Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Joey wrote:Bare in mind part of the reason I bought this up now was Britain's current lack of capital ships.
Our technology advantage now is nothing to what it will be when we have two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and another half dozen type 45s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier
Those things will be beasts.

Only if the f-35 proves to be a worthy air craft........which is really up in the air.

The liberty of billions of people relies it on it being so.

Frazzled wrote:Blah blah. If you have more guns than the other guy and the will to use them then you're right. If not, you're wrong. Its Ceasar's legions that make the law legal.

In the case of a powerful empire that can and wants to make the world just like itself, you’re totally correct. But we don’t live in that world.

We live in a world where international trade is a vital element of any nation’s prosperity, and that trade is underpinned by the rule of law. Every country will try to slink around those laws where it might help them, but none will straight up ignore them and just declare might makes their position right, because no nation is capable of using might makes right in every subsequent trade position.

Basically, no-one has enough legions to run the whole world, so instead we have negotiated rules of law.

Dogma wrote:The Harpoon would be the more likely weapon of choice.

Harpoon? Are we discussing wargames now? I played that at a convention once.

dogma wrote:The basic situation is that Argentina wants the Falklands, and the only thing stopping them from acquiring them is being, essentially, a British protectorate.

As such, if Britain ever decides they don't want to, or can't afford to, protect the Falklands they will become Argentinian territory. A similar situation will develop if the Falklands decide they would rather be Argentinian territory, or if Argentina decides to be more flexible about what "territory" entails (Basically, allows the island to be a protectorate.).

In essence, there are more scenarios that favor Islas Malvinas, than favor the Falkland Islands.

But you can’t just list the events and count them up and declare a winner. You have to give each of those events a probability (however rough). The likelihood of the people there deciding they’d rather be Argentinian is near impossible, I mean, who would decide they’d rather be affiliated with poor South American country over a wealthy British country that they have direct cultural ties with? And why would Britain decide they don’t want to, or can’t afford to defend the Falklands when they were already willing to fight for it once, when no natural resources were discovered there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pacific wrote:I can see Russia stepping back into this role, especially as they are regularly trying to prevent the expansion of NATO into their backyard. The Red Bear may be gone, but the old battle-lines are being redrawn.

Russia has a GDP smaller than Spain. No matter how much they might like to be the nemesis of the USA once again, they’re just not capable of it.

I agree with you on China. They are too intertwined with the USA and Europe to ever break into open military conflict. They will, however, be the primary economic opponent for both Europe and the US for the foreseeable future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Harriticus wrote:Talks are a "trap" because they give legitimacy to the Argentinean issue that the Falklands are up for question. Anyone who cares about the right to self-determination can see that they aren't, because the Falklanders have made up their mind.

Definitely. There would have been some argument for talks as a measured diplomatic response, before Argentina invaded the islands. But they've done that now, so going back to the table now would just look weak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:Dont discount the influence from the bottom at the top... if the Argentinian people feel that the Malvinas should truly be under the Argentinian banner, then popular support for the idea could influence the president to go to war rather than the other way around. Especially with the British military strength currently waning, popular opinion could lead them to believe it is time to strike once more.

Never doubt the impact of global recession to make people want stupid things, like islands owned by much richer countries.

Joey wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Joey wrote:Bare in mind part of the reason I bought this up now was Britain's current lack of capital ships.
Our technology advantage now is nothing to what it will be when we have two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and another half dozen type 45s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier
Those things will be beasts.

Only if the f-35 proves to be a worthy air craft........which is really up in the air.

The liberty of billions of people relies it on it being so.

missed an update i think

http://www.jdnews.com/articles/problems-98498-martin-pentagon.html

As of note, it has failed every carrier landing simulation, this appears to be a issue and has to do with the frame not being strong enough and the engine not leaving enough room for a proper arresting hook. Leaving those carriers with nothing to carry.

sebster wrote:
Australia has six states, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Tasmania is the smallest of these states, but is just as much a state as any of the others. It puts six senators in the Australia Upper House, like all the others.

