Loading
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 76

Britain cannot reclaim the Falklands if Argentina invades

  1. #1
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Der Führer Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16,865
    Liked
    4338 times
    Iceland

    Britain cannot reclaim the Falklands if Argentina invades

    Britain could not reclaim the Falklands if Argentina invades, warns General Sir Michael Jackson

    In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, the former head of the army, General Sir Michael Jackson, says defence cuts have made it "impossible" to win the islands back after a successful invasion, in the way the British task force did in 1982.

    "What if an Argentinian force was able to secure the Mount Pleasant airfield? Then our ability to recover the islands now would be just about impossible," says General Jackson, who was Chief of the General Staff until five years ago and led the army into Iraq.

    "We are not in a position to take air power by sea since the demise of the Harrier force."

    Britain no longer has an aircraft carrier and the Harrier fleet which performed with such distinction during the Falklands War has been sold to the US Marine Corps.

    "Let us hope we do not live to regret that decision," says General Jackson, responding to what he calls "disagreeable noises coming from Buenos Aires" as the 30th anniversary of the war approaches.

    President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has restated Argentina's claims to sovereignty over the islands it calls the Malvinas, saying, "We are going to get them back."

    General Jackson believes they could still fall to a surprise attack.

    "The official answer will be that it would not be possible for the Argentinians to gain a foothold on the islands, in particular to take Mount Pleasant, which is key to the British defence plan.

    Defences on the Falklands are now – by a factor of several tens – better than they were in 1982.

    We have a large international-sized airfield to allow for very rapid reinforcement by air, should circumstances so require.

    But I suppose I have learned in life, never say never."

    The original invasion was "a strategic shock" that surprised defence chiefs, says General Jackson, who worked for the head of military intelligence in Whitehall during the Falklands War.

    "There was a small amount of intelligence – which was gold – from the British naval attache in Buenos Aires, who was clearly watching with great care, and no doubt listening to this and that conversation and he said, 'Look, these people are up to something.' Basically, that was discounted in London."

    However, Brigadier Bill Aldridge, commander of the British forces in the South Atlantic, also tells The Sunday Telegraph: "I am not expecting to hand the islands over to anybody and therefore put us in a position to have to retake the islands."

    The British commitment to the Falklands is unchanged despite the cuts, he says. "If I fail in my primary mission of deterring aggression, I have the capability here to defend the islands. I am fully confident that I have the capability to do that."

    The armed forces on the islands are in "an extremely different position" to 1982, says Brig Aldridge.

    Then there were fewer than 100 military personnel to resist the initial invasion force. Now the garrison at Mount Pleasant is home to 1,400.

    They will soon be joined by Prince William, who is about to start a tour of duty there as a Sea King helicopter pilot.

    "It would be foolish to discount any particular scenario," says Brig Aldridge. "But I do not see any position where the type of eventuality that some people are speculating about is going to happen."

    The Governor of the Falkland Islands, Nigel Haywood says a new British diplomatic push has been mounted to correct Argentine claims about the islands.

    "The fact is that in many people in the world don't know anything about the islands other than Argentine mistruths and lies.

    "Their claim is founded on a complete myth. Their arguments are getting louder and louder and weaker and weaker. They are saying some very stupid things."

    Britain could not reclaim the Falklands if Argentina invades, warns General Sir Michael Jackson - Telegraph
    How far this is true?

    Is Britain beyond protecting its Overseas Territories?
    maomao likes this.

  2. #2
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Der Führer Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16,865
    Liked
    4338 times
    Iceland
    Here is an answer (a viewpoint)

    The Telegraph had a wonderful story about its favourite bête noirs today - the decline of UK military power, the waning special relationship, and the fact that France appeared to get one over on us. The story of course, is the supposed revelation that the UK had to 'beg' to participate in the international flotilla that transited the Straits of Hormuz recently, and which only occurred due to Sarkozy interfering.

