Falklands war - the sequel?

[Graham Kennedy]

Source

HMS Dauntless is to be deployed off the coast of the Falklands Islands in the South Atlantic, the Royal Navy has confirmed. The Portsmouth-based ship will be the first of the navy's new Type 45 air defence destroyers to go to the area. The Ministry of Defence said it was a routine deployment and HMS Dauntless would replace a frigate currently stationed there. A MoD spokesman said he would not say when the ship was due to set sail. He added that the deployment had nothing to do with increased tensions between the UK and Argentina about who owns the Falklands Islands.

BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said it was standard for the UK to have a permanent military presence in the region, which usually included a frigate, a patrol boat and occasionally a submarine, as well as troops and fighter aircraft. Our correspondent said he did not believe the decision to send HMS Dauntless was a case of the government trying to flex its military muscle. However, he did say it would "undoubtedly increase tensions".

The move comes ahead of Prince William's deployment to the region as an RAF search and rescue pilot, and the 30-year anniversary of the start of the Falklands conflict. Dauntless is the second of six new design destroyers being built for the Royal Navy, all of which will be based in Portsmouth. Type 45 destroyers have nearly twice the range - about 7,000 miles - and are 45% more fuel efficient than the Type 42 destroyers they are replacing in the £6bn project. A Royal Navy spokesman said: "The Royal Navy has had a continuous presence in the South Atlantic for many years. "The deployment of HMS Dauntless to the South Atlantic has been long planned, is entirely routine and replaces another ship on patrol."

Meanwhile, the government has ruled out bringing in a law to ensure the Falkland Islands' right to remain British. Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne said existing UN rules already offered protection against ongoing territorial claims made by Argentina.

There's been a few stories about rising tensions in the Falklands of late. They're drilling for oil around there, and Argentina isn't responding well - closing their ports to Falklands-flagged ships and convincing quite a few other countries to do the same, and generally making a nuisance of themsleves.

Hopefully it won't come to anything violent... and from what I've read the islands are sufficiently defended these days to make an invasion unlikely to succeed, or at least to be very costly.

[Deepcrush]

Tough issue, brings the question of exactly how able and ready is the UK to get into a war. If Argentina can put 5,000 troops on the island then what could the UK do to stop the take over? If Argentina can put 20,000 troops on the islands, what could the UK do to hope to take them back?

[Graham Kennedy]

It's hard to judge. Having done it once, there would be huge political pressure on the government to do it again, if needed. Any PM that let the Falklands be taken by force would be utterly humiliated in the eyes of the British people. Quite likely to the extent that it would end their political career.

So the will to recapture them would probably be there. But the capability? We've far better air defences in the Type 45s, but no carriers. I've no idea what we have now in terms of amphibious or troop carrying capacity.

The upside is that the islands are way better defended at the moment than they were before the last war, with four Typhoons based there plus SAMs, and navy ships and subs on hand. Whether Argentina would be able to overwhelm that... who can say. Maybe.

[Vic]

Woah, tall, is that a mast or a mack (mast+stack)? I can't imagine anyone putting a ship to sea with stability issues, it just looks like it might be unstable past, oh 45 degrees.

[Graham Kennedy]

That's a radar mast with what they claim is the best radar in the world on top of it. It's so big because they wanted the radar as high as possible to extend the horizon distance. No idea about stability, but one presumes the RN knows how to build ships that won't fall over.

[Mikey]

The Argentinians might be able to make some initial inroads, but they wouldn't be nearly able to withstand the total response... especially considering that this time there would be UN backing. Here's what confused me:

the government has ruled out bringing in a law to ensure the Falkland Islands' right to remain British.

A law needs to be in place to ensure the maintenance of the status quo?

[Graham Kennedy]

I think it was intended to be a symbolic thing rather than serving any practical purpose.

[Deepcrush]

It's hard to judge. Having done it once, there would be huge political pressure on the government to do it again, if needed. Any PM that let the Falklands be taken by force would be utterly humiliated in the eyes of the British people. Quite likely to the extent that it would end their political career.

So the will to recapture them would probably be there. But the capability? We've far better air defences in the Type 45s, but no carriers. I've no idea what we have now in terms of amphibious or troop carrying capacity.

I'm not doubting the will of the UK for if nothing else to simply play stubborn at it. Though as has been said its more a question of ability. A squadron of aircraft and a single AA ship vs the Argentinian Armed Forces... That's a tricky problem. IIRC, the UK is only fielding a single light carrier and I don't know where it is off the top of my head.

