Oh, I've tapped on this before. Think Defense and his merry band of fellows shot my thinking down. Ya seen they're a RAF centric blog and despise all things Naval. Well here's some bad news --- and its delivered from one of their own. The UK is a maritime nation and unlike the US, has a history (long history, not just a creation of the Cold War) of forward basing forces. Unfortunately a company of Paras or Marines isn't going to be more than a speed bump to a well organized Amphibious Assault. This from DefenseManagement.com.
I'm truly embarrassed to admit it but the Admiral is right. This US Administration would not support the UK. And that's shameful. I'm ready to pull our forces out of Europe for one reason. Decisions like the one that scrapped the Harrier and its carriers means that the UK is not serious about its own defense.Britain 'could not defend Falklands'
13 June 2011
A shrinking navy and lack of US support mean that Britain would be unable to prevent Argentina from invading the Falkland Islands and claiming them as their own, the Admiral who commanded British naval forces during the Falklands War has warned.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Admiral Sir John "Sandy" Woodward said that Britain was over-committed and could not rely on the US to support the defence of the islands as it did in 1982.
Instead the US would support an "accommodation" in order to create stability in the area, Woodward wrote.
He also pointed out that the Royal Navy was significantly reduced and no longer had carrier strike capability.
"We can no longer rely on the Pentagon to support us in helping the islanders in their wish to remain essentially British sovereign territory," he wrote.
"Significantly the islands are already being called the Malvinas by the US. This tells us all too clearly which way the wind is blowing."
"With our land and air forces already over-committed in Afghanistan and Libya, with the defence budget still shrinking, our submarine force more than halved, our destroyer and frigate force halved, our carrier force more than halved in terms of deck availability and completely discarded in terms of fixed wing assets – the answer appears to be that we can do precisely nothing other than accede to US pressure," Admiral Woodward concluded.
There are currently over a thousand troops, four Typhoon fast jets and a frigate stationed in and around the Falkland Islands.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Claims that the Falkland Islands could be taken without a fight are completely without substance. The current garrison in the Falkland Islands is much larger in scale and has a greater capability than in 1982 and this together with our ability to reinforce rapidly by air has been maintained. "
And that should be shameful to any Brit.
The UK needs to stop thinking about retaking the Falklands and instead holding them in the first place. The Argentine Navy has only two anphibs.
ReplyDeleteDouble the number of fighters (looking for a place to put those Harriers?), get some arty in bunkers, station some mobile Harpoon launchers on the island and maybe get a decent stockpile of sea mines down there. Prevent Argentina from landing in force on the islands.
The Falklands would have been a great place to forward deploy an SSK but the UK sold them to Canada.
i'll tell ya what, i've never been to a war college but even doing that you're just talking about a tactical problem and not a very hard one if you have the resources to go after it.
ReplyDeletebesides. i've never been there but from reading its just a rocky out cropping of an island.
bunkers are passe' and easily targeted. harpoon launchers? that would be a problem but a limited one once you take out the air strip....and other limited air defenses they have (notice i didn't say take out the Eurofighters .... i said keep them from taking off in the first place.... Harriers would be harder but they don't have them anymore)
and who needs a dedicated amphib to launch an assault. if it floats then it could work...we're not talking a long distance operation....we're talking about them taking back land (or so the Argentinians would say)....
its doable on there part if they ever man up.
The Argentine military has never recovered from that war. And given the state of that country today, I don't seem that changing within the next 10-15 years. That is important since the next 10 years or so does represent the best chance for Argentina to take the Falklands, since the UK will not have any carriers during that time.
ReplyDeleteThe only way they could take the islands would be with the help of other South American countries, but that would certainly draw a wider European response (at the very least, France and the Netherlands), due to the implications that a South American coalition taking the Falklands would have for other European territories in the region.
if the price of oil remains high then i can see Hugo Chavez funding the mission. one other thing has to be stated too.in order to achieve a 3 to 1 advantage in the assault then the attacking forces would only have to assemble perhaps a brigade sized unit...about 3 to 5 thousand men. that doesn't count work that special ops can be expected to perform.