    Without wishing to comment on the merits of the report, this author would suggest the following - that the story appears to have all the hallmarks of a massive exaggeration by what is now rapidly becoming a tabloid newspaper in order to sell print. The fact that it portrays the French as being responsible, and some internet sources have appeared to indicate that this story appeared in Russian press first, indicates to his mind at least, the potential for mischief making.
    Looking at the international stage, there is a clear desire by elements within France to try to push the French leadership and influence piece, even to the detriment of other nations. Recently, a number of stories have appeared which have tried to malign the UK in some way, and this feels similar - an effort to try to do the UK down and play up French influence.

    It's worth noting that the UK remains in an intensely close relationship with the US - it's a relationship built on trust, and mutually converging policy goals and objectives, and underpinned by the ability to project power through a variety of means, both hard and soft, to further these goals. While the RN may be smaller now than in the past, it's worth remembering that the USN is also downsizing too - the US military budget is being reduced by the equivalent of the UKs annual defence budget each year for the next ten years at present.

    There has been a continual RN presence in the region for over 30 years, and the RN works closely with both the USN and a range of other maritime forces in the area. The RN regularly passes through this region, as the UK (along with other allies) routinely demonstrates the right to freedom of navigation. At present an RN 1* is the second in command of the maritime component command, a permanent position for the UK, and there are a wide range of UK military assets present in the region. In other words, the UK and USN are so closely integrated out there, that in reality, the fact that an RN vessel was, or was not, with the USN at the time of the transit is irrelevant. The beauty of sea power is that it can be wherever you want it to be, when you want it to be there.

    What is perhaps being forgotten here is the inherent flexibility offered by a maritime capability - it may be the case (and the author has no knowledge at all on this issue) that the UK was not intending to transit with the USN, but the fact that there is a strong UK maritime presence in the region, and that the UK is able to operate so closely with the USN means that if this was the case, then it was quickly able to change its position. This is the beauty of sea power - it lets you change your mind two or three times and still lets you preserve your options for the future. Landpower and airpower lack this flexibility, as once committed to a course of action, it is inherently more difficult to retrieve them without a visible change in posture.

    What should also be taken from this is the depths to which the UK and MN vessels were truly integrated into the USN battle group. This author would venture to suggest, based on the opinions of people he has known who have worked in USN CVBGs that the RN ship was almost certainly a fully integrated component of the battle group, and able to contribute to it. The French ship may have been there in physical presence, but its ability to work as a fully worked up integrated vessel is perhaps open to question (supposedly). Presence isn't always the be all and end all to being part of a battle group. You need to be there in body and electronic spirit!

    The authors point is this - it is easy to quickly concoct a story claiming that the UK is somehow losing influence or face because it allegedly chose to do something, or not do something. However, the relationship with the US remains exceptionally strong, and the reality is that this story may owe much more to efforts to subtly denigrate the UK and bolster French positions, than anything else. One website to which the author is a long time subscriber noted that the UK and France are in a mutual sales battle at the moment over future vessel orders (FREMM and T26). It is, of course, immensely advantageous to France to portray their own vessel as more easily integrated into a USN group than an RN one, as it plays easily into the sales pitch of their industry.

    While without doubt the relationship will evolve over time, this feels like a story knocked up quickly and not necessarily one which takes into account the full situation. This author suspects that there is far more than meets the eye to this situation.

    Thin Pinstriped Line
    Is this an answer to the above where the General opined that Britain is doomed and gloomed?

    Or it is loud protestations and brouhaha to overcome fear?

  3. #3
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Der Führer Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16,865
    Liked
    4338 times
    Iceland
    There is also this view

    An excerpt:

    The challenge.

    What this means is that any Argentine commander has to consider some immensely challenging tactical problems which in turn build in time delay. No plan survives first contact with the enemy, and it is likely that any assault will encounter delays. Lets now examine these considerations in a little more depth.

    When considering the defence of Mount Pleasant Airfield (MPA), commentators who have not been to the islands often make the mistake of assuming it is a small facility which could easily be overrun. The reality is somewhat different - it occupies a large area of ground, and has many highly dispersed facilities. While the main admin / life support hub is located in the near legendary 'death star' complex, the remainder of the facility is spread over a large geographically dispersed area. This means that any assault has to factor in the challenge of denying multiple facilities, many of which may be defendable, and in doing so while operating on unfamiliar terrain.

