Fighting a Second Falklands War

Status
Not open for further replies.

raven1971

New Member
The Iron Lady was nothing, if not an opportunist ... the Falklands came at the right time, didn't it? Reluctant or not, the government came out of the war at the top...

One small correction: At the time of the war, the Kelpers weren't British citizens; they were granted full citizenship in the 1983 Act, after the war. Prior to that, they were citizens of a British Territorial Dependency - citizens with restrictions, in other words - unless otherwise connected to the UK.

On the other side, the fascist regime in Argentina to this day remains the main culprit for the loss among the Argentine people, in that they seriously miscalculated the foreign support they'd have for the war (they never expected American opposition; after all, it was the Americans who put them in power in the first place), and every move after that was a textbook example of how not to conduct a war. A good book on the issue (though I'm not sure it's available in English) is Malvinas: Gesta e Incompetencia by Gen (retired) Martín Balza; it shows quite well how the war is viewed by the military in Argentina.

Raven
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...One small correction: At the time of the war, the Kelpers weren't British citizens; they were granted full citizenship in the 1983 Act, after the war. Prior to that, they were citizens of a British Territorial Dependency - citizens with restrictions, in other words - unless otherwise connected to the UK. ...

Raven
Not quite, but almost. The British Nationality Act 1981 was passed in 1981, but didn't actually come into force until 1st January 1983, i.e. the same date as its provisions re the Falkland Islanders were superceded by the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983. Under the law in force before the British Nationality Act 1981, the islanders were "Citizens of the United Kingdom & Colonies", just like anyone born in the UK, of British descent, e.g. me. Though that didn't bring with it an automatic right of abode in the UK, unless, as you say, they had a personal connection with the UK. That was a restriction imposed by various Immigration acts, not citizenship law.

BTW, it's been stated a few times here that the status of the Falkland islanders with regard to British citizenship was changed before the war (though technically, their status was set to change, rather than actually having changed), & this was probably a factor, albeit a minor one, in precipitating the war, in that it was seen by Galtieri et al as a sign of a British wish for disengagement from the Falklands, & lack of interest in the inhabitants.
 

raven1971

New Member
I stand corrected, sir; interesting to note that, to this day, the Falkland Islanders have automatic right to Argentine citizenship if they so wish. I also had an interesting conversation in Argentina with an elderly gentleman from the UK, in which we pondered what occurs when an anyone wishes to visit the Falklands from Argentina; do they have to pass through customs, either leaving Argentina or upon their return? If so, doesn't that show de facto recognition of British sovereignty over the Islands? Perhaps someone more up to date with the legal aspects of that issue than I can answer that.

Raven
 
Last edited:

citizen578

New Member
what occurs when an anyone wishes to visit the Falklands from Argentina; do they have to pass through customs, either leaving Argentina or upon their return? If so, doesn't that show de facto recognition of British sovereignty over the Islands? Perhaps someone more up to date with the legal aspects of that issue than I can answer that.

Raven

I don't believe it shows any de-facto recognition, but the answer is yes, they do have to go through the normal customs procedures. You may also be aware that Argentina forbids flights to or from the Falklands entering their airspace. This is as part of the economic attack on the islands which has been ongoing since the war, but also negates the issue (to a greater extent) of customs declarations and passports having to be shown at Argentine airports.
 

citizen578

New Member
As for the theme of this topic...

The Falklands is, these days, Britain's forgotten conflict. I'm not referring to the 1982 conflict, but to the one which is going on right now. Whilst the threat of invasion is (for the moment) minimal, we have constant problems with Argentina's fighters making deliberate incursions into Falklands' Airspace before running for home with a couple of Tornado F3s hot on their tails, as well as Argentine Coast Guard and Navy ships entering the FI's EEZ and then harassing fishing fleets. It is a situation which demands constant vigilance on the part of the British forces.

Anyone with even a modest understanding of Argentine politics knows the traumas which afflict the country on a predictably regular basis, just as they will know the predictable cries of ''Malvinas Argentinas!!'' in the halls of power.

Does Argentina have the muscle behind the flapping lips? At the moment, no. Years of deperately trying to procure new fighters (normally Mirage 2000s, but also Su-35s and F16s) new submarines (only the solitary old Type209 is fully operational, with both TR1700s in need of refit) and attack helicopters (the order for ex-USMC Cobras was cancelled)... have all fallen foul of the boom bust Argentine economy.
The current focus of defence spending is on limiting fatigue, with the obvious consequences of having inexperienced crews, and on giving a full radar coverage of the mainland.

However, it won't be that way forever, as Argentina's economy was recently growing at 9% p.a. and flat growth is expected throughout the global recession. Soon Argentina will finally have the pennies scraped together for some new kit.
However, the economic resurgence is built on unsustainable investment, rapidly decreasing foreign investment and massive GM Soy exports to China (until China's own farming industry is sufficiently mechanised). So... we'll find ourselves in a few years, looking at a politically and economically volatile country at the end of a period of significant rearmament. Brace for impact.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
We have discussed Falklands scenarios on numerous occasions and regardless of any Argentine blustering in my opinion they will be batting on a very sticky wicket if they try anything now or in the immediate future.

For one the gap between the Argentine and UK forces is wider now that it's ever been. On the one side you have a military where ALL it's infantry and armoured battalions are being tried and tested in combat on a regular basis and have benefitted from material / weapons upgrades over the last three years. On the other, you have a military with zero recent combined arms combat experience (1982 being the last time), plus issued equipment hasn't changed much since 82 (exception being SF units). Even if the Argentines went on a spending spree, they still lack the leadership experience at the crucial NCO and officer level.

