Falklands war 2012.

What happens on first contact with the enemy?

 

What would the first contact be? An Argentine air attack, navy attack, naval or landing. What?

 

All 3 at the same time.

Small units of specialized troops causing panic and chaos can be near impossible to stop.

 

"No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy." Carl von Cheesewiz.

 

But their is only 1 place they could attack. Well in that case, they would lost 4 air aircraft, the UK would lose 1. Then their air landed troops would take west Falkland, but their navy landed troops would be pushed back, and when their second wave of aircraft came in the British would be really, and take out half of them, while this is happening the UK would be sending down more airpower from Ascension, and our nuclear Submarine would sink on site. Then within 48 hours the UK will have total control of the air, and 24 jets. With that Argentina is defeated.

This is my fantasy of what would happen.

 

They do if your plan is based on any first attack.

 

I wouldn't worry about the Falklands. The UK may very well come apart at the seams long before the Argies strike.

 

Research.

Honest, it is not that hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_air_force

If you look, you will see the fighter they have the most of (34) is the Lockheed Martin A-4AR Fightinghawk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-4AR_Fightinghawk

The 1982 Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas) took a heavy toll on the Argentine Air Force, which lost over 60 aircraft. Due to the deteriorating national economic situation and political distrust of the military, the Air Force was denied the resources needed to replace its war losses.

The supply of modern combat aircraft had been restricted since the United States had imposed an arms embargo in 1978 for human rights abuses,[1] there were further restrictions when the United Kingdom also imposed an arms embargo in 1982. The only combat aircraft that the Air Force could obtain were ten Mirage 5Ps, transferred from the Peruvian Air Force; 19 Mirage IIICJs from Israel, veterans of the Six-Day War; and two Mirage IIIB trainers from the French Air Force.

In 1989, Carlos Menem was elected President of Argentina and quickly established a pro-United States foreign policy which lead to the country gain a Major non-NATO ally status.[2] Although the economic situation improved, the funds to purchase new built combat aircraft like the Mirage 2000 remained unavailable.

In 1994, the United States made a counteroffer to modernize 36 ex-USMC A-4M Skyhawks in a US$282 million deal that would be carried out by Lockheed Martin and included the privatization of the Fabrica Militar de Aviones (Spanish for Military Aircraft Factory), now Lockheed Martin Aircraft Argentina SA. In 2010, FMA reverted back to the Argentine government as Fabrica Argentina de Aviones (FADEA).

Production
Argentine Air Force technicians chose 32 A-4M (built between 1970/1976)[3][4] and 4 TA-4F[5] airframes from the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona to upgrade.

Operational history

Overflying the Obelisk of Buenos Aires during the Argentina Bicentennial
The Fightinghawks, having received Air Force serials C-901 to C-936, saw their first group arrive in Argentina on 18 December 1997 and the first "Argentine" A-4AR was rolled out on 3 August 1998 at Cordoba. The last one, number 936, was delivered to the Air Force in March 2000. Two aircraft (a one-seat and a two-seat) remain some time in the United States for weapons homologation.


Now kindly tell me again about Argentina not replacing their "1970's planes".

This is a radical refurbishment of the A-4. The A-4AR Fightinghawk is about as similar to the original A-4 as the F/A-18 Super Hornet is to the original F-18 Hornet.

And over half of their Air Force is completely new, Post-Falklands. You are sadly mistaken if you believe otherwise.

 

I do not expect the UK force to get much beyond the horn of Brazil.

If anything, Argentina has probably learned to not let the UK force reach much farther south then there. That would be about the point where Argentina would be able to reach the force with Air to Ground anti-ship missiles. I would expect them to start launching attacks about there.

Yes, the force would shoot down most of them, but they will get occasional lucky shots. And the constant raids will deplete the UK stockpiles of defensive missiles, while they could return to home bases and get more anti-ship missiles. Eventually, you will have missiles incomming without missiles to shoot at them (remember my scenario of a UK-US conflict in the Falklands).

Eventually, the UK will start to take losses, while Argentina will loose nothing but a handfull of missiles.

And who cares about the UK subs. Subs generally do not attack other subs, unless you are talking about Cold War scenarios between US and Soviet subs. In a real war, expect Argentine subs to go after fuelers, support vessels, and supply ships (like ROROs and troop transports).

 

Not logistical, as much a reconissance support (they allowed the UK to get feeds from their recon birds in space).

As to who they would support, it depends on who the agressor is. I would expect them to support the nation on the defensive, reguardless of which nation is the agressor.