The upside is that the islands are way better defended at the moment than they were before the last war, with four Typhoons based there plus SAMs, and navy ships and subs on hand. Whether Argentina would be able to overwhelm that... who can say. Maybe.

I don't know if I'd call five hundred troops and a couple of ships "Way Better" anything. In an area like that the best defense would be to have bolstered the fighter forces. Rather then a single squadron of aircraft, half a dozen being in place there would surpass the aid of the surface ships.

[Graham Kennedy]

IIRC, the UK is only fielding a single light carrier and I don't know where it is off the top of my head.

It may be worse even than that; last I heard they were scrapping the actual sea harriers and converting the carrier into a helicopter carrier. Don't know if they've completed that process or not.

I don't know if I'd call five hundred troops and a couple of ships "Way Better" anything.

Given that the last invasion faced a force of less than a hundred men with no SAMs, no ships and no air cover at all then yes, I'd call what's there now way better.

What's interesting is that apparently a nuclear sub regularly deploys down that way. One such sub sent the whole Argentine navy back into port last time. Could they invade and support an occupation by air power alone? I wouldn't have thought so.

[Captain Seafort]

If Argentina can put 5,000 troops on the island then what could the UK do to stop the take over?

1) They can't - their amphib force can't even lift 500.

2) We'd annihilate the Argentine navy.

Anyone who thinks any repeat of the original Falklands invasion is remotely possible hasn't done any serious research into the opposing forces - the Argies have no carriers, their only amphibious capability is a converted Type 42 destroyer, and they're up against four Typhoons and much stronger ground forces than in '82. We'd destroy any assault force long before they came near the islands, even with the forces in place. If we got wind of the invasion beforehand, we could use Mount Pleasant to massively reinforce the garrison PDQ. It would be a one-sided massacre.

[Captain Seafort]

One such sub sent the whole Argentine navy back into port last time.

Not quite the whole navy.

[Tsukiyumi]

[Deepcrush]

Seafort, transporting troops that short a distance doesn't require much of a build up. Another problem is that while subs and aircraft pulled the win for your forces the last time around. Anti-submarine technology is much more available and you guys dropped your carrier based fleet. There also remains the issue that the Argentinian forces are now more professional and less fodder based, so they're less likely to just up and run. Compound the changes in the AFAR by the changes in the RN/RA/RAF as of late and the issue of outcome is far less clear.

These concerns together raised my questions to GK. Given a month or two, which is really all that would be needed to gather the needed transports, could the UK afford another conflict. And more importantly being, could the UK win such a conflict.

[Captain Seafort]

Seafort, transporting troops that short a distance doesn't require much of a build up.

Build up what? The Argentine Marines have one converted destroyer and a logistics ship. Anything else is going to be civvie, which would be great for building up forces once they took the islands, but it doesn't help them take them in the first place.

Another problem is that while subs and aircraft pulled the win for your forces the last time around. Anti-submarine technology is much more available and you guys dropped your carrier based fleet.

Submarine technology has also improved significantly - it's the lack of a carrier force that would be the real killer, and means we'd be unable to retake the Falklands. I don't dispute that - what I'm disputing is the notion that the Argies could take them in the first place.

Given a month or two, which is really all that would be needed to gather the needed transports

A couple of months would be more than enough time to turn the Falklands into an unassailable fortress, at least as far as Argentina is concerned.

[Deepcrush]

Build up what? The Argentine Marines have one converted destroyer and a logistics ship. Anything else is going to be civvie, which would be great for building up forces once they took the islands, but it doesn't help them take them in the first place.

Exactly how long do you think it takes to barrow a civilian shallow bottom craft? Ten minutes, fifteen if they sign up for the extended rental plan... Moving troops, even on civilian transportation isn't the problem. The issue comes in supplying the troops once they are on the island.

Submarine technology has also improved significantly - it's the lack of a carrier force that would be the real killer, and means we'd be unable to retake the Falklands. I don't dispute that - what I'm disputing is the notion that the Argies could take them in the first place.

You'll have minimal air coverage and little to no air reinforcements. Your subs can only last so long while engaged while hoping to remain effective when under attack.

A couple of months would be more than enough time to turn the Falklands into an unassailable fortress, at least as far as Argentina is concerned.

This has been brewing for the last two years. Something tells me that the UK just doesn't have the fight left in it to push this issue otherwise you would have fortified the islands already.