The first hint of any Argentine aggression (now or in the future) and a ready reserve armoured infantry battalion (Viking equipped) with engineer, artillery (105mm) and air-defence support (tracked stormer) will be lifted to the islands within 24-hours (rehearsed annually). Deployment areas are marked and known by ground commanders, all supporting geographical and typographical data is on file ready for briefing. The entire coastline has been mapped (low and high-water mark), suitable landing zones recorded and marked ready for DF missions. To take on such a force, placed in prepared defensive positions coupled with excellent local knowledge and support from the indigenous population will require at least a well equipped and trained Brigade - three infantry battalions plus full logistical support. The Argentines don't have the ability to lift that amount in one go unless they use civilian shipping.

As the struggle for resources increases in the Artic the area around the Falklands will become more strategically important not less, meaning the UK is likely to increase interest in the area. When they start drilling for oil offshore (only a matter of time), the infrastructure facilities on the island will improve requiring increased UK military interest. Port Stanley will become another Aberdeen.

Even if the Argentines were able to damage the airfield with attacks that managed to penetrate both the fighter screen (Typhoon) and Rapier / Stormer coverage the engineering materials stockpiled at Mount Pleasant would have the airfield C17 capable in a very short order. Worst case scenario a C17 can drop a fully equipped company of Para's in one lift anyway. With the way the A400 is going I can see the UK buying at least 2-4 more C17's in the near future allowing for a strategic airbridge to be maintained.

In support of the ground force a single Trafalgar or Astute (2009-10) class sub capable of firing Tomahawks stationed in the vicinity means that if necessary Argentine coastal air-bases can be neutralised.

Plus the UK's strategic surveillance and monitoring abilities are leaps and bounds ahead of what they had in 82 as a result of the ongoing conflicts in the ME and subsequent expansion of GCHQ and associated intelligence assets.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
As for the theme of this topic...

The Falklands is, these days, Britain's forgotten conflict. I'm not referring to the 1982 conflict, but to the one which is going on right now. Whilst the threat of invasion is (for the moment) minimal, we have constant problems with Argentina's fighters making deliberate incursions into Falklands' Airspace before running for home with a couple of Tornado F3s hot on their tails, as well as Argentine Coast Guard and Navy ships entering the FI's EEZ and then harassing fishing fleets. It is a situation which demands constant vigilance on the part of the British forces.

Anyone with even a modest understanding of Argentine politics knows the traumas which afflict the country on a predictably regular basis, just as they will know the predictable cries of ''Malvinas Argentinas!!'' in the halls of power.

Does Argentina have the muscle behind the flapping lips? At the moment, no. Years of deperately trying to procure new fighters (normally Mirage 2000s, but also Su-35s and F16s) new submarines (only the solitary old Type209 is fully operational, with both TR1700s in need of refit) and attack helicopters (the order for ex-USMC Cobras was cancelled)... have all fallen foul of the boom bust Argentine economy.
The current focus of defence spending is on limiting fatigue, with the obvious consequences of having inexperienced crews, and on giving a full radar coverage of the mainland.

However, it won't be that way forever, as Argentina's economy was recently growing at 9% p.a. and flat growth is expected throughout the global recession. Soon Argentina will finally have the pennies scraped together for some new kit.
However, the economic resurgence is built on unsustainable investment, rapidly decreasing foreign investment and massive GM Soy exports to China (until China's own farming industry is sufficiently mechanised). So... we'll find ourselves in a few years, looking at a politically and economically volatile country at the end of a period of significant rearmament. Brace for impact.
If you want to talk about economics Argentinian is the least prepared Latin American country bar Venezuela. with large inflation a reduction of exports due to financial crisis and a government which makes people nervous and quite large depts[which why people were nervous when the Argentinian nationalized there pentions]
 

citizen578

New Member
I think we're all in agreement that despte the strategic vulnerability of British Forces in the South Atlantic, there's bugger-all Argentina can do about it militarily (for now) other than make harassing raids. The future, however, is not so certain.

There has been plans for a mass ''civil disembarkation'' in the islands. This involves civilian registered vessels and aircraft being used to ferry large numbers of nationalists over to the Islands, as part of a bizarre political protest. Aside from the fact that it is a recipe for disaster, and will no doubt keep SAR crews on the Falklands very busy, what are peoples' thoughts on this?

http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1950
 

AnthonyB

New Member
Australia has begun increasing our cooperation with the French, especially in regards to both of our southern ocean territories. I wonder if there is scope for increased interaction with the UK as well. It always struck me as odd that the FPDA is the major formal defence arrangement between Australia and the UK (although it doesn't directly involve any of our own territories.)

Resources are going to get scarcer, the southern ocean territories have large EEZ zone around them which might well include considerable resources. UK, France and Australia (and probably South Africa and New Zealand) all have a common interest in mantaining sovereignty over remote islands in the southern ocean (and their EEZ's).

Begin with joint exercises and an agreement to consult on Southern Ocean issues. (Once Australia has the HLD's and the AWD's combined with our subs we could play an active role in exercies.)
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Putting a response here to discussion in the NATO's Multiple Frontiers thread regarding Russian support for Argentinian claims on the Falklands. Wanted to make sure the discussion stays 'on topic'.

Actually u dont need very large military force to retake Falklands. Couple of diesel electric submarines with supersonic crusie missiles/airborne troops with flanker support/Real time satellite imaginary courtesy of Russians is all needed as most of British forces have already left.

30 years ago US-Latin trade was not big nor was Latin Vote Bank in US. US cannot afford any more Chavez inside latin america.

They already expressed support to Argentinaian position. so it means they dont consider it as UK soverign terrotory because it is open to negotiation.

