Falklands tensions

[StobieWan]

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.

They've taken an awful lot of time to refurb their existing diesels..more than five years? They've no experience in PWR's and no experience in the hull forms for nuke boats. I'll just call BS on this one

 

[RobWilliams]

They've taken an awful lot of time to refurb their existing diesels..more than five years? They've no experience in PWR's and no experience in the hull forms for nuke boats. I'll just call BS on this one

Looking more into it, it appears they planned on replacing a diesel-electric system for a nuclear one + were going to piggy-back on Brazils nuclear sub program.

But "unconfirmed Argentinian Naval Sources" from Mercopress said that they

consider the project ‘pharaonic and disproportionate’ given current budget resources for Defence plus the fact that the TR hull is “unviable in space and density to lodge a nuclear reactor".

I think you're right though, besides, even with nuclear propulsion it'd be just as vunerable.

 

[StobieWan]

Looking more into it, it appears they planned on replacing a diesel-electric system for a nuclear one + were going to piggy-back on Brazils nuclear sub program.

But "unconfirmed Argentinian Naval Sources" from Mercopress said that they



I think you're right though, besides, even with nuclear propulsion it'd be just as vunerable.

Total white elephant project - they need to recapitalise their air force badly, get their existing diesel subs into shape, the list goes on. Actually fitting a reactor into a hull that size will be mind boggling. I'd have thought if they wanted to spend money, then AIP would suit their requirements nicely however?

 

[RobWilliams]

Total white elephant project - they need to recapitalise their air force badly, get their existing diesel subs into shape, the list goes on.

AFAIK they're working on their current subs + getting them in order, in fact the supposed nuclear reactor was supposed to be fitted in a completed sub.

Actually fitting a reactor into a hull that size will be mind boggling. I'd have thought if they wanted to spend money, then AIP would suit their requirements nicely however?

You'd have thought so wouldn't you, I wouldn't be suprised if it was purely to show the UK it can do pretty technologically advanced projects like the UK can, or a nuclear powered sub is worth more global grandeur.

Good update on the congressmans visit, seems like he has a very strong opinion on the Falklands matter (i refuse to call it an issue)

“Self-determination is the right path for the Falkland Islands†— MercoPress

Before my visit, I thought the Falkland Islands were a colonial backwater. I spent my time in the Falklands learning about the economy, meeting business leaders and factory workers, touring schools and visiting the British defence facility at Mount Pleasant. I saw for myself that Falklanders have a democratic system of government, an effective Chamber of Commerce, produce annual budget surpluses and maintain excellent primary and secondary schools. The Falkland Islands has determined for itself that it wishes to remain associated with Britain. It is not a colonial outpost held hostage by a foreign military.

The first line it probably what most imagine about the Falklands. His following statement about the US policy on the matter is also promising

The Obama administration’s official position is that the United Kingdom and Argentina should negotiate the sovereignty of the Falklands. This misguided policy misses the point of the Falklanders’ right to self-determination, a right that the British government has been determined to protect until Falklanders decide otherwise. The issue of sovereignty is a non-starter unless the Falklanders expressly choose to change their current status. The Argentine Constitution contains a provision that states that the Falkland Islands are Argentine, making negotiations tainted from the start.

 

[StobieWan]

I think they've been working on those subs for something like ten years - I did have a warships article on the whole thing but I've had a clearout so doubt I've got it to hand.

Basically the entire Argentinian military is in a perilously dilapidated state - getting it back into shape will be a major task. Fitting one old diesel out with a PWR against that background is bonkers

 

[Volkodav]

I think they've been working on those subs for something like ten years - I did have a warships article on the whole thing but I've had a clearout so doubt I've got it to hand.

Basically the entire Argentinian military is in a perilously dilapidated state - getting it back into shape will be a major task. Fitting one old diesel out with a PWR against that background is bonkers

They were laid down in the mid 80's so its closer to 30 years. The nuclear power option is quite interesting as I believe the reactor concerned is related to the design Argentina sold to Australia for research and the production of medical and industrial isotopes.

