Now lets look at the mythical 'surprise attack', you basically have two options here:
(i) Covert: SF via submarine incursion or from small boats infiltrated via civi ship (highly unlikely), and / or;
(ii) Massed air attack to saturate the air defences prior to an airborne / heleborne / amphib landing in and around Port Stanley / Mount Pleasant.
The first covert option limits the Argentines to a small group of SF, less than a troop in strength due to the physical size of the current fleet of submarines. Attempting a landing form a civi ship using deception carries huge risks and requires the team to disembark too far from shore in conditions which can deteriorate very quickly (four seasons in one day). Assumptions have been made that the UK Garrison spends all its time sitting around Mount Pleasant, which is absolute and utter rubbish. The resident Infantry Fighting Company utilises its time on the island to conduct standing and fighting patrols, live firing exercises and familiarising itself with both West and East Falklands. The local population provides a comprehensive natural surveillance capability feeding intelligence through to the military int cell. I believe any covert incursion will carry a high risk of being detected (by the local population) and subsequently suppressed. The Mount Pleasant airbase has its own RAF Regiment defense unit, which allows the Infantry Company to conduct any counter attack operations supported by mortar's / MMG's / Javelin. The UK full-time and part-time (reserves) know the ground, the Argentines DO NOT.
An overt airstrike will have to deal with the Tornado Flight (flown by experienced crews), Rapier and Starstreak batteries. I would expect to see at 5 to 1 (conservative assumption) attrition rate in favour of UK air assets based on 1982 figures. This would also be a very costly option for Argentina, should the high-attrition rate not provide results very early on. Please remind me again what the Argentine airforce carries to deal with the F3's Flying CAP?
The resident UK Battalion on 24-7 permanent standby, including artillery assets to man the 105mm's already placed on the island will take 18hrs to fly from Brize Norton to Mount Pleasant (C17). This means the Argentines have to have captured and secured the airfield in that time. A don't beleive the current military in Argentina have the 'balls' to take that risk. Plus you can expect further F3 or Eurofighter reinforcements flying via Ascention mid-air refueling enroute.
I do not agree with your line of reasoning here. There are 4 main reasons, why I disagree:
(i) Your argument assumes that there are only 2 main options and that the opponent will behave in a conventional predictable manner. This approach to defence planning is not realistic (objectively speaking) or greatly over simplified. I'm sure the UK forces on the Falkland Islands train for a much wider range of scenarios.
(ii) To some extend your arguments highlight the logistical difficulties that would be faced by an attacking force. However, your argument also fails to deal with the logistical difficulties faced by the UK forces. The UK forces are spread out and thus vulnerable to a well though-out attack plan. Further, there is a possibility that certain forces can be 'cut-off'. May I suggest that you take a more rounded approach in building your scenarios.
(iii) Every defence asset has its own strengths and its own weaknesses. I would assume that any attacking force has had the time to wargame the various scenarios (until they are satisfied that their plan works). If the aggressor does not like their current game plan, no attack is likely. Hence no defence is necessary (which means the deterrence worked).
(iv) The larger the defence force, the harder it becomes for the attacker. The larger the number of defenders, the options available to the defenders will become more varied. The smaller the defence force, the more likely the aggressor will be able to use operational art to predict the likely defence plan and also to gain the initiative. (Actually, I'm sure you are aware of these ideas but if I don't mention them, I would be remiss to the layman reader).
If you don't mind, I'm not talking about a specific disagreement with your line of reasoning. What I have is: 'A general conceptual disagreement with your line of reasoning.'
You will notice, I have avoided a specific disagreement with you generated scenarios. I hope I have not come across as arrogant (or very ill informed). If I have, please accept my apologies in advance and I stand ready to be corrected.
Before the Argentines even begin this extremely risky gamble they must take into consideration whether or not a Tomahawk capable submarine is in the area, which could begin hitting accommodation blocks located on the mainland containing the pilots assigned to fly strike missions against the Falklands - kill the man not the machine.
I don't think this is a valid assumption. If I were the attacking force, I could easily take measures to protect my air force pilots from a Tomahawk strike. Again I do not want to go into specific details.
The UK Now has ASTOR which can be launched from Ascension which will provide unparalleled real time surveillance to Northwood of all movements in and around any airbase tasked with flying in soldiers to the island. Again I would use Tomahawk to hit barracks, staging areas and parked aircraft on the Argentine mainland to remove their ability to sustain an invasion and further demonstrate to the Argentine people that any attack on British sovereign territory will meet with a similar response.
Remember what I said earlier, every defence asset has a weakness. An ASTOR would need to be defended, if you are facing determined opposition.
If you want to assume that the opposition is lacking basic reasoning skills, then yes, in all scenarios the aggressor will be repelled.
Is that a good starting point for any analysis?
nfloorl: