Falklands tensions

[pdunderhill]

The supposed deployment of a nuclear powered sub to the Falklands is apparently a Trafalgar class SSN (some places have directly named HMS Tireless but i expect its just a shot in the dark), HMS Astute hasn't been roumered to be deployed.

About the anti-ship issue, when HMS Conqueror sunk the Belgrano, every single Argentinian naval vessel headed back to the mainland. Then one has to remember that the Belgrano represented (to the British task force) one claw of a "pincer", the other pincer being headed by the aircraft carrier Veinticino de Mayo. (True, IIRC HMS Spartan was tasked with finding the carrier but i'm under the impression that Spartan never managed to track her down & Woodward would have pushed very hard to sink the carrier if she was spotted)

That one hit by Conqueror effectively ended Argentinian naval activities around the islands so anti-ship isn't extremely neccesary (AFAIK the 4.5in gun on RN ships is mainly for NGFS - not to combat enemy ships), there could well be only one in the area but the Argies don't know that.

About the plane landing thats interesting, but improbable. That aircraft would have to have a very interesting flight plan if a mayday created no choice but to land at the Falkland islands with good intentions, especially if the aircraft is of Argentine origin. Such an aircraft (i'd assume) would be treated with an appropriate level of suspicion (a massive amount if Rapier faults - yup we still use 'em - are due to commando raids) so its unlikely.

Thanks Rob,
especially about the type and name of the apparent 'silent service' presence down south, keep them guessing.
About the 4.5'' gun on Daring, it would certainly wake me up to have 46 lbs of explosive arriving anywhere close to me but even the threat of a WW2 era Mark 8 would scare me s****less. Good job we've got Spearfish!
Didn't know that we'd had another sub there as well 30 years ago, so maybe it was two dogs chasing a frisbee.
Still my greatest concern is that while the MOD have run a cold and clinical analysis of the potential scenarios and outcomes I'm not convinced that the Argentinian equivalent Libertador Building, Paseo Colón 250, Buenos Aires is looking more than a few months ahead, politicians running the Military for their own aims a bad, bad idea.

OK the 'Entebbe' raid idea on Mount Pleasant Airport idea was a non runner so I've been looking around for a similar invasion in recent years.

Greneda was, despite their own (US) cock-ups and relative proximity to the mainland, the closest I could think of.
US Island hopping in the Pacific War (WW2) maybe?

In many ways the Falklands are ideal defensive areas, apart from the lack of elevation for radar. A good 170 miles from the nearest bit of mainland. No potential land based threat from the east, can't really see South Africa taking an interest, a single 'ginger' foe (not convinced that Venezula's Sukhoi 30s and F16s have got the legs), an indigenous population that value their independence and finally apparently overwhelming support, including Guardian readers that's a first, in the UK.

An old expression: 'wonderful things happen when you plant the seeds of discontent in a garden of arseholes'.
If BA is looking for a financial bailout soon, sorry we've lent it to our friends.
Peter

 

[pdunderhill]

The supposed deployment of a nuclear powered sub to the Falklands is apparently a Trafalgar class SSN (some places have directly named HMS Tireless but i expect its just a shot in the dark), HMS Astute hasn't been roumered to be deployed.

About the anti-ship issue, when HMS Conqueror sunk the Belgrano, every single Argentinian naval vessel headed back to the mainland. Then one has to remember that the Belgrano represented (to the British task force) one claw of a "pincer", the other pincer being headed by the aircraft carrier Veinticino de Mayo. (True, IIRC HMS Spartan was tasked with finding the carrier but i'm under the impression that Spartan never managed to track her down & Woodward would have pushed very hard to sink the carrier if she was spotted)

That one hit by Conqueror effectively ended Argentinian naval activities around the islands so anti-ship isn't extremely neccesary (AFAIK the 4.5in gun on RN ships is mainly for NGFS - not to combat enemy ships), there could well be only one in the area but the Argies don't know that.

About the plane landing thats interesting, but improbable. That aircraft would have to have a very interesting flight plan if a mayday created no choice but to land at the Falkland islands with good intentions, especially if the aircraft is of Argentine origin. Such an aircraft (i'd assume) would be treated with an appropriate level of suspicion (a massive amount if Rapier faults - yup we still use 'em - are due to commando raids) so its unlikely.

Just had a quick decko at HMS Tireless, S88, wasn't launched until March '84, mind you 'we never comment', could well have been another bunch of smellies in a tube.
I suspect the Silent Service may not be so quiet, sorry about the 'smellies in a tube' bit, really sorry, had a shower this week?

 

[RobWilliams]

Just had a quick decko at HMS Tireless, S88, wasn't launched until March '84, mind you 'we never comment', could well have been another bunch of smellies in a tube.
I suspect the Silent Service may not be so quiet, sorry about the 'smellies in a tube' bit, really sorry, had a shower this week?

