More Argie Bargie

[V88Dicky]

Have you ever been there, Ozzie?

There are more Forces personnel than there are islanders!

And some pretty impressive hardware

[bitwrx]

We're OK for defences there at the mo. Typhoon, ground troops, frigate, T-boat. Shiny new runway. Even got a Herc according to the Sun (not sure what that'll be good for though).

Now, the future may be a different story. The Brazilians are spending a bit on defence at the mo, notably looking to work from the French Scorpene (???) class sub to develop their own Nuclear powered sub.

If we're going to send a QE class carrier down there in a decade or so, we might want to send an A-boat or two!

(Caveat: I've not really checked any of the facts there, but I've been reading a bit about this recently, so some of it might be right.)

[anonymous-user]

jmorgan said:

Send them a picture of a sub.

What grounded on a shingle bank

[jmorgan]

speedyguy said:

jmorgan said:

Send them a picture of a sub.

What grounded on a shingle bank

Thought crossed my mind....

[Jackleman]

Ozzie Osmond said:

If UK and/or the oil industry want to hang on to the Falklands then someone better commit to some pretty serious investment in defence of the realm down there!

As mentioned above, it is all sitting in Portsmouth doing fk all! 4 brand new, state of art destroyers all moored up alongside each other. It makes me wonder whether we need half of this kit or armed forces this size when you see assets of that value doing nothing. We clearly are not under that much of a threat!

[tank slapper]

Jackleman said:

As mentioned above, it is all sitting in Portsmouth doing fk all! 4 brand new, state of art destroyers all moored up alongside each other. It makes me wonder whether we need half of this kit or armed forces this size when you see assets of that value doing nothing. We clearly are not under that much of a threat!

So what happens when it all kicks off at short notice? You can't magic assets like warships out of thin air when you need them. If we reduced our forces much further, it is an open invitation for people to take the piss. The Argentinians would be on the Falklands like a shot if they thought we couldn't do anything about it.

[Halb]

warch said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The potential oil reserves under the Falklands are predicted to be huge incidentally. I don't suppose relations between Obama and British Petroleum are all that after that oil spill stitch up a few years ago in the Gulf of Mexico (Obama gained considerable political capital from that incident).

Will any of that go to the benefit of the British taxpayer?

[Lardydah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1435_Flight_RAF (even though there are only four of them)

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Air_Force#I...

I think we'd be OK, for at least long enough for reinforcements to arrive.


Out of interest, I know there is talk/proof of oil there, but how much do they think? A new North Sea? a new Libya? A new Saudi?

[Chicharito]

Don't forget, they've upgraded their Daggers to Fingers... scary stuff

[warch]

Halb said:

warch said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The potential oil reserves under the Falklands are predicted to be huge incidentally. I don't suppose relations between Obama and British Petroleum are all that after that oil spill stitch up a few years ago in the Gulf of Mexico (Obama gained considerable political capital from that incident).

Will any of that go to the benefit of the British taxpayer?

I know absolutely cock all about multinationals (I think BP ceased to be an actual British company some time ago), it might create a few jobs. I love the way this flaired up literally a couple of days after the potential oil reserves were identified, lets you know what Argentina's real concern is.

[Ordinary_Chap]

warch said:

Halb said:

warch said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The potential oil reserves under the Falklands are predicted to be huge incidentally. I don't suppose relations between Obama and British Petroleum are all that after that oil spill stitch up a few years ago in the Gulf of Mexico (Obama gained considerable political capital from that incident).

Will any of that go to the benefit of the British taxpayer?

I know absolutely cock all about multinationals (I think BP ceased to be an actual British company some time ago), it might create a few jobs. I love the way this flaired up literally a couple of days after the potential oil reserves were identified, lets you know what Argentina's real concern is.

I think some gunboat diplomacy is in order, I getting tired of these tin-pot countries causing trouble. Sometimes its best to punch the offenders on the nose to let them know there will be consequences for their actions.

Picking on the islanders is the lowest of the low for me regardless of their feelings about who the island belongs to.

Anyway all of this posturing does is affect the islanders and make the British people more staunch in their beliefs that the islands should be protected at all costs.

[deltaevo16]

Its another bit of bluster, they may be good at football, but they are sh*t at fighting. The conscripts had no will for it, they were badly led, and ill equipped.

[warch]

Ordinary_Chap said:

Picking on the islanders is the lowest of the low for me regardless of their feelings about who the island belongs to.

I agree, the main reason the UK is committed to protecting the Falklands is because it is what the majority of the population want. I'm pretty sure all the parties involved could thrash out a deal over oil rights if thats the problem. I don't think another war would be a great idea, as I understand it we're not equipped for this kind of warfare anymore.

[swamp]

warch said:

I don't think another war would be a great idea, as I understand it we're not equipped for this kind of warfare anymore.

We are perfectly equipped to fight off another invasion, but we would probably struggle to recapture the islands. But since the Argies have absolutely no chance of successfully invading the Falklands, we will never need to recapture the islands.

[swamp]

swamp said:

We are perfectly equipped to fight off another invasion, but we would probably struggle to recapture the Falklands. But since the Argies have absolutely no chance of successfully invading the islands, we will never need to recapture them.

[Ordinary_Chap]

warch said:

Ordinary_Chap said:

Picking on the islanders is the lowest of the low for me regardless of their feelings about who the island belongs to.

I agree, the main reason the UK is committed to protecting the Falklands is because it is what the majority of the population want. I'm pretty sure all the parties involved could thrash out a deal over oil rights if thats the problem. I don't think another war would be a great idea, as I understand it we're not equipped for this kind of warfare anymore.

The war if they started would be so hopelessly one sided I don't think even as bonkers as they are they'd ever go there.

So that leaves them with trying to cause maximum trouble for the islanders by encouraging their neighboring countries to support their bullying of the islanders.

I'd suggest no oil rights for them or support of their economy until they change their ways and drop their claims over the islands.

[warch]

swamp said:

We are perfectly equipped to fight off another invasion, but we would probably struggle to recapture the islands. But since the Argies have absolutely no chance of successfully invading the Falklands, we will never need to recapture the islands.

The main issue would be air superiority, remember what an absolute hammering we took from the Argentine Air Force in 1982. If the airport was damaged or taken we would lose air superiority and as I understand it with no aircraft carriers we would have no means of supplying or fortifying the islands, without the risk of air attack.

[Ordinary_Chap]

warch said:

swamp said:

We are perfectly equipped to fight off another invasion, but we would probably struggle to recapture the islands. But since the Argies have absolutely no chance of successfully invading the Falklands, we will never need to recapture the islands.

The main issue would be air superiority, remember what an absolute hammering we took from the Argentine Air Force in 1982. If the airport was damaged or taken we would lose air superiority and as I understand it with no aircraft carriers we would have no means of supplying or fortifying the islands, without the risk of air attack.

The runway is heavily protected and given its length and the ability of the Typhoon to take off in a very short distance it shouldn't present a problem and then there are also engineering teams who can quickly repair the runway if required.

[Regiment]

For everyone wanting a good laugh but lots of doom and gloom from the Daily Mail...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077813/Fa...

[warch]

Ordinary_Chap said:

The runway is heavily protected and given its length and the ability of the Typhoon to take off in a very short distance it shouldn't present a problem and then there are also engineering teams who can quickly repair the runway if required.

Oh I see, actually having thought about this I'm sure the RAF would have given this some consideration. As other people have pointed out, its a deterrent to prevent hostilities by a show of overwhelming force. And I don't think there even was a military presence on the Falklands last time around.