And it's really just one big island.

There's a couple small ones as well.

I could also go all archaic and claim that, really, Australia is just the largest of the Tasmanian Islands.

Mannahnin wrote:
Harpoon? Are we discussing wargames now? I played that at a convention once.

Precisely, the storied history of British wargaming will allow them to prevail against the Latin menace.

sebster wrote:
But you can’t just list the events and count them up and declare a winner. You have to give each of those events a probability (however rough).

I've done that before as part of a grad school assignment, the post I made was just a short form of the conclusion.

sebster wrote:
The likelihood of the people there deciding they’d rather be Argentinian is near impossible, I mean, who would decide they’d rather be affiliated with poor South American country over a wealthy British country that they have direct cultural ties with?

The cultural ties aren't as strong as you would think, and similar analogues exist between the culture of the Falkland Islands and that of Argentina. Indeed, one could argue that the Falklands have more in common, culturally, with Argentina than they do with Britain and that the main reason that they want to be affiliated with Britain is that Britain gave them a better deal (read: self-determination).

sebster wrote:
And why would Britain decide they don’t want to, or can’t afford to defend the Falklands when they were already willing to fight for it once, when no natural resources were discovered there?

Because Maggie Thatcher isn't in power.

dogma wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:I dont know what the range is on the Type 45s anti-air missiles are, but I would assume that it is not sufficient enough to project anti-air capability over the islands themselves (unless you're parking a destroyer on the beach...), which is where the airpower would matter as the Argentines don't need to strike at British ships, they merely need to threaten ground forces and their airborne assets (in the form of helo's).

Which is why any naval anti-air assets would be placed between the Falklands and the mainland.

And, yes, Argentina would need to target the Type 45s, or any similar ship, if they meant to land on the Islands themselves.

The biggest worry will be the RN submarine force. For a start Argentina is calling any movement at all in the region 'military escalation', submarines can happily sit off the coast while leaving it apparently undefended. Secondly Argentina has not got the assets to deal with submarines, nor the assets to launch an entirely airborne assault, they will need to transport heavy equipment by sea or get more heavy transport aircraft. Even so submarines have a limited AAW capacity, more than enough to blow away enough transport aircraft to make the invasion iffy and bloody.

Type 45's are very advanced, apparently stealthy, however the Argies will still be able to find them by buying satellite data from (in all likelihood) China. After that is a 'missile test' and plenty of nations will sell Argentina the anti-ship weapons because a live test makes for good sales later, as what happened with Exocet.

The UK would not want to place any assets other than submarines between the Falklands and the mainland, and the Argies would be advised to to field any surface assets at all, other than an initial transport fleet and escort, and then only for the initial assault - with surprise, retiring to port immediately afterwards. Argentina does not have a surface fleet to speak of, as with the Uk they used to have capital ships, but do not at present. In the last war the British carrier fleet deployed to the East of the Falklands a decent AAW destroyer should do same. Forward deployment for both sides would be be achieved by submarines.

dogma wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed.

Aegis (or whatever the British equivalent is) cruisers are wonderful things.

The SAMSON radar system installed on type 45's is supposed to be significantly better than Aegis' SPY-1, something like tracking a ping pong ball from a 100 nautical miles away. All told Sea Viper probably portends the next system that will be used in the USN, much as Aegis was the stepping stone that the Brits used.

dogma wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You are right against tomahawks being a potent threat against ground targets, however against landing craft and troop transports, last I checked the upgraded version capable of striking moving ships was still being developed/tested, not sure if that has hit the USN/RN yet.

The Harpoon would be the more likely weapon of choice.

Which would normally be true but I see on the all knowing wiki says the Type 45s were fittied "for but not with" Harpoons which means they are either in storage or need to be purchased.

dogma wrote:I've done that before as part of a grad school assignment, the post I made was just a short form of the conclusion.

dogma wrote:The cultural ties aren't as strong as you would think, and similar analogues exist between the culture of the Falkland Islands and that of Argentina. Indeed, one could argue that the Falklands have more in common, culturally, with Argentina than they do with Britain and that the main reason that they want to be affiliated with Britain is that Britain gave them a better deal (read: self-determination).