What i can forsee is Russia interested in selling weopons and training Argentinaians as Russia will want to expand it arm export portfolio otherwise they will have problem with credit crunch in defence industry. Russian dont consider UK as independent power just like Poland so it doesnot want to negotiate. It will directly negotiate with Obama for direct bargaining on missile defence/Easter Europe/Middleast etc. Argentinains will want to built its military to bring UK to negotiating table. Otherwise UK will have constantly put Naval flottilla there which is not cost effective.
AND

They can be quickly upgraded and Russia can lease submarines jut like it leased a submarine to India.

Russia consider entire Soviet Union its own zone of influence. They are creating interesting scenario for bargaining.

A single battery of S-400 will deny EF/Tornado air superoirity over Fakland. If they are going to sell to Iran. I dont see any reason why Argentina cannot get it.
AND

S-400 battery creates no fly zone upto 400Km. It will provide protection to Argentinian airforce to launch stand off weopons without any opposition as S-400 cleanup anything in the air. pretty same strategy is applied by S-300 batteries by China against Taiwan. Expanding into Latin America/North Africa/Middleast is very important strategy by Russia to contain West.
Looking at it from a purely military standpoint, there are substantial obstacles to Argentina re-taking the Falklands, even with Russian equipment and help.

To begin with, overall IMO the Argentinian military is less capable now than it was during the 1982 Falklands Conflict. Following the resumption of civilian rule, the military was reduced in size and the budget decreased. Since that time, there have also been a number of economic issues that Argentina has faced, resulting in even less budget available for the military. Making the situation worse, at least from the perspective of successful ops in the Falklands, is that the UK's ability to project power has increased significantly relative to what it had been in 1982,

I would need to review the figures but here is what I suspect.

For the Army: Overall, not a significant different between what is available now and was available back in 1982, with a few exceptions. OTOH, in order for the army to be of use, Argentina needs to be able to get it to the Falklands... The notable exception I have for the army is in terms of GBAD. There seem to be a number of 20mm-40mm AA guns and a very small number of Roland SAM launchers. Between the changes in air ops following GWI, and the likely age (IIRC Argentina deployed at least 1 Roland launcher to the Falklands in 1982, where it failed to hit a Harrier) of Argentina's SAMs, I would expect Argentina's current GBAD to be of little or no use in defending against air attacks.

For the Air Force: The bulk of Argentina's operational fighter aircraft appear to be the indigenous prop-driven Pucara, with perhaps a dozen examples of the A-4 Skyhawk operational as well. The rest of the fighters that Argentina has appear to be in storage.

For the Navy: The navy looks to be the only service which has seen an overall increase in capabilities relative to what it had in 1982, with some additional ships which entered service after the conflict was over. However, there are still some crucial negative changes in capability. At present, only the 5 DDGs appear to have a SAM-based air defence, the other vessels appear to rely on guns. Also, it appears that Argentina only currently has two vessels able to transfer troops, which would be insufficient to rapidly transport and land the number of troops likely needed. In addition, the Colossus-class CV was retired without replacement, and while the air ground was retained, it appears that there are even fewer operational Super Etendards than there are A-4 Skyhawks in the Air Force. Lastly, and the one area which has seen a definite increase in capabilities is the Argentinian sub fleet, which had been one 209 Type 1200 SSK and an old, ex-USN Balao-class from WWII which was lost off South George Island during the conflict. The current force consists of the same 209 Type 1200, and two newer Type 1700 subs purchased from Germany.

One thing worth noting though. Given the economic problems Argentina has had over the years, it is questionable just how well all of their equipment works. Or, given that some upgrades and modernizations were likely skipped or done minimally, how well some equipment would work in the environment found in a modern conflict.

In short, the Argentinian military would need to be re-built, with significant financial investment required to return it to level of power projection it was capable of in 1982. Even further investment would be required if the Argentinian capabilities were to be increased sufficiently to have a similar parity level against current UK forces as it did back in 1982. Time would also be required for Argentina to re-build or develop the needed corporate knowledge to make effective use of re- or newly acquired capabilities. Given the past economic problems Argentina has had, as well as the current world fiscal crisis, I do not see Argentina being able to fund the required purchases, even if Russia were willing to sell the equipment for a pittance, which it cannot afford to do, as the economic crisis is having a negative impact in Russia as well.

Also, as mentioned, time would be required for the military to train and become familiar with its capabilities. This training would attract the notice of Argentina's neighbors who would most likely not look fondly on a stronger and more aggressive Argentina. Given UK interests, they (or their allies with whom they share intelligence) would certainly notice changes and developments in Argentina's military in plenty of time to act.

As for the suggestion that an S-400 create a 'no fly zone' of up to 400km... What are your sources for that, IMO rather extravagant claim? Checking warfare.ru's S-400 page, it has the longest listed range of ~200km
using 48N6E2 from S-300PMU-2
.
There is mention of a
Next Generation SAM range > 400km possibly based on the 9M83M & 9M82M of the SA-12
But no mention of such a system being operational with that sort of range vs. aircraft, and those ranges are all presumably either maximum engagement or detection ranges. Also, there is a significant difference between system detection ranges, system engagement range, and a missile's NEZ (No Escape Zone) which is significantly shorter than either of the two prior ranges. I would automatically think that a 'no fly zone' created by GBAD would have to be well within the system's detection and engagement ranges and within the NEZ of at least one SAM launcher. Last item to note, in order for an S-400 system at sea level to even detect a RAF aircraft 400km away, the RAF aircraft has to be flying at ~30,855+ ft, otherwise the curvature of the earth will block the radar signals if the RAF aircraft were to go below that. This is of course assuming that the S-400 radar is putting out a strong enough signal to get a return from the aircraft and that the signal was not jammed or disrupted in some fashion.