I'm sorry i'm afraid I don't understand your point. If its about the "never comment" issue, it makes perfect logical sense, if the government doesn't comment on sub deployments then the submarine threat for 'hostile' nations increases dramatically.

Basically the threat of a SSN in the area is a cheaper and easier deterrent than actually admitting + sending one into the area.

Don't get the 'smellies in a tube' comment at the end + the shower comment is just downright rude.

 

[RobWilliams]

Appears Argentina is lobbying for companies to not buy British goods.

Argentina urges industry and business to cut imports from the UK — MercoPress
Foreign Office summons Argentine diplomat; limiting trade

As though turning away cruise ships wasn't silly enough they're trying to essentially create a "boycott" of British products, rather foolishly forgetting;

“The UK is the sixth largest investor in Argentina, and we import from Argentina significantly more than we export to them,” the spokesman said. “So it is firmly not in Argentina's economic interest to put up these barriers to trade. The latest decisions are counter productive”

Whilst I agree that this latest economic development may cause the UK some hurt depending on who listens, it appears it could hurt Argentina more than the UK in the long term.

This sort of behaviour doesn't benefit many people + is a pretty silly game to be playing given Argentinas current economic climate.

 

[rip]

I'm sorry i'm afraid I don't understand your point. If its about the "never comment" issue, it makes perfect logical sense, if the government doesn't comment on sub deployments then the submarine threat for 'hostile' nations increases dramatically.

Basically the threat of a SSN in the area is a cheaper and easier deterrent than actually admitting + sending one into the area.

Don't get the 'smellies in a tube' comment at the end + the shower comment is just downright rude.

As the original stealth platform, the operations of Subs should always be kept secret in everybody’s navy even in the most peaceful of times. The greatest advantages of subs, you do not know where they are or what they are doing, is however also their greatest weakness. You cannot make a political statement with them without compromising their greatest strength when a political statement can deter war.

But regardless if there is a sub on station in the Falklands or not the “statement” the act of publicly sending a surface ship to the area gives fair warning that not only are you willing to fight if necessary but that you may have to fight more than you were counting on.

No submariner worth his salt will disclose any recent data on submarine operations. That is why in many military communities they are unfairly under rated in both what they can do or in what they have in fact done, because when they are most successful they are the only ones who know. So we can safely say any further speculation on the subject will not improve our knowledge or help predict the future.

 

[RobWilliams]

As the original stealth platform, the operations of Subs should always be kept secret in everybody’s navy even in the most peaceful of times. The greatest advantages of subs, you do not know where they are or what they are doing, is however also their greatest weakness. You cannot make a political statement with them without compromising their greatest strength when a political statement can deter war.

But regardless if there is a sub on station in the Falklands or not the “statement” the act of publicly sending a surface ship to the area gives fair warning that not only are you willing to fight if necessary but that you may have to fight more than you were counting on.

No submariner worth his salt will disclose any recent data on submarine operations. That is why in many military communities they are unfairly under rated in both what they can do or in what they have in fact done, because when they are most successful they are the only ones who know. So we can safely say any further speculation on the subject will not improve our knowledge or help predict the future.

I completely agree with you.

Whilst the locations of subs is classified. . .yadda-yadda . . i was trying to get across that due to this fact (the fact of being unsure) that the potential threat of an SSN in the area is more than enough of a deterrent. I for one don't particularly believe the supposed deployment of a Trafalgar class (after all, since when has the MoD leaked stuff like that?), it just seems a more mild approach of what the Argentinians are doing except by the British media, commenting on sub deployments but not screaming "nuclear weapons"

 

[exPrivate]

I really think UK financial foreign aid for Argentina under the existing circumstances is an absurd thing! And I`ve read somewhere it is more than 100 million pounds.
Hit Argentina where it hurts – in the wallet - Telegraph

 

[Sampanviking]

I have been wondering why this matter has reared its ugly head right now. I mean the events have an anniversary each year and the 10th and 20th anniversaries had nothing like this, nor is 30 a particularly relevant anniversary.

One thing though has suddenly occurred to me and that is the Scottish Independence referendum. The more I though about this, the more questions arose!

1) The Falklands is a British Dependency. Britain is primarily the product of the Political Union of England and Scotland, if therefore Scotland leaves that Union, it is hard to consider that which is left as Britain. The legal status of the Falklands then becomes uncertain and inarticulate?

2) Is a state that is unable or barely able to keep its core intact, in any condition to try and retain very distant and remote possessions?