Really? Do you honestly think so?

I'll let you try and figure out that response.

Andrew

Orlanth wrote:
Type 45's are very advanced, apparently stealthy, however the Argies will still be able to find them by buying satellite data from (in all likelihood) China. After that is a 'missile test' and plenty of nations will sell Argentina the anti-ship weapons because a live test makes for good sales later, as what happened with Exocet.

I'm unaware of any anti-ship missile that can be guided by live satellite feeds, let alone purchased satellite information.

While the Type 45s are stealthy, they aren't invisible. Their radar signature is smaller than it should be, given the size of the vessel, but they still appear on radar. The trouble is in determining which of a number of small signatures is your target, relevant even with satellite information, and then hitting this target of essentially unknown size with anti-shipping missile that must also overcome active and inactive countermeasures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AndrewC wrote:
Really? Do you honestly think so?

Yes, I think one could make that argument.

Of course, when I say "culture" I mean "Things that cannot be defined any other way".

Having something approaching a common currency is not a component of culture, for example.

Orlanth wrote:
The biggest worry will be the RN submarine force. For a start Argentina is calling any movement at all in the region 'military escalation', submarines can happily sit off the coast while leaving it apparently undefended. Secondly Argentina has not got the assets to deal with submarines, nor the assets to launch an entirely airborne assault, they will need to transport heavy equipment by sea or get more heavy transport aircraft. Even so submarines have a limited AAW capacity, more than enough to blow away enough transport aircraft to make the invasion iffy and bloody.

Argentina has P-3 Orions and they train jointly with the US Navy to operate them (as well as to maintain the readiness of their carrier air wing (they dont have a carrier)), P-3s are rather effective sub-hunters, or at least that is what I have been led to believe by some friends that fly/operate equipment on board them...

Which would normally be true but I see on the all knowing wiki says the Type 45s were fittied "for but not with" Harpoons which means they are either in storage or need to be purchased.

If the RN is anything like the USN, the ships are rarely if ever equipped with Harpoons for general operations/cruise because the likelihood of their use is slim to none. In the event of hostilities Type 45s would either pull into port (if not already there) to be fitted with Harpoons (which should presumably not take too long), or would proceed to the area of operations directly without them (most likely as a stop-gap until they could be relieved by other vessels properly equipped for the mission).

dogma wrote:There's a couple small ones as well.

I could also go all archaic and claim that, really, Australia is just the largest of the Tasmanian Islands.

That's probably about as archaic as claiming Tasmania is more than one island

I've done that before as part of a grad school assignment, the post I made was just a short form of the conclusion.

Fair enough if it was just a summary.

The cultural ties aren't as strong as you would think, and similar analogues exist between the culture of the Falkland Islands and that of Argentina. Indeed, one could argue that the Falklands have more in common, culturally, with Argentina than they do with Britain and that the main reason that they want to be affiliated with Britain is that Britain gave them a better deal (read: self-determination).

Sure thing, but what matters to the British is that self-determination, and that translates into overwhelming support for the Falklands to remain British.

Because Maggie Thatcher isn't in power.

Right, because Thatcher was the hard lady of British politics and all that... but look at the support among the British for defending the Falklands. Look at the complete absence of British posters who've come in here and said 'feth it there's miles away let the Argies have them'.

Far from needing a strong PM to defend the Falklands, it'd take an incredibly strong PM to act against overwhelming public support and walk away from them.

sebster wrote:
Sure thing, but what matters to the British is that self-determination, and that translates into overwhelming support for the Falklands to remain British.

Well, I think what matters to them (now) is the mineral assets, with self-determination being an issue of public opinion. But then, I'm a cynical bastard who wouldn't, put in that position, care about the self-determination of a nearly random group of people.

sebster wrote:
Far from needing a strong PM to defend the Falklands, it'd take an incredibly strong PM to act against overwhelming public support and walk away from them.