-Cheers
 

swerve

Super Moderator
IIRC Argentina has 25-30 A-4AR, which are A-4s with a radar & some A2A ability. Given a modest amount of money, & a little time, they could all be made operational. They would be effective against the Sea Harrier FRS.1s the RN fielded in 1982 :D - but they'd be hopelessly outclassed by the Tornado F.3, let alone the Typhoon.

Ditto the assorted Mirage derivatives, of which there are about another 30. I don't know how many could be fielded: I imagine it would depend on the availability of spares, & the funding & time to refurbish those currently unusable. But they offer nothing, except supersonic dash speed, over the A-4ARs, & over the Falklands cannot use that speed, due to fuel constraints.

The Super Etendards have no A2A capability. Availability? As for the others: depends on money, whether spares can be bought, & time.

Argentinean air operations would be severely limited by distance, & the availability of AAR - exactly as in 1982. Their situation has not improved at all in this respect. The same two KC-130s as in 1982, doubtless in worse condition.

Argentina has no air-launched stand-off weapons it could use against the Falklands from within the protection of Patagonia-based SAMs, even if that protection really did extend to 400 km from the coast.

Rectifying the deficiencies in Argentinas armed forces* would take money & time, & would ring alarm bells in London. The assumption, apparently made by some posters, that a hypothetical future refurbished Argentinean military would meet the present British Falklands force, at a low rate of readiness, is unrealistic.

*Returning stored fighters to operational condition or buying new ones, buying stand-off weapons, readying long tied-up ships for sea, buying tankers . . . . etc.
 

Cooch

Active Member
There is also the matter of the differing nature of Argentina's government. Unlike the early 80's, when military government could effectively disregard public sentiment in the short term (although, as we know, losing the war was a major cause of Argentina's transition to democracy) the current government is composed of elected politicians who would be expected to have an eye to the next election.

Therefore we would expect any prelude to offensive action to be characterised by an increase in public sentiment favouring a war, or at least, attempts by politicians to whip up such a sentiment.

Not only would it be required in order to support a war, but it would be required to make possible the expenditure needed to make the Argentinian forces ready for such a war. You would expect that, in a country whose populartion under 30yo has grown up with certain freedoms, an attempt to create a public attitude favourable to war would generate a considerable amount of noise, both for and against.

It is unlikely that Britain would fail to notice.

Respectfully.... Peter
 

John Sansom

New Member
The withdrawal of British troops from Iraq could free up several thousand personnel for other involvements on a needs-be basis. But the point having been made that British military interest in the Falklands has been considerably enhanced would tend one to think that any kind of a clash in that part of the world is unlikely.

On the matter of weapons obsolescence, we should all remember that this negative quality can be a function of context. The Molotov cocktail, for instance, became obsolete within moments of being thrown against an impervious target. But wait, as the American commercials say, there are still plenty of targets against which it can be effective. Me, for instance.
 

citizen578

New Member
Interesting and pertinent article:

Direct Link:- http://www.coha.org/2008/12/honor-s...y-of-argentina’s-tattered-armed-forces-today/

About the Council on Hemispheric Affairs:- http://www.coha.org/about-coha/

Honor, Shame and Duty: The Reality of Argentina’s Tattered Armed Forces Today


"• A weakened and morally damaged military institution slowly claws its way back to respectability

It is no illusion that the tone and substance of the Argentine military seems to have deteriorated in the last several decades, from imprudently aspiring to control the nation in the 1970s and early 1980s (during which time it committed massive human rights abuses, rendering it the worst human rights violator in the hemisphere), to an ill-advised escapade in 1982 to re-claim the Falklands/Malvinas Islands from British jurisdiction. As a result of this veritable collapse, the Argentine military appears to have become a broken institution. The capstone on the various calamities debilitating the nation during recent times was the crippling influence of the 2001 meltdown of the Argentine economy, which crushed the entire nation, including its increasingly brittle security forces.

Two recent events can be seen as illustrating the skidding tendencies of the Argentine military and help to underscore its currently calcified condition. In early November, the Argentine federal police detained Jorge Antonio Olivera, a retired army major. He is accused of the “forced disappearance, kidnapping and torture” of Franco-Argentine citizen Marianne Erize in 1976 during the commencement of the country’s military dictatorship and the “Dirty War.” This conflict unleashed the Argentine military against the nation with barbarous results, ending up in thousands of casualties. Almost at the same time in early November, London decreed a new constitution for the disputed Falklands.

It seems that whatever future the Argentine armed forces are able to create for themselves, if they aim to be a regional military power (a position now that now belongs to Brazil and perhaps to Venezuela), it will not be a simple matter of restructuring and coming up with a revitalized rehabilitating and acquisition program for the Argentine armed forces. But any program would have to deal with the military’s horrific past and its need to seek absolution from a population to which it showed little mercy when it held all the cards in its hand.

The Argentine military at one time had a proud history, going back to the early 19th century, when the independence armies were led by General José de San Martín, which brought an end to colonial rule in the southern part of South America. But since then, apart from the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas War, Argentina has not been involved in an armed conflict with another nation-state since the late 19th century. Between 1864 and 1870, Argentina joined Brazil and Uruguay in a war of annihilation against the madman then ruling Paraguay in what became known as the War of the Triple Alliance.

The Rise of Military Rule
Starting in 1930, a whirlwind of military governments ruled Buenos Aires. General Jose Felix Uryburu took control of the government from 1930-1932 under the argument that then- civilian President Yrigoyen was not promoting peace and progress in the country. In June 1943, during World War II, General Rawson took over interim control of the presidency. Rawson himself would be overthrown three days later by General Ramirez. In 1955, then-civilian President Juan Peron resigned the presidency and a group of generals took power; General (ret.) Eduardo Leonardi became de facto president. In November of that same year, Leonardi was replaced by General Pedro Aramburu, who ruled until 1958. From 1966-73 there was the so called “Argentine Revolution.” The de facto military presidents were General Juan Carlos Ongania (1966-70), General Roberto Levingstone (1970-1971) and Alejandro Lanusse (1971-1973). In 1971, Alejandro Lanusse became the last of the de facto military presidents of the era when he decided to call for elections in 1973 in an effort to return the country to democratic rule.

