Britain to bolster Falklands defences.

[stevewinn]

][/b]

Britain's Falklands defences 'will be bolstered' amid fears of fresh invasion by Argentina.

Britain's military defences on the Falkland Islands could be bolstered amid fears Argentina could launch a new invasion, the Defence Secretary has said.

Michael Fallon confirmed land, sea and air defences were being upgraded in the face of a "very live threat" from the government in Buenos Aires on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

http://www.independe...n-10129355.html

This threat as been growing over the last two years. i guess it makes sense to increase defences, With Argentina trying to procure fighter jets and the leasing of long range bombers from Russia.

[Space Commander Travis]

If the pillocks in Westminster didn't always go along with NATO's latest "defensive" adventures designed to provoke Russia as much as they can and deposing Tyrants all over the place, whether they have anything to do with the UK or its interests at all, they might be able to find the resources to protect British people and territory, which I believe is what they're actually supposed to do.

[RoofGardener]

Long range bombers ? Weeell... I gather these are Sukhoi Su-24 ground support bombers. Not bad aircraft, but... well... the basic design is 40 years old. They are only JUST supersonic, and can only JUST reach the Falklands without mid-air refueling, I can't see them as being a "game changer", not up against modern Typhoon fighters, and static Rapier point-defence missile systems.

[Space Commander Travis]

well, here's the data, if anyone's interested:

Performance

• Maximum speed: 1,315 km/h (710 kn, 815 mph, Mach 1.08) at sea level; Mach 1.35 (1,654 km/h) at high altitude
  
• Combat radius: 615 km in a low-flying (lo-lo-lo) attack mission with 3,000 kg (6,615 lb) ordnance and external tanks ()
  
• Ferry range: 2,775 km (1,500 nm, 1,725 mi)
  
• Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,090 ft)
  
• Rate of climb: 150 m/s (29,530 ft/min)
  
• Wing loading: 651 kg/m² (133 lb/ft²)
  
• Thrust/weight: 0.60
  
• G-force limit: 6 g
  
• Takeoff roll: 1,550 m (5,085 ft)
  
• Landing roll: 1,100 m (3,610 ft)
  

How far is it from the nearest Argentine airbase to La Isla Bonita - I mean Malvinas?

[RoofGardener]

If the pillocks in Westminster didn't always go along with NATO's latest "defensive" adventures designed to provoke Russia as much as they can and deposing Tyrants all over the place, whether they have anything to do with the UK or its interests at all, they might be able to find the resources to protect British people and territory, which I believe is what they're actually supposed to do.

I think that's a trifle harsh, Norbert ? The Falklands Islands defenses are pretty good. Four typhoons, land-based multimode Radar, Rapiers, a type-42 Air Defense Destroyer, and around 800 combat troops, and that's before you consider the Falkland Islands Defense Force itself. (a light infantry company made up of Falklands Island volunteers)

But all of THAT is just intended as a tripwire. Thanks to the fancy new runway, additional aircraft - from fighters to Sentry AEW to troop-transporters - can be surged in within a day or three.

It would take more than the Argentinians can muster to overcome the basic garrison, let alone the reinforcements. I think the governments commitment is pretty sensible.

[Space Commander Travis]

The principal islands are about 300 miles (480 km) east of South America's southern Patagonian coast, at a latitude of about 52°S., so they wouldn't be able to get there and back (even if there was a base they could use nearby) without refuelling, and the old Herk tankers'd be pretty easy to intercept.

[shrooma]

let's hope the Argies are gonna be using their crack stunt-helicopter team, that was such a success on manoevers last week.....

.

[Space Commander Travis]

I think that's a trifle harsh, Norbert ? The Falklands Islands defenses are pretty good. Four typhoons, land-based multimode Radar, Rapiers, a type-42 Air Defense Destroyer, and around 800 combat troops, and that's before you consider the Falkland Islands Defense Force itself. (a light infantry company made up of Falklands Island volunteers)

But all of THAT is just intended as a tripwire. Thanks to the fancy new runway, additional aircraft - from fighters to Sentry AEW to troop-transporters - can be surged in within a day or three.

It would take more than the Argentinians can muster to overcome the basic garrison, let alone the reinforcements. I think the governments commitment is pretty sensible.

Arguably so, but withdrawing the last carrier with years to wait until the new ones are completed was surely the action of a very stupid government.

(Glad to see you are still talking to me by the way, mr. G.)

[RoofGardener]

I'd agree... but... which government made that decision ? Presumably we know years in advance when a carrier is coming to the end of its useful life ? So was this John Major's gaffe, or Tony Blairs ?