    To even get close to the facility would require a significant march by troops. Not exhausting in itself, but it would probably require insertion of special forces by SSK - this limits the locations that landings can be conducted. The terrain of the islands is not particularly conducive to building shelters, and the islanders are exceptionally suspicious of outsiders. At best the Argentines could hope to land a small SF force (roughly 50 men), which then has to avoid detection while it marches to the airbase.

    At this point, it then has to conduct an assault against a large, well defended facility which is designed for the purpose of being used to fight a defensive battle, and they have to do so against a garrison which outnumbers them 30-1. They have to complete this assault and force the British to a position where they wish to negotiate for surrender prior to the airfield commencing reinforcement flights.

    The airfield was designed in the 1980s at the height of the cold war, and reflects much of the thinking at the time. It is likely that it could easily be repaired in the event of a denial attempt, and there is likely to be sufficient room to permit landings in the event of damage. It would take a very significant attack to deny the runway to the point where it could not be used further. Such an attack would require equipment and munitions accuracy beyond that currently possessed by Argentina.

    Any air movements, either transports to land troops, or bomber attacks are going to be picked up by early warning radar stations. There will be significant warning of inbound air attacks, and there are plentiful defences in place to handle them. Any air attack has to conduct a long overwater transit, and then will only have seconds on station to deliver its munitions. It will be doing so against a force likely to be expecting it. Similarly, if transport aircraft were inbound, then if needs be, they need not even be shot down. The base could merely park sufficient vehicles across the runways at regular intervals so as to prevent the plane from landing. While some bad fiction writers postulate about the idea of an Entebbe style strike, the reality is that the planes have to land first to deliver this strike. Again, a failure to land first time and commence the assault will see the reinforcement plan kicking into action. Also, given the lack of air traffic in the region, one would hope that it is unlikely that anyone would be fooled by an aircraft faking an SOS message and then landing to disgorge hundreds of armed troops.

    The defensive structures of the base suggest that significant munitions would be required to deny some facilities. It is all very well landing 50 SF, but what happens when people deploy into trench and bunker complexes which require artillery or mortars to deny? This then requires the landing of further troops ashore with the ability to call in support fire - in turn this requires both the ability to find a beach where a surprise landing can be carried out and artillery moved into position to conduct fires missions, and to do so without being detected. Again, the author would suggest that the sighting of an Argentine battery digging in, would be enough to trigger the reinforcement plan activation.

    The rule of thumb is that an assault against well dug in and defended troops, particularly well motivated ones, with reasonable supplies, is that it requires a ratio of 3-1 attackers to defenders to be certain of success. Assuming a garrison of 1500, this means that Argentina would need to move sufficient troops to land 4500 troops on the ground to conduct the attack. More troops would be needed to provide support, and logistical work. Let's assume 5500 troops are needed to be certain of putting the attack force together.

    Firstly, the Argentine navy doesn't have the ability to conduct an amphibious operation carrying 5500 troops. In fact, very few navies do. Even the Royal Navy, arguably one of the worlds more potent amphibious forces, would struggle to deliver more than 1500 personnel in its current structure. To successfully land the troops, supplies and equipment needed to crack MPA in a conventional assault, Argentina would need to be build the world's second largest amphibious force, develop the doctrine and training required to ensure that they could land successfully, and then ensure that their troops are capable of doing so without messing the plan up. These troops are then required to land, march a significant distance to the objective and conduct an assault against a well dug in force which is likely to expecting them. Significantly, this force will have got a reasonable amount of operational experience, compared to an Argentine force which hasn't seen action for 30 years. The Argentines are expected to do this while maintaining complete surprise, as if the reinforcement plan starts, and more UK troops are flown in, then they go from 3-1 ratio, to likely 1-1, or worse. Oh, all the while, Argentina needs to maintain the element of complete surprise while building up, training and delivering this invasion force to the Islands.