The nature of the political game as played on Argentina dramatically changed in March 1976 when a military junta took control of the country until 1983. General Jorge Rafael Videla headed up the country’s military junta from 1976 to 1981, when it was followed by General (ret.) Roberto Eduardo Viola and General Leopoldo Galtieri from 1981-1982 and finally General Reynaldo Bignone until 1983. The reverberation of the unspeakably brutal events that took place during the period of military dictatorship are still being sharply felt today.

The Dirty War
Traditionally the Latin American military saw itself as a guarantor of each country’s constitutionalism and sought power only to assert its authority by preventing continuismo in office through redistributing the presidency to political parties, in particular, the opposition.
But in Argentina, the military grabbed power not to redistribute it to an existing political party but to rule in its own name.

The subsequent repression carried out by the military junta in the 1970s has been labeled the Dirty War (Guerra Sucia), in which upwards of 30,000 individuals, Argentine citizens as well as foreigners, where kidnapped, tortured, and murdered or simply disappeared. Some 9,000 individuals are still reported missing. The original objective was to defeat the leftist guerrillas known as the Montoneros (left-wing Peronists) and the Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo (People’s Revolutionary Army), who were also responsible for a variety of human rights abuses. It is unclear though, how many of these “desaparecidos” (disappeared individuals) were a result of military actions or of the insurgents.

After the military was forced to leave power in 1983, the prosecution of then-military officers was slow to commence and still continues today as the nation cannot safely rest until justice has been brought to the thousands of victims of the military during this epoch. In February 2008, two retired policemen were arrested in connection with the massacre of 16 leftist guerrillas in 1972. Pursuit of security officials who were active during the period of military rule reached a pinnacle in late November when a retired police commander accused of the disappearance, torture and death of dissidents during the junta era-Mario Ferreyra (AKA “Malevo,” meaning “evil”) – shot himself dead in front of live television cameras when he was about to be arrested.

It is somewhat ironic that a country like Argentina is known, on one hand, as being the cradle of patriotism and of great historic figures like General San Martín, as well as repressive military officials of the 1976-83 junta accused of some of the worst human rights abuses at the time (such as dropping several drugged French nuns from planes into the ocean) as well as gunning down journalists, academics and religious figures. The country also serves as the birthplace of one of the most iconic leftist revolutionaries of the Cold War, Ernesto “Ché” Guevara.

The other legacy of the 1976 military junta was the ill-fated 1982 attempt by the Argentine armed forces to retake the disputed Falkland/Malvinas Islands from the United Kingdom. The British claim to the archipelago dates back far back as 1833, when British forces established themselves on the island. The April-June 1982 Argentine-initiated war against Britain proved a catastrophe to the Argentine military. Among other costly setbacks, the Argentine navy lost its flagship, the ARA cruiser General Belgrano, when it was torpedoed by the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror, in which over 300 Argentine sailors drowned. Reasons for the Argentine decision to make the imprudent decision to attempt to seize the British colonies include the radical nationalism that was infecting the ruling junta at the time the conflict began as well as a desire to divert public attention from the country’s deteriorating economy and embezzlement perpetrated by senior members of the military. Important byproducts of the Falklands War were the protests staged throughout the country, which were prompted by various scandals and revelations of wrongdoings by senior junta officials, who eventually persuaded the junta to relinquish power in 1983.

The Economic Meltdown and the Military Today
In 2001, the Argentine economy effectively imploded due to the collapse of the Argentine peso. The Argentine military proved incapable of surviving the negative aftershocks of a then broken policy of defending the peso at all costs. Since then, the military’s annual budget sank becoming a fraction of what it was in the past. Salaries were cut throughout the ranks. The size of the armed forces not only had to be reduced, but in many cases equipment had to be sold on the black market in order for military units to meet their daily expenses. According to Military Technology, the current strength of the Argentine military is about 68,000 troops.

In a May 2007 op-ed to the conservative Argentine daily La Nacion, former Defense Minister Horacio Jaunarena declared that the average age of the country’s military hardware is thirty years. He reported that the army was operating at 30% of its supposed strength, due to its limited ability to house and feed its troops, as well as to maintain its equipment and weaponry. The former official gave other examples, such as that out of 31 military transport aircraft in inventory, only four were currently operational. Although the Argentine navy is considered new in comparison to those found in other countries across the continent, it remains one of the less potent in terms of its inherent military capacity.

Assessing the Country’s Military
With a reduced budget, the Argentine military continues without a sense of direction or mission. In May 2006, then-President Nestor Kirchner declared his intention to reform the Argentine armed forces during a ceremony marking the army’s 196th anniversary. He stated that “we are preparing a process of review, restructuring and holistic modernization of the national defense system.” Similarly, in June 2008, current Defense Minister Nilda Garre discussed the re-organization of the country’s naval policy. She is on record as saying that “naval policy should adequately interconnect the need to have an efficient war squadron, sustainable economic development, protection of the marine environment, promotion of the ship-building industry, and the consolidation of an international system based on multilateralism and the respect for the norms of international law.”

There is certainly a necessity to modernize the Argentine military, particularly as Argentina’s military equipment has not been comprehensively renovated in years, possibly jeopardizing the integrity of the weaponry and whoever utilizes it. For example, in August 2005, a Hugges 39 helicopter operated by the Argentine military crashed in Cordova province, killing all four passengers. On April 2007, the icebreaker ARA Almirante Irizar caught fire in the South Atlantic.