ReplyDeletethe Brits just don't have a strong enough force on the island to hold it if a determined attack is mounted and don't have the resources individually to retake it if it falls.
@Soloman: and how are the defenses I've listed taken out? The radar warning sites on the Falklands are decent (but not great) they have a OTH Radar at Goose Green, a regular radar station at Mt Kent near Port Stanly, and two stations on West Falkland. Those are mostly civilian radars, its harder to find info on any Surface Wave Radars they might have down there, but there continue to be rumors.
ReplyDeleteIf the Brits have early warning and get their jets in the air, its going to be nasty. Its not too far of a stretch to say those Typhoons can basically pick what ~10 FAA aircraft they want to die. I assume they will go for the strike aircraft or paratrooper transports. If all four got in to the air they could destroy every large troop carrier the FAA has or really bloody their fighter/bomber force (like 3/4). (if they doubled the fighters on the Islands the FAA's situation gets a lot more difficult)
Mobile harpoon launchers would be very nasty. Have you seen the N-27 launcher that looks like an ISO shipping container? That's what I'm thinking here. Very difficult to target (more so since Argentina lacks recon satellites and recon aircraft) Its a days travel at 20 knots from Argentine to the Falklands, that's a long day, and their navy is not that big. It only takes a few ships sunk to really bloody their noses.
i'm thinking sending small boat teams or even scuba divers ahead of the actual assault. one mission and thats to destroy the airfield.
ReplyDeletecommercial shipping should be able to get relatively close and if its flying under a false flag then it could even dock at the island under the guise of transporting tourists.
100 men should make a credible assault force and all it takes is a well aimed 50 cal into an engine or two to kill the planes while the invasion got under way.
once the airpower is gone then it becomes time to fly in your para troopers and savage the island with your light strike planes. also remember that in my scenario Hugo Chavez is game for this little enterprise so that means that even without Argentine air you would still face SU-30's that would outnumber the defending Eurofighters by 4 to 1.
that island can be taken and the vaunted Royal Air Force would or rather could be sitting ducks.
well i am just sitting here thinking, yes the Argentinians want the Falklands back but WHY risk a military adventure to take it back? would the US commit military forces? probably not but would be sanctioned around the world, a useless war for a few rocky islands with only a few hundred people would scare away any business investors in Argentina and maybe other south American countries. i think this is an interest thing to think about but i dont see a democratically elected country going to war over this small group of islands and creating even more world instability.
ReplyDeletethey found oil off the coast of the falklands.
ReplyDeleteheck, if we've reached peak oil then the US might go to war over it in a few years.
Brits v Argentina and no the US is not getting involved, last time Reagan got Haig to do shuttle diplomacy for weeks much to maggots annoyance but eventually sold supplies to UK while embargoing Argentina.
ReplyDeleteBrits v Chavez and I think you have a different response so let's park that one.
In terms of just Argentina, you are talking about an Air Force similar to 1982 so A4 and Mirage sorry but. even 4 Typhoon are destroying them and when do RAF reinforcements arrive, depending on intelligence, before anything happens but even if taken by surprise you are talking a couple of days, meanwhile Argentina are losing aircraft by the day.
Argentine Navy is a bit better than 1982 as they had a large building programme in place then which was heavily delayed but eventually mostly completed, but as they get close to the Falklands they have pretty much lost air cover, have no AEW and are presumably facing an SSN, I see a few of them suddenly being sunk.
If they get on to land they are facing 1000 men in well prepared positions which have been planning for this for 20 years, not 40 men there to show the flag. As long as they can hold the airbase that forces doubles in 72 hours and again with intelligence reinforcements happen before and not after.
It’s true, big mistake losing the Carriers/Harriers, the Typhoon’s have advantage in State of the art fighter and range, also weapons,. We do have SSNs with cruise missiles now, park them off the main land, take out the Argentines Air force Bases, and that’s end off that.
ReplyDelete