3) What are the backgrounds and probable greater loyalties of the Falklanders themselves? given the nature of the terrain and climate, they are unlikely to descend from Devonshire Dairyman. A Scottish Crofter could easily transplant to the Islands however and farm in the way they are used.

I would be very interested to hear the views of those who may know some of the answers.

 

[RobWilliams]

I have been wondering why this matter has reared its ugly head right now. I mean the events have an anniversary each year and the 10th and 20th anniversaries had nothing like this, nor is 30 a particularly relevant anniversary.

One thing though has suddenly occurred to me and that is the Scottish Independence referendum. The more I though about this, the more questions arose!

1) The Falklands is a British Dependency. Britain is primarily the product of the Political Union of England and Scotland, if therefore Scotland leaves that Union, it is hard to consider that which is left as Britain. The legal status of the Falklands then becomes uncertain and inarticulate?

2) Is a state that is unable or barely able to keep its core intact, in any condition to try and retain very distant and remote possessions?

3) What are the backgrounds and probable greater loyalties of the Falklanders themselves? given the nature of the terrain and climate, they are unlikely to descend from Devonshire Dairyman. A Scottish Crofter could easily transplant to the Islands however and farm in the way they are used.

I would be very interested to hear the views of those who may know some of the answers.

One angle i've seen talked about is merely trying to be more visible on the global stage + using the Falklands dispute to do this.

If anything, I feel the Scottish referendum underlines and emphasises the UKs policy; if you want independence, then ask and have a referendum. We will not hold you 'against your will'.

+ the farmers comment, the original settlers would have adapted to survive in the environment. Just because a Scottish farmer could farm the Falklands more effectively than a Devon farmer, it doesn't make them more likely to be the origin. After all I suspect if you asked a Devon farmer to do a Scottish farmers job they would be able to adapt and do the job and vice versa.

 

[swerve]

One thing though has suddenly occurred to me and that is the Scottish Independence referendum. The more I though about this, the more questions arose!

1) The Falklands is a British Dependency. Britain is primarily the product of the Political Union of England and Scotland, if therefore Scotland leaves that Union, it is hard to consider that which is left as Britain. The legal status of the Falklands then becomes uncertain and inarticulate?

Nope. The United Kingdom is the product of the union of England & Wales (gradually up to 1542), Scotland (1707) & Ireland (1801), & when the union was formed, Ireland was more important than Scotland, having a much larger population, & although poorer per head, a larger economy.

Most of Ireland seceded 90 years ago without anyone suggesting that the legal status of dependencies of the UK was impaired. Why would it be different now? The state formed by the 1707 act of union between England & Scotland ceased to exist in 1801.

3) What are the backgrounds and probable greater loyalties of the Falklanders themselves? given the nature of the terrain and climate, they are unlikely to descend from Devonshire Dairyman. A Scottish Crofter could easily transplant to the Islands however and farm in the way they are used.

Supposedly lots of Scots & Welsh, then English, & then assorted others. Quite a few of the early settlers were from Argentina, but they thoroughly assimilated, & their (very mixed) descendants are as pro-British as the rest.

No crofting, though. A crofter is a small-scale farmer, mostly for subsistence. Farming in the Falklands has always been thoroughly commercial cattle & sheep raising.

BTW, I reckon a Dartmoor farmer wouldn't have much problem with the Falklands. Running stock across bleak rough grazing - just like home!

 

[StobieWan]

Nope. The United Kingdom is the product of the union of England & Wales (gradually up to 1542), Scotland (1707) & Ireland (1801), & when the union was formed, Ireland was more important than Scotland, having a much larger population, & although poorer per head, a larger economy.

Most of Ireland seceded 90 years ago without anyone suggesting that the legal status of dependencies of the UK was impaired. Why would it be different now? The state formed by the 1707 act of union between England & Scotland ceased to exist in 1801.


Supposedly lots of Scots & Welsh, then English, & then assorted others. Quite a few of the early settlers were from Argentina, but they thoroughly assimilated, & their (very mixed) descendants are as pro-British as the rest.

No crofting, though. A crofter is a small-scale farmer, mostly for subsistence. Farming in the Falklands has always been thoroughly commercial cattle & sheep raising.

BTW, I reckon a Dartmoor farmer wouldn't have much problem with the Falklands. Running stock across bleak rough grazing - just like home!

Good answer

And of course, there's no way the FI people will want to go with Scotland because Scotland will be an economically much smaller affair than the UK, and most likely be unable to offer the military protection that is seen as important. Scotlands post independence military will likely be on a similar level to the Republic of Ireland, with a small navy of OPV's and some fast raiders, possibly some fast jets and little or nothing in the way of expeditionary capability.

 

[RobWilliams]

Argentinas willingless to cooperate rears its head again . . .

EU calls on Argentina to respect international trade commitments — MercoPress

Which resulted with . . . .