But times could be slowly changing for the Argentine military as a rehabilitation process is slowly underway. In October 2007, Defense Minster Garre announced plans for additional funding for the armed forces, including funding to upgrade the Santa Cruz (TR-1700)-class submarine. A November 10, 2008 report in Mercopress news agency announced that Buenos Aires had refurbished its UH-3H Sea King helicopters. The article goes on to say that “Argentine defence sources admit that some new model will have to be acquired to replace the ageing Sea King in a near future, since they are technologically behind and spares are increasingly difficult to obtain.”

This past October 2008, the Argentine Defense Ministry announced the successful test of two medium-range Aspide missiles (Italian in origin) that had been modified in Argentina’s Centro de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de las Fuerzas Armadas (Scientific and Technical Research Center of the Armed Forces). The goal of the project is to produce missiles that will intercept possible air attacks.

As previously noted, Argentina has carried out relatively few military purchases from foreign suppliers. In 2006 there were rumors circulating that Argentina would buy military hardware from Russia (at the time news about Venezuela’s multi billion-dollar purchases from Russia were still fresh); however, the story failed to materialize. Such rumors resurfaced again in early November 2008, when a report in the ITAR-TASS Russian state news agency quoted the director of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, Mikhail Dmitriyev, as saying that there is a growing trend of military technical cooperation between Russia and Argentina. The article mentions concrete plans for cooperation, including radar stations and a “helicopter programme, including supplies and setting up of centers for servicing helicopter hardware, possibly, not only in Argentina but also at a regional scale.”

The Argentine military is also salvaging homegrown equipment and do-it-yourself “garage” projects in order to prolong the life of its current aging hardware. So far, this process has had mixed success. In November 2007, the Argentine military presented its first self-fabricated helicopter. The CH-14 is a tandem two-seater (one crew member forward and the other aft) for surveillance and light attack. It is unclear if any foreign military establishments were interested enough to place tenders to buy them. During the presentation of the aircraft, General Roberto Bendini exalted the “courage” of the military aviators in various missions assigned to them, especially those carried out during the Malvinas War. In early November 2008, according to reports, the Argentine Defense Ministry decided to cancel “Project Patagon,” due to high costs. The goal of this initiative was to manufacture forty hybrid tanks, using out-of-service tank turrets and combining them with recently-acquired Austrian parts. The total price tag for the project was to be $23.4 million.

Almost at the same time, Argentine Defense Vice Minister, Germán Montenegro, declared that “the Argentine armed forces are prepared, qualified and trained to work in any scenario to militarily protect the country.” It is unclear if the Argentine official knew of the doomed Project Patagon, which exemplifies how cash-strapped the country’s military currently happens to be.

A new training facility for junior naval officers opened at the Puerto Belgrano naval base in 2006. Nestor Kirchner attended the ceremony and gave a speech in which he told junior officers that “you must now look ahead to the future and not to the past.” The base is located not too far from the Navy’s notorious Mechanic School in Buenos Aires, which repeatedly was tied to the darkest periods of torture and abuse during the 1976 military era.

In spite of the economy’s still present tempest, military exercises continue. In early November 2008, the Argentine military carried out exercises in the province of Corrientes, very close to the border with Paraguay. Paraguayan officials complained that their Argentine counterparts had failed to properly inform them of the commencement of these operations.

The Legacy of the Military Period and the Falklands/Malvinas War
In 2004 then-Defense Minister Jose Pampuro declared that the military would not be used for domestic security. The declaration came about due to persistent, if unsubstantiated rumors that the Colombian leftist rebel movement, FARC had “infiltrated” Argentine labor and political organizations. This was a prudent decision as such a deployment inevitably would have brought to mind odious memories from the military period when the civilian population was the target of choice of the Argentine military. A news report in October 2004 that was carried by the partially state-owned Argentine Telam news agency quotes Pampuro as saying “the Argentine government has clearly and emphatically refused to involve the armed forces in matters related to internal security.” The truth of the matter is that it remains somewhat unclear what exactly is the contemporary function of the Argentine military. Especially after the 2001 economic meltdown, Argentine military units have been tasked with a variety of relatively low-scale projects, like taking a minor role as white helmets in the UN mission to Haiti and environmental protection projects in Antarctica.

What continues to make headlines in Buenos Aires is the periodic arrests of now-retired military junta-era officials who are accused of human rights abuses. Interestingly, in 2007, Defense Minister Garre, a veteran leftist politician and critic of the 1970s’ military government, mandated that designated Argentine troops would take specially-arranged educational classes on human rights. At the time, an AP report mentioned that some 600 army, navy and air force troops would take a three-month, civilian-taught course, “the role of the state in a democratic society, conflict resolution and justice.”

A July 2008 report carried by Agence France Presse quotes Cristina de Kirchner’s interest in a greater Argentine military role in Antarctica. The article notes that “although Antarctica is protected under a 1959 treaty allowing only scientific research, moves are being made by Argentina, Australia, Britain, China, France, New Zealand and Norway to boost their presence there and lay claim to territorial waters that could yield oil.” Indeed, without any other obvious raison d’etre for them to be stationed on mainland Argentina, Fernandez de Kirchner is considering sending her troops to Antarctica to keep them usefully occupied.

[continued...]
 

citizen578

New Member
External Friends and Foes
Argentina hardly has any external security threats from which it needs to protect itself. Relations with neighbors Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay are stable, making the possibility of a military conflict with one of its neighbors extremely unlikely. Bolivia, under Evo Morales (a fellow member of Mercosur), has so far maintained cordial relations with Argentina.