I think that may change in the coming years of austerity, and especially following them.

But, as I've said before, I'm not nationalistic in any way, so understanding nationalism is, for me, an intellectual exercise.

I understand nationalism pretty well I think, and I could say if the FI were an American possession I would be arguing in favor of holding them as well. But of course, this is coming from someone that thinks Puerto Rico should be admitted as the 51st State, the US various pacific island territories as the 52nd, and wishes that the idea that we gave the Panama Canal back to Panama is really just a bad dream... amongst other things...

dogma wrote:Well, I think what matters to them (now) is the mineral assets, with self-determination being an issue of public opinion. But then, I'm a cynical bastard who wouldn't, put in that position, care about the self-determination of a nearly random group of people.

I suspect what really matters is that the British beat the Argies once before, and to just hand over the Falklands after that would be like ignoring what those troops had done.

I think that may change in the coming years of austerity, and especially following them.

I can’t see any government failing to defend its territory because it’d cost too much to undertake. I could see a government cutting back on force projection to the point where, when an issue like the Falklands comes it can no longer commit the troops needed to resolve the issue, but even then I doubt it, as austerity is really just the buzzword for the solution to the euro-crisis right now – I can’t see it leading to the sustained cuts needed to make Britain incapable of defending the Falklands.

But, as I've said before, I'm not nationalistic in any way, so understanding nationalism is, for me, an intellectual exercise.

I’m not particularly nationalistic either, but I don’t think it’s that hard to understand it in others.

sebster wrote:
I suspect what really matters is that the British beat the Argies once before, and to just hand over the Falklands after that would be like ignoring what those troops had done.

In terms of public opinion, sure.

sebster wrote:
I can’t see any government failing to defend its territory because it’d cost too much to undertake.

Well, they might not justify it that way, but the British Empire basically ceased to exist due to cost concerns.

dogma wrote:

The cultural ties aren't as strong as you would think,

With this, you prove you have a very limited understanding of the situation.

Have you ever been to the Falkland Islands?
Have you ever spoken to the residents?

I have.
I can tell you that in no way do the Islanders consider themselves Argentinian.

Also, there is regular CAP carried out by Typhoons.
If you want to destroy them, you've got to get near them.

dogma wrote:In terms of public opinion, sure.

And on an issue with as a high a profile as the Falklands, public opinion straight up dictates policy. Ignoring it would sink any government.

Well, they might not justify it that way, but the British Empire basically ceased to exist due to cost concerns.

A mass of colonies stretching right across the globe, demanding the maintenance and constant deployment of a navy ready to take on any rival power, and deployment of troops to quell increasingly active resistance movements is really not the same thing as 3,000 people on some islands that want to be part of Britain, that some third tier local power wants.

dogma wrote:
Yes, I think one could make that argument.

Of course, when I say "culture" I mean "Things that cannot be defined any other way".

Having something approaching a common currency is not a component of culture, for example.

And you could not be so completely wrong. This is a common mistake from many people who have not visited or lived on the islands. For the last 30 Years there has been no contact between Argentina and the Falkland Isles. If you were to suggest that they, the Islanders have more in common with an Argentinian you would be lucky to escape permanent physical injury.

The current generation has never seen any culture other than their own or the UK. The fact that you seem to think that physical locality makes it so is very disheartning for both the insular, and patronising, stance that many so called experts have on the entire affair.

Argentina abused the local populace for the 74 days in which they were in command. They looted and terrorised the islanders with arbitrary arrests and detainments. Stole vital supplies and ignored the Geneva convention. A sizeable portion of land, even today, is still unusable due to unmapped minefields. The local population does not forget and in no way shape or form are the quasi Argentinian.

Now before you decide to say that I have no better knowledge, I suggest strongly that you look carefully to the left of this post and note the location and flag. And no it's not NZ. That just shows your general lack of awareness

Next time be careful of your audience.