If the UK attacks Argentina, they would support Argentina to prevent European Agression in the Americas.

If Argentina is the agressor, I would expect them to support the UK as solidarity to their traditional ally.

 

Argentina may have assistance from other Latin American countries. Hell, I may come out with a shotgun to see if I can help the Argies. No one in the western hemisphere has any use for the British.

 

And that is exactly what it is, a fantasy. No connection with reality.

 

Traditional ally? Look at the way the British members of this forum talk about America. They are indicative of a large segment of British opinion. Ally my ass. Nothing is forever.

 

Do it, I will get my long bow out and shoot you in the back. Hahahaha.

What about the British territories in the western hemisphere, or Canada, or France or the US for that matter.

 

So you are saying in another war Argentina would win easy.

Lets just think about this for one second, would Argentina attack the British fleet when they are 1 mile from an airbase? Because they would be nowhere near the horn of Brazil, and fleet vs fleet, Britain would win, with it's nuclear submarines playing a big part, and how many ships does Argentina have that can go that for out? all of them? ships that would be being used to send more troops to the Falklands and planes being used for the same thing, to try and take it? The British submarines sinking any Argentine ship going between Argentina and the Falklands.

I see only one way for Argentina to win, and that isn't attacking the British where they would never be, but taking the Falklands fast, in 24 hours, and taking the airbase. But how many troops could Argentina land at the same time? Could they put the airbase out of action, but they wouldn't want to do that. And with the UK having tanks, 105 mm guns and Apache helicopters, the Argies would find it hard to defeat just 1250 troops.

 

Britain will lose everything in time. Those who were once your best friends think you have changed so much that it isn't possible to save the relationship. Those who have always been your enemies watch in anticipation.

 

In time Britain will get rid of its submarines so it can afford to continue paying the dole to an increasing segment of its population.

 

Why are you so anti British?

We are very friendly people............we dont even carry guns.

True theres a lot wrong in Britain, but that also applies to every other nation.......but when it comes to the crunch, as history has shown the British always persevere, and it will take alot more than a few Argentinian fruit cakes to get one over us!

 

Hmmmm


Arent we in NATO?

Doesnt that count for something?

 

It does of we are attacked.

 

Hahahaha, great post.

 

Take no notice - those who reflexively hate entire nations, more often than not suffer from deep insecurities as to their own worth. We have seen off the might of Napoleonic France, the Armada and the Dons, and the might of Nazi Germany. Britain's military is ranked third in the world, after the US and China. http://www.dirjournal.com/info/top-ten-armies-in-the-world/ Argentina's military would be lucky to be included in the top 25.

 

Do you never actually read what I say? I did not say anything like that at all.

I gave an example, speculating where the UK would be most vulnerable, and where Argentina would use it's greatest strength. If the UK responded like they did last time, the results are pretty much what would happen again.

Well, that is stupid for multiple reasons. Of course they would not do that.

Is the UK going to somehow build airbases every 2 miles from the cliffs of Dover to the Falklands?

The UK fleet would have to pass the horn of Brazil to make it down to Argentina. Otherwise they would sit happily in the North Atlantic, and Argentina would get a political coup, by announcing to the world (especially the radicals in South America) that their power was so great that they have frightened the UK so much they refuse to come engage them.

And no, it would not be fleet Vs. fleet. Argentina is not stupid. Just like last time, they would use their most powerfull weapon, their Air Force.

I actually expect the subs to play little to no part in this, because the Argentine fleet (if used at all) would simply be doing raids like I have discussed earlier. Attempting to close in during times of rough weather, firing off aslvos of missiles when within range, then fading away.

You already said the British ships will not pass the horn of Brazil. What are they going to do, pass through the Suez Canal, then around the Horn of Africa?

And the same way as I told you a UK-US conflict in the Falklands would go, this would be largely the exact same thing all over again. Except without the fleet action at all. Argentina would simply throw up repeated waves of land based aircraft. Eventually the air defense missiles will run out. Then it will be ship after ship struck and either damaged or sunk.

I see absolutely no reason why you are so obsessed over the Falklands. But it seems to be detached from any kind of reality. You are to young to remember the last conflict, to you it is just a couple of pages in a history book.

You can have absolutely no idea the shock that was felt throughout the world when a 3rd world nation gave the UK a most serious spanking in 1982. When one of the newest ships in the Royal Navy (the HMS Sheffield was only 7 years old when it was sunk) was destroyed by French missiles, launched from a French aircraft, with Israeli aircraft and a Learjet of all things for support.