 

[Volkan-K]

Vulcan Flight Tests Scheduled For April

The last flying Vulcan should be taking to the skies again in April as supporters dig deep to fund her annual maintenance. More than £100,000 (approx. $157,000 U.S.) was raised in February, giving the charity’s Trustees the confidence needed to send vital aircraft systems to specialist suppliers for refurbishment. To reach the spectacular 2012 Diamond Jubilee flying season, the Trust must now raise £75,000 in March, the same in April and £50,000 in June.

 

[RobWilliams]

Argentina's finally thrown down on the legal action side of things

Argentina begins legal actions against oil companies operating in the Falklands — MercoPress

The Argentine Government announced on Saturday it had begun the legal proceedings put together with the AFIP tax agency against five British oil companies, accusing them of “carrying out illegal operations” in the Falklands/Malvinas Islands.

I wait with baited breath to see just how Timerman proceeds with this, and just which court he goes too.

 

[RobWilliams]

Finally got a deployment date for HMS Dauntless, 4th April.

HMS Dauntless leaves Wednesday for routine deployment to the South Atlantic — MercoPress

 

[exPrivate]

On the other hand we have a new peaceful Argentinian attack through some Nobel Peace prize winners.
Six Nobel Peace Prize winners call on UK to open talks on Falklands
I dare to inform you that there is a real pro-Argentinian campaign in Eastern Europe among the left (ex-Communist, now Socialist) intellectuals and we, that are pro-British=pro-Falklands are just in absolute minority.
But "We shall find to the end, we shall never surrender!"

 

[CheeZe]

Within Argentina, there's mixed feelings. Particularly amongst the "intellectuals." I like that someone's being critical about the current tactics and not just giving into jingoistic, nationalistic wave. It's rather difficult to do the former and rather tempting to give into the latter.

BBC News - Argentina intellectuals query Falkland Islands policy

BBC News - Falkland Islands: Argentina's dissenters

It's also interesting that the documentary maker Ms. Florin (born in 81) says she knows many people of younger generations who are less hyped up about the claim. But I think that the common theme here is that the people who are most critical are the ones who have the education and training to be thus.

 

[RobWilliams]

On the other hand we have a new peaceful Argentinian attack through some Nobel Peace prize winners.
Six Nobel Peace Prize winners call on UK to open talks on Falklands
I dare to inform you that there is a real pro-Argentinian campaign in Eastern Europe among the left (ex-Communist, now Socialist) intellectuals and we, that are pro-British=pro-Falklands are just in absolute minority.
But "We shall find to the end, we shall never surrender!"

Look at a few of the people on the list and exactly what they've done, it's very interesting why they're supporting Argentina in this.

Rigoberta Menchú - massive amount of work on indiginous peoples rights, why she campaigns for indiginous peoples rights and doesn't seem to value the Falklanders views is bizarre, unless it's the whole 'they're not the real indiginous people' thing.

Jody Williams - human rights AND " . . known around the world for her work in banning antipersonnel landmines" . . . Must've forgotten the Argentinian presents still on the islands then

Shirin Edabi - human rights - "NPP for her efforts for democracy and human rights"

In fact, the baseline agenda is human rights and essentially freedom, interesting that they're essentially siding with Argentina when asking the UK to open talks on sovereignity.

Then there's the fact that since the article in MercoPress has been posted, there's been nothing else since (much like the offer of 3x flights from Buenos Aires per week, that seems to have evapourated)

EDIT: quotes are from Wiki for those interested

 

[RobWilliams]

Within Argentina, there's mixed feelings. Particularly amongst the "intellectuals." I like that someone's being critical about the current tactics and not just giving into jingoistic, nationalistic wave. It's rather difficult to do the former and rather tempting to give into the latter.

Some Argentinian media outlets have since daemonized the people who wrote that report, one particular distributor - El Malvinense - being more vocal than others

the nice people at El Malvinense came to the conclusion that they were traitors and therefore subject to articles 214 and 215 of the Argentine penal code and, as such, liable to prison sentences varying from ten years to life.

Freedom of expression in Argentina? — MercoPress

Fortunetly they represent the extreme side of the Argentinian cause. It's good to see how people are making decisions for themselves rather than having the conclusions they should be making told to them.

It's also interesting that the documentary maker Ms. Florin (born in 81) says she knows many people of younger generations who are less hyped up about the claim. But I think that the common theme here is that the people who are most critical are the ones who have the education and training to be thus.

An education does wonders for ones ability to question and formulate opinions for themselves, sadly, said education seems to be in danger in Argentina.

Guess why Argentina restricts book imports: possible lead poisoning from ink — MercoPress

To me, that smacks of censorship, but i'm a suspicious guy

 

[t68]

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

British sovereignty dates back to 1765 but the first reliable sighting of the Islands are by the Dutch in 1600; in 1690 Captain John Strong on the Welfare discovered the channel between the Islands. But unfortunately the first 1764 settlement was by the French Navigator/Military Commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville in present day Port Louis East Falkland, in 1765 Captain John Byron claimed West Falklands with the first British settlement in 1766, so really it is a Hodge poge of claims on the Islands between the Dutch French and British.

You really have to wonder Argentine objectives and how far they could go in their efforts to claim the Falklands in a current article in the Navy magazine (printed by the Navy League of Australia) Argentina has withdrawn cooperation in the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission and extended its fishing seasons which will have a long term impact on fish stocks for the Falkland Islanders, rejected the 1995 joint declaration on Hydrocarbons in cooperation agreement between Argentina and the Falklands and placing a ban on charter flights travelling thru Argentine airspace to the Islands in 2003.

But if the British government as announced some time ago that they which to reengage with Australia/New Zealand in the long term not only in a military sense but an economic sense. From a fibre optic security view, plans exit that might make it feasible to lay a cable from Australia to New Zealand to the Falklands Island then onto south America then into Europe to safe guard our cables that currently run through north and potential conflict zones, not only then would the UK have a vested interest in the security of the Falklands but also Australia and New Zealand which new Zealand did provide assistance to the British task force in 1982 by replacing a Frigate in the Indian Ocean. With increased co-operation between the MOD, NZDF and ADF and future goodwill visits by the RNZN and RAN might pressure the Argentines from the aggressive talk and mitigate any thought of an adventuress engagement against the Falklands in the future.

 

[StobieWan]

British sovereignty dates back to 1765 but the first reliable sighting of the Islands are by the Dutch in 1600; in 1690 Captain John Strong on the Welfare discovered the channel between the Islands. But unfortunately the first 1764 settlement was by the French Navigator/Military Commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville in present day Port Louis East Falkland, in 1765 Captain John Byron claimed West Falklands with the first British settlement in 1766, so really it is a Hodge poge of claims on the Islands between the Dutch French and British.

You really have to wonder Argentine objectives and how far they could go in their efforts to claim the Falklands in a current article in the Navy magazine (printed by the Navy League of Australia) Argentina has withdrawn cooperation in the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission and extended its fishing seasons which will have a long term impact on fish stocks for the Falkland Islanders, rejected the 1995 joint declaration on Hydrocarbons in cooperation agreement between Argentina and the Falklands and placing a ban on charter flights travelling thru Argentine airspace to the Islands in 2003.

But if the British government as announced some time ago that they which to reengage with Australia/New Zealand in the long term not only in a military sense but an economic sense. From a fibre optic security view, plans exit that might make it feasible to lay a cable from Australia to New Zealand to the Falklands Island then onto south America then into Europe to safe guard our cables that currently run through north and potential conflict zones, not only then would the UK have a vested interest in the security of the Falklands but also Australia and New Zealand which new Zealand did provide assistance to the British task force in 1982 by replacing a Frigate in the Indian Ocean. With increased co-operation between the MOD, NZDF and ADF and future goodwill visits by the RNZN and RAN might pressure the Argentines from the aggressive talk and mitigate any thought of an adventuress engagement against the Falklands in the future.

Our claim is founded on continuous and uncontested occupation of the Islands, not primacy of discovery. Basically, we founded a civilian colony there before Argentina existed as a country and Argentina didn't raise this as an issue until the 1930's as far as I can tell. In short, legally, we're not relying on having been there first or whatever.

Neither can we enter into negotiations with Argentina over sovereignty, as we have no legal right to do so - we adhere to the UN position on right of self determination.

QED.

I'd be interested to hear more about how feasible getting a cable from NZ to the Falklands would be mind - that's a heck of a stretch, surely?