I'll come back later when I've calmed down, I have no wish to be suspended.

Andrew

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Type 45's are very advanced, apparently stealthy, however the Argies will still be able to find them by buying satellite data from (in all likelihood) China. After that is a 'missile test' and plenty of nations will sell Argentina the anti-ship weapons because a live test makes for good sales later, as what happened with Exocet.

I'm unaware of any anti-ship missile that can be guided by live satellite feeds, let alone purchased satellite information.

I wouldn't put it past current technology to do this, but direct feed is not what I am talking about. Satellites find the destroyers, missiles/aircraft carrying missiles are sent towards the location. Terminal guidance either way is up to the missiles avionics, stealth retards detection it cannot as easily prevent a lock when the missile knows where to look.

dogma wrote:
While the Type 45s are stealthy, they aren't invisible. Their radar signature is smaller than it should be, given the size of the vessel, but they still appear on radar. The trouble is in determining which of a number of small signatures is your target, relevant even with satellite information, and then hitting this target of essentially unknown size with anti-shipping missile that must also overcome active and inactive countermeasures.

Agreed. However anti ship missile battles are about saturation. What if the Argies buy these:



The missile is fired from a mobile truck-mounted launcher into the atmosphere, with over-the-horizon radar, satellite tracking and possibly unmanned aerial vehicles each providing guidance. It also incorporates a manoeuvrable warhead to help find its target. Such a device would be instrumental in striking a vessel in the open ocean or denying access to a potential opponent in transiting to a conflict zone. An August 2011 report by Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense declared: ‘A small quantity of the missiles [was] produced and deployed in 2010, increasing the difficulty of military manoeuvres in the region for the US Army’.

And it looks like they satellite track also.

Might China sell equipment like this in return for good oil contract options?

No. Why would China risk relations with a wealthy and powerful nation that ALREADY possesses the islands in order to sell a few missiles to a backwater nation that has a very slim chance of winning them militarily? It's a pessimistic fantasy.

I agree entirely, but then that situation makes much more sense than what the UK has done in the past; selling weapons and equipment to countries and then instigating a military action against them at a later date (Iraq - Afghanistan)

Albatross wrote:No. Why would China risk relations with a wealthy and powerful nation that ALREADY possesses the islands in order to sell a few missiles to a backwater nation that has a very slim chance of winning them militarily? It's a pessimistic fantasy.

Handled properly there is a concern Argentina could win. China could veto any motions against the invasion in the UN security council and the entirity of South America will back Argentina up, at least for a while and on this issue. China and Argentina already have reciprocal agreements on the Falklands and Tibet, as with South American 'trading partners' of the UK we just suck it up, not else we can do.

Also selling weapons and 'risking relations' are two different things. To China its a business transaction, no Chinese soldiers in situ, and after all we still deal with France and they sold Exocet during the Falklands war.

If China trades the technology to Argentina there isn't too much that can be done about that except strengthen existing defences.

China will not back Argentina in any substantive way. With the UK set to become a haven for the Yuan, and other economic factors, good relations with us are far more important than some spontaneous weapons testing. They would stand to lose far too much.

The UN has shown it has very little teeth if someone has already made up their mind to go forward with military action (again, Iraq and Afghanistan).

this happens every 5 years or so.... nothing ever comes of it

If it does this time, its hard not to see a repeat of last time

Wee_Tam wrote:this happens every 5 years or so.... nothing ever comes of it

If it does this time, its hard not to see a repeat of last time

Given what many have said concerning relative military strengths i'm not sure it would even get that far...

AndrewC wrote:

dogma wrote:
Yes, I think one could make that argument.

Of course, when I say "culture" I mean "Things that cannot be defined any other way".

Having something approaching a common currency is not a component of culture, for example.

And you could not be so completely wrong. This is a common mistake from many people who have not visited or lived on the islands. For the last 30 Years there has been no contact between Argentina and the Falkland Isles. If you were to suggest that they, the Islanders have more in common with an Argentinian you would be lucky to escape permanent physical injury.

