so pro British, I should think that the last thing on South American minds would be to have a major argument with the European Union and the United States’ principle ally on the War on Terror.

 

Technologically, the gap between Britain and Argentina has grown since 1982. (LGB, Tomahawk armed SSNs, enormous combat experience, AEW, air tankers, Typhoons!). Politically, the British Government is so much stronger than 1982; it could invade the Moon as the country is so right wing, so gung ho – It would only have to call Argentina’s aggression, “terrorism”. Sky News would not report the war, but teach its view with such vehemence, such repetition, with such utter certainty that we would agree to anything the Government wanted to do, just for fear of holding a minority position. Aggressors beware! not since 1956 has Britain been such a dangerous foe!

[RETAC21]

I'm not sure I understand your post. I would think that having carriers would be of great importance to any invasion to re-take the islands. They can't do fire support with Tomahawks alone so I would think that the aircraft would be very important.

 

Regarding the lack of BVR capability in the aircraft and a lack of amphib capability, that of course would be a major problem.

 

Could they correct this any time soon? What if the scenario where they have allies helping them were to happen? Do the other nations possess those kinds of capabilities?

-K

 

To retake the islands, first they have to be invaded and Britain now posses the ability to reinforce by air (missing in 1982), a good military base, Mt. Pleasant (absent in 82) and retain their SSN which now have Tomahawk (absent in 1982) while the Argentinians lack a carrier (which they had in 82), amphibous capability (they only have a converted Type-42 destroyer and 3 small merchants) and area air defence capabilites (only have Albatross SAM). They have improved on the submarine side, though they have only 3, and of course, now they have more Super Etendards and Exocets, but by now they should be dealt fairly easily, even without Sea Harriers.

[RETAC21]

Politically, the British Government is so much stronger than 1982; it could invade the Moon as the country is so right wing, so gung ho – It would only have to call Argentina’s aggression, “terrorism”. Sky News would not report the war, but teach its view with such vehemence, such repetition, with such utter certainty that we would agree to anything the Government wanted to do, just for fear of holding a minority position. Aggressors beware! not since 1956 has Britain been such a dangerous foe!

 

If that's a factor, then it should be noted that in 1956 it ended up being a toothless tiger!

[swerve]

Could you elaborate?

 

My understanding is that they have 4 Tornados there, but I'm not sure how thay would stack up to an attack - would there be enough of them to go around? Is my understanding incorrect? What if there were other air forces besides Argentina?

 

The Argentines have a number of Mirage fighters as well as the Skyhawks. Cuba has Mig-29's and Venezuela has Su-30's. Assuming there were more than one nation participating, how effective would the islands defenses be?

-K

 

Those other countries would first have to get their aircraft & ground support to Argentina. That would be difficult to do surreptitiously. Requesting overflight permission from Brazil would ring alarm bells (& might be refused), & sending then round by ship would be difficult to hide, & need partial disassembly.

 

The RAF can reinforce the Falklands very rapidly. Fighters can fly down, pausing briefly at Wideawake for the crews to stretch their legs, with ground crew & equipment in the tankers that take the fighters there. Additional RAF fighters & AWACS would probably be operating out of Mount Pleasant before any Venezuelan Flankers took off from a Patagonian airfield.

 

Without tanker support, only the Flankers would be of any use air to air, but sending them to Patagonia would cause the defences to be reinforced. I'm not sure if Cuban MiG-29s can refuel from Argentinas two (yes, that's all) KC-130H, & I'm sure he pilots have no AAR training. With only two small, slow tankers (plus perhaps one Venezuelan 707), limited in their operating bases, the total number of aircraft in Patagonia is not very important, same as in 1982. Only a handful can be over the Falklands at once, & they can't maintain a permanent presence, because distance & shortage of tankers means each aircraft only gets a few minutes in the operating area.

 

The attackers would have no ground radar or AEW support, & the Tornados (& Typhoons as soon as they could fly down there) would have. For the defending fighters, it'd be a shooting gallery. Even 4 Tornados could swat any strike that Argentina could muster, & have AMRAAMs to spare. Against A-4s & Mirages, they might even be able to afford to save the AMRAAMs & use Asraam, since even that outranges anything those types carry.

 

The Patagonian air bases could be attacked by Tomahawks from SSNs. If the KC-130s were hit, most of Argentinas air strike capability would be gone.

 

Perhaps more important than additional fighters might be more tankers. Venezuela has been rumoured to be buying Il-78 tankers, to be delivered within a year from now - but how many?

[swerve]

If that's a factor, then it should be noted that in 1956 it ended up being a toothless tiger!

 

Yeah, but we don't face financial collapse if the US pulls the plug now.

[Sikkiyn]

What's to stop the U.S. from entering the Falklands in a supportive role for the British?

Awacs, Tanker, Aero/space, etc.

[RETAC21]

What's to stop the U.S. from entering the Falklands in a supportive role for the British?

Awacs, Tanker, Aero/space, etc.

 

Just providing the tankers out of Ascension island will suffice.

[swerve]

Just providing the tankers out of Ascension island will suffice.

 

We have our own tankers, & Ascension is British territory. We just have to liaise with our American tenants to make sure we & they don't obstruct each others operations.