    The other key point - if Argentina has built an amphibious fleet, and then sails it with deliberate intent to the islands, it needs to be certain that the UK maritime assets have been denied. Otherwise, they will need to be prepared to encounter a range of maritime capabilities, potentially including nuclear submarines, that will present a significant tactical challenge.

    The final point - this attack has to be done in a manner which denies the defending forces the ability to operate, and for their commander to feel he has no option but to surrender, and this has to be done in under 24 hours, or else reinforcements will arrive. This would require an untested force engaging a defensive force which has spent 30 years preparing the ground for this fight. The fight will have to occur on the defenders terms, and would pose an enormous tactical challenge to the aggressor.

    There is some suggestion in some quarters of fantastical ideas of cruise liners disgorging SF into Stanley - which would be a challenge given the lack of adequate berths, or alternatively somehow capturing the town. While this would be challenging, it still comes back to the earlier issue of a lack of manpower to actually get on the ground, and also the fact that MPA is the centre of gravity. In extremis, the loss of Stanley would not lose the UK hold on the islands. MPA is the key, and it remains a well defended installation.

    While much remains uncertain, and while this author deeply hopes that such a situation is never tested for real, he would suggest that any potential attack against the islands using current Argentine ORBATS would result in a very bloody and humiliating defeat for Argentina, and one that is completely unnecessary.

    UK policy is not to lose the islands in the first place - the author would suggest that the current force laydown ensures that this remains a realistic policy goal.

    "Britain couldn't retake the Falklands" Jackson
    This is a very interesting and considered viewpoint of a British professional.

    I have reproduced it since it is essential for all to understand this issue as Andamans as also the Laccadives can be under similar threat!
    Last edited by Ray; 09-02-12 at 11:47 AM.
    maomao likes this.

  4. #4
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Der Führer Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16,865
    Liked
    4338 times
    Iceland
    Having seen the views, one is equipped to somewhat understand the issues of the defence of Island Territories.

    How will it apply to our own vulnerabilities of our islands?

    We are already observing the instability in Maldives and there are many nations on the starter block to put their finger in the pie and establish themselves and there after turn their eyes to Indian vulnerabilities!

    Therefore, we must be prepared.

    How?
    maomao likes this.

  5. #5
    Tihar Jail
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,509
    Liked
    792 times
    India
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Having seen the views, one is equipped to somewhat understand the issues of the defence of Island Territories.

    How will it apply to our own vulnerabilities of our islands?

    We are already observing the instability in Maldives and there are many nations on the starter block to put their finger in the pie and establish themselves and there after turn their eyes to Indian vulnerabilities!

    Therefore, we must be prepared.

    How?
    Brigadier our islands are safe and more importantly near to the mainland with excellent logistics.Maldives is not much of an islamist coup
    maomao likes this.

  6. #6
    Sr. Defence Professional Armand2REP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    Liked
    709 times
    France
    The Rapier sites around MPA are a pretty weak defence mechanism. 4 Typhoons are stationed and would need to be eliminated as a threat. It wouldn't be difficult for a sky raid to drop some bombs on the runway before they get airbourne. Submarines could drop off commando teams while masked cargo ships or fishing trawlers drop more troops on the other side of the island. It says it has a garrison of 1,400 but there are only 300 infantry there. It is fairly easy to sneak troops on the island as it doesn't have radar coverage and many uninhabited parts. Get a light battalion on there and you can take the garrison.

  7. #7
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Der Führer Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16,865
    Liked
    4338 times
    Iceland
    Quote Originally Posted by Iamanidiot View Post
    Brigadier our islands are safe and more importantly near to the mainland with excellent logistics.Maldives is not much of an islamist coup
    Your really think so?

    I can't find the report of Gen Marwah's comment.

    It is safe so long as it is safe.

    But then it is not safe when a wee bit of issues arises!

    Maldives maybe anything, but one does not look at things that Allz Well!