Even Chile, with which Argentina had a border dispute for a number of years and which was resolved by papal intercession, today is on relatively good terms with Argentina. In early November 2008, both countries engaged in military exercises named Solidarity 2008, which focused on the theme of how to control a influenza pandemic. Around the same time, the Chilean and Argentine navies carried out the 11th joint patrol of the Antarctic. Nevertheless, simmering Argentine animosity towards Chile remains due to boundary issues and the fact that Santiago, at the time of the Falklands conflict, was under the control of military strongman General Augusto Pinochet, who provided important intelligence information and landing rights to Britain.

In recent years, U.S.-Argentine relations traditionally have been cordial, dating back to Argentina’s participation in the U.S.-sponsored Operation Condor during the early 1970s. The operation was essentially an intelligence and vigilante network among South American military governments (Chile, Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina) in which information was exchanged and crackdowns took place on the activities of leftist dissidents and local and foreign insurgents occurred. On the other hand, Washington did not go out of its way to aid Buenos Aires during the Falklands War, something that the Argentine military resented even though there is evidence that special U.S. envoy General Vernon Walters was in Buenos Aires during the period of the Argentine attack on the Falklands, and had been informed when told that an Argentine strike was imminent.

In 2004, Argentina called off military exercises with U.S. troops that were due to take place in the Argentine province of Mendoza. The tensions arose after Washington requested immunity for its soldiers while in Argentina, which Buenos Aires, in a particularly bold move, denied. Then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited Buenos Aires in March 2005, where he tried to patch up ties between the two countries by stating that “the relationship between the United States and Argentina continues to strengthen […] the people of Argentina can take pride in their important global role.”

Argentina has attempted to engage other countries’ militaries in order to foster regional cooperation. For example, in July 2004, Vietnamese Deputy Defense Minister Sen. Lt. Gen. Nguyen Huy Hieu visited Buenos Aires for two days. More importantly, on February 2005, the defense ministers of Argentina and Spain met in Madrid and signed an agreement to augment their military cooperation. In October 2005, then-Vice President Daniel Osvaldo Scioli received a visiting delegation from the People’s Republic of China, including Liang Guanglie, member of the Central Military Commission and the chief of the General Staff of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. The aforementioned encounter represented the highest-level visit by a Chinese military official to Argentina since the two countries established full diplomatic ties in 1972. More recently, in early October 2008, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that at a meeting between President Cristina de Kirchner and Brazilian leader Lula da Silva, an agreement was signed regarding cooperation in defense matters.

The Kirchners and the Military
The relationship between the presidencies of Nestor Kirchner and Cristina de Kirchner with the Argentine military has been cool at best. In general, the Kirchners have done little, if anything at all, to shield suspect military officials from having to stand trial due to the abuses that occurred in the country under their leadership. For example, in 2004, then-President Nestor Kirchner took the bold move of ordering an investigation regarding accusations that the armed forces had operated training sessions on torture techniques during the early 1980s. Nestor Kirchner revealed himself as supporting the overturn of amnesty laws, which had previously protected junta-era military officers from being prosecuted for their atrocities.

In November 2007, Nestor Kirchner and hundreds of human rights activists gathered in Buenos Aires’ Memorial Park. During the gathering, he unveiled a memorial to the victims of the country’s “Dirty War.” The former president told his audience that the “monument is a great feat as it shows that the collective memory of the victims is alive in the world.”

The Falklands catastrophe continues to be a sensitive issue for the nation, and Nestor Kirchner was known to have strained relations with his military while president, especially after he declared that the attack on the Falklands had been a “cowardly” act. He uttered his words during a ceremony in 2006 marking the 24th anniversary of the Argentine attack on the British-held islands. He added that the invasion was an attempt for the junta led by General Leopoldo Galtieri to divert attention from the worsening economic situation of the country by waving the bloody flag of patriotism. “To save itself, the dictatorship planned and executed a war while lying about its intentions,” the Argentine leader added.

In a showcase moment for the Argentine military’s heated disdain for the Kirchner administration, a May 2006 AP report explained that four Argentine military officials were placed in detention for 20 days because of security lapses that allowed heckling by protesters during a public address by Kirchner. During the speech, he was quoted as saying, “I want to make it clear, as president of the nation, that I am not afraid of you,” Kirchner said. “We want an army that is completely separate from state terror,” the then-head of state added. Cristina de Kirchner tried to improve her relationship with the military on her own, uttering pro-Argentine populist statements about the Falklands conflict and Argentina’s rightful ownership of the islands. In April 2008 the Argentine daily El Clarin reported that Fernandez de Kirchner had declared that Buenos Aires’ claim to the island will not end. She also defined the London-controlled archipelago as a “colony in the 21st century.”

A positive sign in contemporary Argentine civil-military relations is that the Argentine armed forces do not appear to have any marked interest in taking advantage of the country’s present hard economic times by trying to exercise any control over the government, much less rustling their saber as a prelude to launching a new crusade to reclaim the Falkland islands or a domineering place in Argentine domestic society.

Heading South?
The Argentine military is at a crossroads in terms of defining its identity and determining its raison d’etre. Unfortunately for the armed forces, a lack of public interest in its status induces the military to look south, to raise the visibility and vigor of its claim to a section of Antarctica.

Yet for the decades ahead, the Argentine military will continue to be viewed through the prism of its actions during the monstrous 1976-1983 period of military rule and the 1982 Falklands War, when it turned its guns and unleashed its power against the nation rather than a bona fide enemy."

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sanchez
December 2nd, 2008
 

citizen578

New Member
the current government is composed of elected politicians who would be expected to have an eye to the next election.