 

[Todjaeger]

Our claim is founded on continuous and uncontested occupation of the Islands, not primacy of discovery. Basically, we founded a civilian colony there before Argentina existed as a country and Argentina didn't raise this as an issue until the 1930's as far as I can tell. In short, legally, we're not relying on having been there first or whatever.

IIRC Argentina did raise an issue about the British colony on the Falkland Islands circa ~1884. A few years after the Argentine State Dept or its equivalent commissioned a map which indicated by colouration that the Falkland Islands (still listed as Islas Malvinas) was outside of territory claimed by Argentina at the time. That same map was used to decide a land claim on islands in Beagle Sound in favour of Chile, and nearly lead to a war between Chile and Argentina just a few years before the Falklands War.

It also might be worth noting, that by the time Argentina raised the issue in ~1884, the colony on the Falklands Island was a profitable venture, after successive years of investment by Britain.

The next time the Government of Argentina raised the issue of Argentine claims to the Falklands was under Peron just after WWII in the mid to late 40's...

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

Our claim is founded on continuous and uncontested occupation of the Islands, not primacy of discovery. Basically, we founded a civilian colony there before Argentina existed as a country ...

Not quite. There was a settlement planted & run by the RN for a few years in the 1760s & 1770s - which was contested by Spain. There was a Spanish settlement there at the same time, run by the colonial government in Buenos Aires. That outlasted the British settlement by almost 40 years, & was eventually evacuated, not by the Spanish (their garrison had upped sticks a few years earlier, due to the exigencies of war at home, leaving the colonists), but by the rebels who were running the main part of what is now Argentina from Buenos Aires, after they'd taken over from the Spanish. This was before their formal declaration of independence, but after the de facto independence of what is now Argentina.

We didn't return until over 20 years later - and again, initially with an RN-governed settlement, begun by taking over the remnants of a failing settlement planted under the auspices of independent Argentina, & running it as a military outpost for several years.

The first civilian British government in the Falklands was established in 1841.

 

[swerve]

..From a fibre optic security view, plans exit that might make it feasible to lay a cable from Australia to New Zealand to the Falklands Island then onto south America then into Europe to safe guard our cables that currently run through north and potential conflict zones,.

That'd be an extraordinarily long submarine cable, & I don't see it making economic sense. Also, why go via the Falkands? St Helena makes much more sense - as at present.

Look at the current submarine cable network. - Submarine Cable Map or Greg's Cable Map

 

[t68]

That'd be an extraordinarily long submarine cable, & I don't see it making economic sense. Also, why go via the Falkands? St Helena makes much more sense - as at present.

Look at the current submarine cable network. - Submarine Cable Map or Greg's Cable Map

I haven’t got the actual plans, but looking at the submarine cable network there appears to be no cable running from NZ to the South Americas. Buy running a cable from NZ to the Falklands then up to Saint Helena then into Europe, Australia can bypass possible trouble spots in the South China Seas, Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Developing fibre optic cables into the Falkland’s Islands provide NZ/AU with secure friendly ports with a country we have traditional depended upon, it can only strength ties between the UK and NZ/AU plus also helping with the security of the Falkland Islander with secure communications with UK.

 

[swerve]

You've missed the point. There's no need to go via the Falklands to get to St. Helena. Direct from Cape Town to St. Helena is 3130 km. Via Stanley is 12280 km. You're proposing to build 9000 thousand km of cable which would serve no purpose other than to connect 3000 people in the Falklands to the rest of the world.That'd be the most expensive submarine cable in the world, per user, by a gigantic margin.

The idea of a cable connecting Australia & New Zealand to the rest of the world without going via SE Asia is sensible - but (1) there are already such cables, across the Pacific to North America, & (2) the proposed route doesn't make any sense, for the reason given above.

If other routes are thought desirable, there are two which have some logic to them.
1) Across the Indian Ocean to Mauritius or Reunion. That connects to the existing cable to South Africa, from where there are cables via St. Helena to Brazil (also connected to Europe & N. America), & offshore to Europe.

2) A new route to Chile via South Pacific islands, maybe via Easter Island.

The Falklands are much too far off any possible route to St. Helena. Even if one wanted to avoid coming ashore in South Africa, it would be much more logical to go direct to St. Helena.