    One is only prepared when contingencies are catered for!

  8. #8
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Der Führer Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16,865
    Liked
    4338 times
    Iceland
    Quote Originally Posted by Armand2REP View Post
    The Rapier sites around MPA are a pretty weak defence mechanism. 4 Typhoons are stationed and would need to be eliminated as a threat. It wouldn't be difficult for a sky raid to drop some bombs on the runway before they get airbourne. Submarines could drop off commando teams while masked cargo ships or fishing trawlers drop more troops on the other side of the island. It says it has a garrison of 1,400 but there are only 300 infantry there. It is fairly easy to sneak troops on the island as it doesn't have radar coverage and many uninhabited parts. Get a light battalion on there and you can take the garrison.
    Which one are you commenting on?

    Falkland/ Andaman/ Laccadives/ Maldives?

  9. #9
    Tihar Jail
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,509
    Liked
    792 times
    India
    Your really think so?

    I can't find the report of Gen Marwah's comment.

    It is safe so long as it is safe.
    Andamans are a fortress there is an entire joint operational command there
    But then it is not safe when a wee bit of issues arises!

    Maldives maybe anything, but one does not look at things that Allz Well!

    One is only prepared when contingencies are catered for!
    Brigadier here is a secret GMR is involved in the coup it was all about the airport and maintenance charges for tourism.Hope you what is GMR

  10. #10
    Sr. Defence Professional Armand2REP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    Liked
    709 times
    France
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Which one are you commenting on?

    Falkland/ Andaman/ Laccadives/ Maldives?
    The title of the thread, anything else would be OT.

  11. #11
    Stars and Ambassadors
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,011
    Liked
    969 times
    India
    Quote Originally Posted by Iamanidiot View Post
    Brigadier here is a secret GMR is involved in the coup it was all about the airport and maintenance charges for tourism.Hope you what is GMR
    Conspiracy theory or reliable information?

    I'm not complaining though, as long as Indian business interests are served.

  12. #12
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Der Führer Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16,865
    Liked
    4338 times
    Iceland
    Quote Originally Posted by Iamanidiot View Post
    Andamans are a fortress there is an entire joint operational command there

    Brigadier here is a secret GMR is involved in the coup it was all about the airport and maintenance charges for tourism.Hope you what is GMR
    A fortress!

    Himalayas is a natural barrier!

    Nice and comforting words.

    But defence of a nation is beyond comforting words that have been shattered and some which have not been shattered.

    What is GMR?
    maomao likes this.

  13. #13
    Tihar Jail
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,509
    Liked
    792 times
    India
    A fortress!

    Himalayas is a natural barrier!

    Nice and comforting words.

    But defence of a nation is beyond comforting words that have been shattered and some which have not been shattered.
    Brigadier there is an entire naval command and a joint operational command stationed at Andamans not a joke

    What is GMR?
    Who is the owner of Delhi Daredevils Franchise?The coup started with the airport

  14. #14
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Der Führer Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16,865
    Liked
    4338 times
    Iceland
    Quote Originally Posted by Iamanidiot View Post
    Brigadier there is an entire naval command and a joint operational command stationed at Andamans not a joke



    Who is the owner of Delhi Daredevils Franchise?The coup started with the airport
    Please Iamanidiot.

    Do look into issue deep beyond words that looks so reassuring!

    What does GMR mean?

    Without knowing the same, how can I apply my mind to answer?

  15. #15
    Tihar Jail
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,509
    Liked
    792 times
    India
    Brigadier Iam saying it again who is the owner of Delhi Daredevils Franchise?

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-02-12, 05:56 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-02-12, 08:41 AM
  3. Alexander the Great Invades India
    By LETHALFORCE in forum Defence & Strategic Issues
    Replies: 254
    Last Post: 17-01-12, 07:55 PM
  4. PLA invades US——Red Dawn 2010
    By nimo_cn in forum General Multimedia
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 19-05-11, 12:53 PM
  5. Russia Invades Afghanistan—Again
    By bhramos in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-04-10, 12:02 AM