Comments on: British defense chiefs prepare new plan to defend Falklands

By: Yakko77

Yakko77 — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:45:12 +0000

The Royal Navy is indeed a lot smaller but the newer frigates and destroyers are more capable than the ones they had in ’82 though that is no substitute for the lack of carrier air wings or the logistics to keep it supplied for long.

By: CorporatePiggy

CorporatePiggy — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:26:41 +0000

If the Britt’s reinforce before the invasion, they can hold.

No way in hell. They’d have to land a couple divisions, dig in, and establish air superiority which would require a carrier battle group and a 7000 mile logistics line.

That’s not even vaguely possible with the UK’s force disposition.

The big question is; what side will the US take this time?

cozmo on January 13, 2013 at 1:27 PM

The wrong one.

The only thing that is giving the Argentinian govt. pause is international public opinion.

By: ctmom

ctmom — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:24:49 +0000

Don’t they have to ask Obama first?

By: MelonCollie

MelonCollie — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:30:51 +0000

Hey I know, the British ‘defense’ chiefs can create a poison gas unit: 100 draftees with tins of baked beans and metabolism-increasing pills. In the event of an invasion, they alternately eat the beans and pills until they’re stuffed…

By: PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:29:41 +0000

They’ve built a complete air base, RAF Mount Pleasant, since ’82. Judging from satellite shots it has a dispersal area with sixteen revetted but not otherwise hardened parking spots for fighter aircraft. The major problem with the dispersal area is that cutting its taxiways at two points will trap all the dispersed aircraft. There’s also a mass ramp where additional aircraft could be parked.

The base housing areas look vulnerable. They should have been built much farther away from the operations area and provided with their own local defences.

There are also an indeterminate number of what look like SAM sites throughout the Falklands. They’re hard to see on satellite imagery and, not unreasonably, the Brits aren’t talking.

My guess is the Brits could stop a moderate airborne Argentine effort with the force on hand and some luck, or at least make it very expensive. Seaborne components of an invasion would have serious problems with the RN’s submarine force IF the Brits really want to fight.

An interesting question is: would Obama suddenly rediscover the Monroe Doctrine? Given his history of love and respect for Britain, it seems possible.

By: d1carter

d1carter — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:22:34 +0000

Spitballs..?

By: MelonCollie

MelonCollie — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:09:41 +0000

It’ll be the most pathetic ‘war’ imaginable. Both nations have gutted their military and have no nerve.

By: rob verdi

rob verdi — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:04:35 +0000

Argentine is hardly in any better shape.

By: catmman

catmman — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:00:19 +0000

The British navy is a shadow even of what they had in 82.

Don’t really see them being able to do much about anything, let alone a determined invasion.

But, who knows. Perhaps the British Lion can still roar…

By: blue13326

blue13326 — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:54:27 +0000

Skip to the bottom of the page and look at how much smaller their forces are now compared with 30 years back.