Edited April 5, 2008 by swerve

[RETAC21]

We have our own tankers, & Ascension is British territory. We just have to liaise with our American tenants to make sure we & they don't obstruct each others operations.

 

I am not saying otherwise, but the tankers in service with the RAF will be insufficient to supply the scale of effort needed, even if reinforcement consist of a squadron of Typhoons, AWACS, some Nimrods and the C-17s.

[swerve]

I am not saying otherwise, but the tankers in service with the RAF will be insufficient to supply the scale of effort needed, even if reinforcement consist of a squadron of Typhoons, AWACS, some Nimrods and the C-17s.

 

Why C-17s?

 

I believe you are wrong about the amount of tanker support needed. Mount Pleasant can take airliners which do not refuel en route, & which could fly in any additional troops & equipment. I believe Nimrods & E-3 can also fly from Ascension to the Falklands unrefuelled. Tankers are only needed to support any Typhoons flying down there.

[FlyingCanOpener]

Could you elaborate?

 

My understanding is that they have 4 Tornados there, but I'm not sure how thay would stack up to an attack - would there be enough of them to go around? Is my understanding incorrect? What if there were other air forces besides Argentina?

 

The Argentines have a number of Mirage fighters as well as the Skyhawks. Cuba has Mig-29's and Venezuela has Su-30's. Assuming there were more than one nation participating, how effective would the islands defenses be?

-K

 

Hmm, 4 Tornadoes with experienced pilots, ground and air-based radar support, and no need to get far away from their airfield against a bunch of scrubs with limited flight hours much less combat time?

 

It would make the Marianas Turkey Shoot look competitive... even before British reinforcements arrived.

Edited April 6, 2008 by FlyingCanOpener

[cheese possessed]

Could you elaborate?

 

My understanding is that they have 4 Tornados there, but I'm not sure how thay would stack up to an attack - would there be enough of them to go around? Is my understanding incorrect? What if there were other air forces besides Argentina?

 

The Argentines have a number of Mirage fighters as well as the Skyhawks. Cuba has Mig-29's and Venezuela has Su-30's. Assuming there were more than one nation participating, how effective would the islands defenses be?

-K

 

The Tornados might conceivably be swamped or overcome, but UK just has to slip a few wide-body transports through - carrying a brigade(-) or so - then Argentina is not going to retake the islands under any circumstances.

[RETAC21]

Why C-17s?

 

I believe you are wrong about the amount of tanker support needed. Mount Pleasant can take airliners which do not refuel en route, & which could fly in any additional troops & equipment. I believe Nimrods & E-3 can also fly from Ascension to the Falklands unrefuelled. Tankers are only needed to support any Typhoons flying down there.

 

Probably a personal preference, I wouldn't base E-3s or larger planes at Mt. Pleasant, which IIRC is within range of the coast and naval gunfire. With just a flight of Tornados down there, the Argentinians don't need much firepower to deny flight ops and would be able to do it with what they had in '82.

 

They don't have now the same firepower but by my very inaccurate measure it's about 10Km to the coast, so all naval guns larger than 76mm could get there, and, although I doubt it, maybe they had got their Commando shit together since '82 and will be able to infiltrate by sub and correct fall of shot.

 

Certainly, airliners and airlifters (maybe even the Hercules) could do the hop but they will have to refuel on the ground at Pleasant and be vulnerable while there. I would assume any reinforcement will include Helicopters to provide mobility and that would mean using the C-17s (why go for less?)

[swerve]

Probably a personal preference, I wouldn't base E-3s or larger planes at Mt. Pleasant, which IIRC is within range of the coast and naval gunfire. With just a flight of Tornados down there, the Argentinians don't need much firepower to deny flight ops and would be able to do it with what they had in '82.

 

They don't have now the same firepower but by my very inaccurate measure it's about 10Km to the coast, so all naval guns larger than 76mm could get there, and, although I doubt it, maybe they had got their Commando shit together since '82 and will be able to infiltrate by sub and correct fall of shot.

 

Certainly, airliners and airlifters (maybe even the Hercules) could do the hop but they will have to refuel on the ground at Pleasant and be vulnerable while there. I would assume any reinforcement will include Helicopters to provide mobility and that would mean using the C-17s (why go for less?)

 

Do you seriously envisage Argentinean naval ships standing close in to the coast to shell the airport? Sounds suicidal to me.

 

Argentina in 1982 was able to launch raids. A few aircraft at a time, intermittently, with a short time over target, because of the distance from airbases & very limited tanking capacity. Now they have far fewer fighters & the same tankers. Do you really think you can deny flight operations with such small-scale raids, seen coming from far enough away for fighters on the ground (assuming they're armed & fuelled) to take off & intercept them. Two Tornados should easily deal with any raid which Argentina could launch, & it should be possible to keep two ready at all times. The FAA wouldn't be able to use terrain masking to attack MPA by surprise. Even without AEW, the radar coverage is much better.

 

Personally, I'm also uneasy about risking rare & expensive E-3s if we don't have to, but we don't have a smaller AEW aircraft. A pity: a couple of "forward AEW" aircraft, Erieye or the like on a utility transport airframe, might be better in these circumstances.

Edited April 8, 2008 by swerve