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, Ark Royal was originally scheduled to remain in service in 2016, but one of the first things the Cameron regime did when it came to power was to decide to withdraw her (and sell her for scrap, despite the fact that she'd only completed a major refit in 2007). And then the Cameron government farted about with the design on the Queen Elizabeth a bit more, so ensuring that she'd be later into service than anticipated.

[Cookie Monster]

This threat as been growing over the last two years. i guess it makes sense to increase defences, With Argentina trying to procure fighter jets and the leasing of long range bombers from Russia.

They would need to get their invasion in before we can get one of our new aircraft carriers operational and fitted out with F-35s. That means they have about 18 months left if they plan to attack. It wouldn't surprise me if Spain tries stealing Gibraltar at the same time. An important fact is that South American countries are largely supportive of Argentina meaning Brazil (which has an aircraft carrier) might ally with them in a conflict.

If Argentina does it I would like to see Britain be nasty about it this time.

[Cookie Monster]

Well, Ark Royal was originally scheduled to remain in service in 2016, but one of the first things the Cameron regime did when it came to power was to decide to withdraw her (and sell her for scrap, despite the fact that she'd only completed a major refit in 2007). And then the Cameron government farted about with the design on the Queen Elizabeth a bit more, so ensuring that she'd be later into service than anticipated.

We should have given it to Australia or Canada. Then if we needed it we have access.

[Thanato]

We should have given it to Australia or Canada. Then if we needed it we have access.

We barrely have enough man power to operate our surface fleet... and the last boats we got from England, well they are slowly coming into service after major major major refits and upgrades (would of been cheaper to build new Submarines)

[Border Collie]

They would need to get their invasion in before we can get one of our new aircraft carriers operational and fitted out with F-35s. That means they have about 18 months left if they plan to attack. It wouldn't surprise me if Spain tries stealing Gibraltar at the same time. An important fact is that South American countries are largely supportive of Argentina meaning Brazil (which has an aircraft carrier) might ally with them in a conflict.

If Argentina does it I would like to see Britain be nasty about it this time.

I do not believe the comment about Spain. South American countries may tend to be supportive of Argentina, although not all of them. Spain, in the event that it invades the territory of another EU member state will face the **** storm to end all **** storms. With their economy where it is, the idea of completely isolating itself from the rest of the EU would be suicidally stupid.

By the way, Argentinian-Brazilian are probably not warm enough for the Brazilians to jeopardise the relationship with both US and the EC.

If it happens, and I desperately hope it won't, Argentina will stand alone on this one.

[Cookie Monster]

I do not believe the comment about Spain. South American countries may tend to be supportive of Argentina, although not all of them. Spain, in the event that it invades the territory of another EU member state will face the **** storm to end all **** storms. With their economy where it is, the idea of completely isolating itself from the rest of the EU would be suicidally stupid.

By the way, Argentinian-Brazilian are probably not warm enough for the Brazilians to jeopardise the relationship with both US and the EC.

If it happens, and I desperately hope it won't, Argentina will stand alone on this one.

The sad thing about Argentina is that if it had been nice to Britain over the decades we may well have sold the Falklands too them. With them trying to take them by force once its political suicide for any future Prime Minister to hand them over. Britain's national pride is at stake.

Even if we didn't sell them Argentina could have had an oil exploration partnership with us. It would be cheaper to pipe the oil to mainland Argentina for refining instead of having to ship it off to distant lands. What fools.

[skookum]

Well, Ark Royal was originally scheduled to remain in service in 2016, but one of the first things the Cameron regime did when it came to power was to decide to withdraw her (and sell her for scrap, despite the fact that she'd only completed a major refit in 2007). And then the Cameron government farted about with the design on the Queen Elizabeth a bit more, so ensuring that she'd be later into service than anticipated.

Difference is we hold the Falklands at the moment so are defensive not offensive. Aircraft carriers are very good when you need a mobile airfield but we already have a heavily defended well equipped airfield on the islands.

It is the Argentinians that would benefit from a carrier if they are planning an invasion.

Edited March 24, 2015 by skookum

[stevewinn]

We barrely have enough man power to operate our surface fleet... and the last boats we got from England, well they are slowly coming into service after major major major refits and upgrades (would of been cheaper to build new Submarines)

It might have been cheaper but would they have been half as good? The thing about the Royal Navy they build ships to fight and with survivability in mind. Okay, upgrading the systems and interior cost money. but the hull and pressure hull should be first class.

way back when i was in school. age 9 on a school trip i went to watch HMS Ursula being launched in 1991. i believe she's still in service with the Canadian Navy. and has done you proud. if i remember rightly while serving in the Canadian Navy she along with her skilled crew at the time held the record for the best performance at any NATO exercise for evading and getting within striking range of a carrier.