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/08...cribes-trade-spokesperson-statements-as-false

It's interesting that Argentina was willing to get the US/UN/EU involved on matters in the South Atlantic but when they all give replies CFK isn't happy with, they simply reject them

I'm sure this isn't what Argentina should do in the current economic climate; try to distance itself from the EU in regards to trade.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's interesting that Argentina was willing to get the US/UN/EU involved on matters in the South Atlantic but when they all give replies CFK isn't happy with, they simply reject them

I'm sure this isn't what Argentina should do in the current economic climate; try to distance itself from the EU in regards to trade.

Perhaps they were expecting the spanish to sway the EU response. ie they've tried to use gibralter as a parallel example for spain in some of the more excitable argie press in the past

 

[RobWilliams]

Perhaps they were expecting the spanish to sway the EU response. ie they've tried to use gibralter as a parallel example for spain in some of the more excitable argie press in the past

That's true, seems in line with their current strategy of targetting other nations who seem to have some nationality beef with the UK - Scotland for example. Well, AFAIK they're trying to talk to Scotland about the Falklands.

 

[StobieWan]

Perhaps they were expecting the spanish to sway the EU response. ie they've tried to use gibralter as a parallel example for spain in some of the more excitable argie press in the past

If they were then running harassing stop and checks on Spanish fishing vessels with FI flags probably wasn't the best way to begin the process


Ian

 

[aricho87]

Media Hype

This media hype of rising tensions is crap, the english have had a constant presence down in th falklands ever since the 1982 war. This is just a rotation of equipment and personnel. The equipment just so happens to be new and the personnel just so happens to be the future king.

If anything i would see it as the military putting prince williiam in a poitical backwater position, out of harms way.

While the argentinens have pride and would love the falklands back they are unwilling to go to war over it. On my recent visit to South America, i noticed that Argentinens air force resembled something out of a museum. Most of it was lying around, not beinng used and in a terrible state (most likely not fly worthy).

While the media is hypeing this issue up, suggesting the british would not be able to re-take the islands, i don't think the arg's would be able to take them either. Both countries have reduced amphibious forces, however the british subs and surface fleet would dominate any argentine naval force and crator there runways!

Just like to add, argentina is beautiful country, with the most gorgeous women, why would anyone want to fight in a place like that!

Just typical media propaganda if you ask me!

 

[RobWilliams]

This media hype of rising tensions is crap, the english have had a constant presence down in th falklands ever since the 1982 war. This is just a rotation of equipment and personnel. The equipment just so happens to be new and the personnel just so happens to be the future king.

If anything i would see it as the military putting prince williiam in a poitical backwater position, out of harms way.

It's not media hype, its Argentinian hype. They've just been more pro-active on the issue as of late + using Dauntless' and Prince Williams deployment as a springboard for embargos, trade issues and so on.

While the media is hypeing this issue up, suggesting the british would not be able to re-take the islands, i don't think the arg's would be able to take them either. Both countries have reduced amphibious forces, however the british subs and surface fleet would dominate any argentine naval force and crator there runways!

The media have always downplayed the capabilities of the UK, i mean many thought the last conflict would be impossible for the British to win.

Argentina has no amphibious capability, it has since retired both its amphibious assault ships + its carrier. The UK on the other hand has HMS Bulwark + Albion for that role.

 

[RobWilliams]

On a different note, if you want a good chuckle - google "El Malvinese" and look at this . . . . 'media outlets' website.

Their latest escapade in regards to the 19 Argentinians who spoke out against the government

Freedom of expression in Argentina? — MercoPress

Whether with a touch of irony or not, most of the Argentine mainstream press referred to the writers of this piece as “intellectuals,” but in El Malvinense a newspaper and web site produced in the southern province of Tierra del Fuego they were referred to as 'lackeys.' This article appeared under a reproduction of the front page of another newspaper Cronica, whose headline on February 22 shrieked, “On the side of the pirates” over pictures of four of the signatories.

Naturally, when you read stories such as "The Falklands war was an act of self defence to combat British aggression" you have a good idea of the calibre of the people who run the site.

Gave me a good laugh to read through anyway

 

[swerve]

This media hype of rising tensions is crap, the english have had a constant presence down in th falklands ever since the 1982 war.

There's been a constant British (not English) presence since 1833, not 1982. The Argentinean marines who invaded in 1982 had to fight a Royal Marine garrison.

 

[RobWilliams]

Does anyone have any info in regards to the proposed Argentinian nuclear powered submarine ARA Santa Fe?

All I can find is the RN sub deployment + publications in the Daily Mail + Mercopress

I know it's not going to be a massive issue itself due to its sonar signature etc against a Trafalgar or Astute but an interesting development none-the-less.