Therefore we would expect any prelude to offensive action to be characterised by an increase in public sentiment favouring a war, or at least, attempts by politicians to whip up such a sentiment.
Unfortunately, that is a big part of the problem. In Argentina, it is used as a cause celebre in order to stir up nationalism and deflect attention from serious internal problems... little different to what Galtieri was doing in 82.

Whilst democracy demands a certain credibility, the rhetoric, slogans, and chest-thumping is still very much alive and well.

In 2005, the British government was forced to put the 'reforger' plans in operation for the first time. This involves a massive reinforcement of the MPA garrison, additional fighter aircraft, diverting surface units and submarines, and ''battening down the hatches'' for want of a better phrase.

All this to a back-drop of massive rhetoric from Nestor Kirchner, discovering an Argentine SSK in South Georgian territorial waters, the 'abduction' of the Falkland Islands Fisheries vessel, deliberate incursions and harassment by Argentine surface units and aircraft, and other small and not-so-small indiscretions.

The Falklands is still very much a flashpoint.

It's also worth remembering that 82 came after a series of other small conflicts with Argentina. These include the illegal establishment of a naval base (Corbeta Uraguay) at Southern Thule, a special forces landing from an SSK in the 1960s, and a few others.

Interesting link some of you may enjoy:
http://www.wildisland.gs/atlantis/gettingitright.pdf

Regards
 

Cooch

Active Member
citizen578.

I do not dispute with you that the Falklands remain contentious, or that many Argentinians have a strong emotional desire to acquire them.

What I do say is that for a number of reasons - including those mentioned in your posts - the preparations for anotrher attemp to acquire them militarily will be fairly obvious.

Therefore it is also reasonable to argue that the British are unlikely to be entirely unprepared, and - as your post agrees - they have shown a prepartedness and capacity to reinforce their garrison at fairly short notice.

On that point, and given the political will, how much time do we expect it would take for the British to build up a force that would make such an invasion both costly and unlikely to succeed?

Respectfully...... Peter
 

John Sansom

New Member
Wow! Thanks, Citizen578. Two small points, though.

I would hardly place Ernesto "Che" Guevara on the side of the social angels within the Argentinian context. His T-shirt fame is something of a cover for his predeliction for casual executions. On top of that, he wasn't very good at even pretending to be a "man of the people".

Unless hubris--an affliction common to many nations--is developing out of control in Argentina, The UK (and Falkland residents) should not worry too much, if at all, about a repeat of the ill-fated Argentinian visit of times past. As already noted, the UK is keeping more than a casual eye on the situation and has no doubt gamed up a number of effective scenarios...just in case.
 

roberto

Banned Member
IIRC Argentina has 25-30 A-4AR, which are A-4s with a radar & some A2A ability. Given a modest amount of money, & a little time, they could all be made operational. They would be effective against the Sea Harrier FRS.1s the RN fielded in 1982 :D - but they'd be hopelessly outclassed by the Tornado F.3, let alone the Typhoon.

Ditto the assorted Mirage derivatives, of which there are about another 30. I don't know how many could be fielded: I imagine it would depend on the availability of spares, & the funding & time to refurbish those currently unusable. But they offer nothing, except supersonic dash speed, over the A-4ARs, & over the Falklands cannot use that speed, due to fuel constraints.

The Super Etendards have no A2A capability. Availability? As for the others: depends on money, whether spares can be bought, & time.

Argentinean air operations would be severely limited by distance, & the availability of AAR - exactly as in 1982. Their situation has not improved at all in this respect. The same two KC-130s as in 1982, doubtless in worse condition.

Argentina has no air-launched stand-off weapons it could use against the Falklands from within the protection of Patagonia-based SAMs, even if that protection really did extend to 400 km from the coast.

Rectifying the deficiencies in Argentinas armed forces* would take money & time, & would ring alarm bells in London. The assumption, apparently made by some posters, that a hypothetical future refurbished Argentinean military would meet the present British Falklands force, at a low rate of readiness, is unrealistic.

*Returning stored fighters to operational condition or buying new ones, buying stand-off weapons, readying long tied-up ships for sea, buying tankers . . . . etc.
I does not take much to rebuilt military with Russian weopons look at Sudan with its second hand MIGs. There will Flankers for retirement soon in Ex-Soviet States.
There are plenty of retired mercanaries from Russia/Belarus/UKraine that will in addition to official approved trainer that will effectively operate weopons especially SAMs/Aircraft. And since the whole thing is going over Water there will be no evidence of capturing any one of them.


“Latinamerica needs Chavez as Europe needs (Vladmir) Putin”, said the Argentine presidential candidate last year during a meeting in Madrid with Spanish businessmen with investments in Argentina.
And i bet Venzuella will join with free oil and military. It will be much larger conflict among sociallist countries of Latin America and UK alone as the rest of bankrupt EU will harldy join it. Cost of defending Falkand is far higher than initiating a conflict. At the end UK will have to come to negotiating table.
 

ASFC

New Member
This isn't just about buying equipment Roberto, least of all FSU knockoffs that Eastern Europe no longer wants. To retake the Falklands they would need a large Air Force capable of sustaining operations over the Falklands (something like what Australia has) they would need a good Amphibious capability (which they lack, but which they had to a degree 26 years ago), a well built and well funded Army that is capable of defending itself if the UK lands a force to retake the Islands and a decent SSK force to counter British SSNs and deny the sea to the RN. Then they would have to train all the personnel to use it effectively!

They lack all of this, and as it is not going to be sorted anytime soon then there is no immediate threat of invasion.

And the idea that the rest of Latin America would get involved is also laughable. They won't because to run their militaries they rely on spares from US/EU, which would be quickly cut off if they started fighting the UK, as happened with Argentina last time. This is before we get into politics and the fact that a Falklands would likely reignite old differences on the continent (I can't see Chile helping Argentina for example).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top