Difference is we hold the Falklands at the moment so are defensive not offensive. Aircraft carriers are very good when you need a mobile airfield but we already have a heavily defended well equipped airfield on the islands.

It is the Argentinians that would benefit from a carrier if they are planning an invasion.

You make a good point. the Falkland Island is an unsinkable carrier. It takes 9,1/2 hours for a Typhoon fighter to reach the Falklands from the UK. (refuelling along the way seven times) So that is the time scale the falkland defences would have to hold out before reinforcements could arrive. (weather permitting)

Also to make a point this whole NEWS story could be a political ploy, ( i hear you gasp) The cynic in me thinks an election coming up, The Falklands war was one of the Tory parties finest hours, it also shows the Tory's are serious about defence. (or thats the picture their trying to paint) because in recent weeks they've came under alot of pressure to guarantee defence spending will remain at 2% of GDP in the next parliment. so far they've failed to commit to this guarantee.

Edited March 25, 2015 by stevewinn

[skookum]

I doubt the UK armed forces are quacking in their boots about a few SU-24's. Good aircraft if you were fighting a nation of similar aged aircraft but I doubt they could cut the mustard against the modern anti-aircraft frigates, typhoons and rapiers.

The Argentinian Air Force lost 60 fighters in the Falklands war and have never got anywhere near to replacing their loses. The best they seem to have is Mirage and Nesher fighters but they are in very small numbers.

Tactically the command was terrible telling its pilots to attack the warships and concentrate on them which left the QE2 and Canberra laden with arms and troops vastly untouched.

Edited March 25, 2015 by skookum

[Thanato]

It might have been cheaper but would they have been half as good? The thing about the Royal Navy they build ships to fight and with survivability in mind. Okay, upgrading the systems and interior cost money. but the hull and pressure hull should be first class.

way back when i was in school. age 9 on a school trip i went to watch HMS Ursula being launched in 1991. i believe she's still in service with the Canadian Navy. and has done you proud. if i remember rightly while serving in the Canadian Navy she along with her skilled crew at the time held the record for the best performance at any NATO exercise for evading and getting within striking range of a carrier.

The subs have been 'in service for about 14-10 years and only one is fit to fire torpedoes. Some can't dive deep. It was clouted as a great budget savings but has been a budgetary disaster.

[stevewinn]

The subs have been 'in service for about 14-10 years and only one is fit to fire torpedoes. Some can't dive deep. It was clouted as a great budget savings but has been a budgetary disaster.

Canada isnt alone in this, we have our fair share of disasters on cost saving procurement. the old saying goes, buy cheap pay twice.

[Thanato]

Canada isnt alone in this, we have our fair share of disasters on cost saving procurement. the old saying goes, buy cheap pay twice.

A lot has to do with the way they where stored between being decommissioned in 1994 and recommissioned in the RCN in 2000-2004. Many of the systems decayed, and in some cases at least wrt one sub the hull is corroded and will never dive to full depth.

[Cookie Monster]

Canada isnt alone in this, we have our fair share of disasters on cost saving procurement. the old saying goes, buy cheap pay twice.

As the armed forces of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all answer to the Queen (not their respective Parliaments) why don't we have one army to save costs? Before anybody tries questioning that I will point out how each Parliament votes on war but the motion then has to go through the Monarch.

Even better lets have a Federation to stream line other aspects of the state which we each share.

[shrooma]

Difference is we hold the Falklands at the moment so are defensive not offensive.

It is the Argentinians that would benefit from a carrier if they are planning an invasion.

.

what the Argentinians need to remember, is that while they may cheat at Football, and win matches

we cheat at Battleships.

and win wars.

.

[Thanato]

As the armed forces of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all answer to the Queen (not their respective Parliaments) why don't we have one army to save costs? Before anybody tries questioning that I will point out how each Parliament votes on war but the motion then has to go through the Monarch.

Even better lets have a Federation to stream line other aspects of the state which we each share.

Parliament has to vote Andes d troops the queen does nothing in Canada,the govourner General has no say in anything.

[Harry_Dresden]

Well all this talk of Argentinian aggression is starting to move things along... don't know why since the Argentinians don't really pose much of a military threat. Needless to say, Britain will now spend a larger chunk of it's defence budget to safeguard the Islands in any case. Surely the Argies realise that they will never out spend the UK.