The current generation has never seen any culture other than their own or the UK. The fact that you seem to think that physical locality makes it so is very disheartning for both the insular, and patronising, stance that many so called experts have on the entire affair.

Argentina abused the local populace for the 74 days in which they were in command. They looted and terrorised the islanders with arbitrary arrests and detainments. Stole vital supplies and ignored the Geneva convention. A sizeable portion of land, even today, is still unusable due to unmapped minefields. The local population does not forget and in no way shape or form are the quasi Argentinian.

Now before you decide to say that I have no better knowledge, I suggest strongly that you look carefully to the left of this post and note the location and flag. And no it's not NZ. That just shows your general lack of awareness

Next time be careful of your audience.

I'll come back later when I've calmed down, I have no wish to be suspended.

Andrew

Before Andrew posted this I was just about to mention that the Islanders are fiercely patriotic..

I know this because my old sergeant major was stationed there. He span me some great dits about the place, and one of them was that a Royal Marines WO and a RM major are stationed down there to act as training staff for the volunteer force privately paid for by the islanders.

As well as the stuff funded by the UK government.

The islanders are aggressively patriotic to the point that they have formed a small militia to fight the Argies if they ever come back. I think that's proof enough of their thoughts on the matter!

I've been to Gibraltar plenty as well, and they don't want to be Spanish. Don't ask me why, but the English speaking nations seem to have an inherent arrogance and a thick patriotic streak in general. The British and the Americans both seem to have a "we are the best" complex which i have always found amusing. I find patriotism to be foolish, but i definitely understand it.

Personally i like to live off my own merits, but it's understandable why we're the way we are. If I was a fat accountant who never left Kentucky I would like to endlessly tell people how tough my great grandad was as well!

If Argentina invaded and was opposed militarily -- which clearly it would be -- the best that China could do in the Security Council would be to veto a UK motion to condemn Argentina's aggression.

The vote would be meaningless as we actually won the war.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Which would normally be true but I see on the all knowing wiki says the Type 45s were fittied "for but not with" Harpoons which means they are either in storage or need to be purchased.

If the RN is anything like the USN, the ships are rarely if ever equipped with Harpoons for general operations/cruise because the likelihood of their use is slim to none. In the event of hostilities Type 45s would either pull into port (if not already there) to be fitted with Harpoons (which should presumably not take too long), or would proceed to the area of operations directly without them (most likely as a stop-gap until they could be relieved by other vessels properly equipped for the mission).

My understanding of the "for but not with" concept is that none of the associated systems are installed on the type 45s I don't have first hand knowledge of how Harpoons are fired anymore, they may be compatible with the VLS in the ship or require their own mounting. In any case I am under the impression it's more than a case of loading the missiles themselves but not much more; as the full Harpoon system is fitted on the type 20-something frigates and in active use in the RN. I would guess if they wanted the system right away they could fly in what they needed and fit at sea, while waiting for the aforementioned frigates; I've always thought the concept of an Air Defense Destroyer (Cruiser) was a little odd for the RN, being as they are virtually defenseless against other ships of equivalent tonnage which are almost uniformly guided missile destroyers (cruisers) that carry air defense systems.I suppose the RN has some sort of master plan I just don't see.

Wee_Tam wrote:this happens every 5 years or so.... nothing ever comes of it

If it does this time, its hard not to see a repeat of last time

Except much, much worse. In terms of hardware the Argens were much closer in the 80's; although the Navy was pretty much absent the fight ships of the same class from the same builder were on both sides. This time the next generation of equipment, largely you know minus the rifles, helicopters, etc that really haven't needed replacing, is on one side and the same old same old on the other. All in total the UK is down a command carrier and S/VTOL fighters and up pure air defense destroyers an LHD, and 2 amphibian assault ships. Basically the RN as it is was BUILT to fight the Argies...and those morons want to stir the pot.