And after that, many simply placed the credit of the sinking on their use of French missiles. No credit on the abilities of the pilots or aircraft themselves.

Then less then 3 weeks later, there came "Bomb Alley". Where the Argentines sank many more ships (including the 5 year old HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, 7 years old, and the 4 year old HMS Coventry). And those were not the only ships sunk, but if the newest and best ships in the fleet at the time could be sunk so easily, what does that tell the world? Especially when a lot of those were from good old fashioned "dumb bombs".

And this done by what many though of as a "Bananna Republic".

No, they would most likely not even attack the Falklands. They would not have to. Launch repeated waves of fighters at the UK fleet as Admiral Antileftwinger races down to support the islands, and sink their ships a couple at a time.

That may be, that may not be. However, there is a big difference between offensive and defensive warfare.

And in a future UK-Argentine War, Argentina would start it like they did last time, on the defensive. They would start their attacks as far North as they possibly could. And as the UK fleet moved further South, the air attacks would pick up more and more. Because as the UK support lines are stretching, the Argentine support lines are shrinking and getting stronger.

This is one of the mistakes Argentina made last time. They were thinking of their manhood, and trying to engage surface ships against surface ships. And they saw the result, their ships and UK ships sunk by aircraft and submarines before the ships got anywhere close to each other.

 

1) The people who live on the Falklands, own the Falklands. it is their home. They choose to be part of the UK, as a sovereign entity. If that is what they choose, the UK will defend that... regardless of what any south American nation wishes.

2) Assumptions can be made as to "what if". Ultimately, the Argentinians will be worse off. The last time it lasted weeks and the Uk had to travel 1/2 way round the world to do it. Eveyone thought the same then.. "It cant be done"... but it was. We lost a couple of ships. We did not "get a whiping". We faced adversity and won... as we tend to do.

3) Not a single person on this forum can predict what will happen, or has any idea as to any potential military strategy. I am sure the MOD has consider this scenario in great detail.

4) Argentina will not invade the Falklands. the political circumstances last time were very different. if they do, who do you think the UN would side with?

this threads a bit of a joke, to be honest. I find it funny how the Americans have turned it into another forum for expressing their delusions of grandeur! Get a grip!

 

A "couple of ships"? Try 7 ships, including 2 destroyers and 2 cruisers that were claimed to be the best in the world at the time, none over 7 years old.

Argentina lost 1 cruiser (WWII era), 1 submarine (sunk at the dock), and a few patrol boats. When you line up ships sunk to ships sunk, Argentina comes out the winner there.

Yes, the UK won. But it also in winning this created a fundamental shift in how modern naval wars would be fought. And spurred a massive R&D drive in the US and other nations to upgrade and rapidly deploy CIWS weapons as fast as possible.

And this was driven home even more 5 years later when the USS Stark was struck by 2 Exocet missiles launched by Iraq.

Actually, some of us here can. Some of us are/were members of the military, and eat-sleep-live this kind of thing on a daily basis. To us, these kind of "mental war games" are just part of what we do to sharpen our own thinking. Much like a former high school football player might play "Fantasy Football".

And I am not sure of the MOD, but the OP actually does not think these things out at all. He repeatedly throws out the same scenarios (or variants of them) over and over again, with very little forethought. The only real trend is always "The UK will beat any opponant because...".

Oh, in that I fully agree. In 1982, the nation was under the control of a brutal military junta, which conducted the war mostly as a way to rally popular public support around their crumbling reign of brutality. But it backfired, and the end of the Falklands War also brought about the end of the Dirty War.

Today is far different, and I do not expect a repeat of 1982. Unless it comes about as the OP of this thread has suggested several times. In that the UK attack Argentina to gain control of the Southern part of that nation.

"Delusions of grandeur"? Excuse me? I have been discussing 2 nations, neither one of which is the US. Since you may not know me, I will juts say that I view all of these as a mental exercise, looking at things like forces involved, logistics, historical tactics, and the like. I could not care less if the nations are Argentina against England, Belize against Russia, or Nazi Germany against the Dominion of Canada.

Now "Delusion of Grandeur" would be accurate, if this was say the US against the UK, and I said the US would destropy everything thrown at them, without a single loss of life or ship. Or if I was a Britt, and I claimed that the Royal Navy would quickly and easily destroy Argentina.

I am not on either side here, I just look at things both as they happened historically, and with things that both nations learned from the last conflict.

And as I have discussed before, Argentina learned much better then the Royal Navy. Argentina has put a lot of money and work into anti-ship missiles, both buying more Exocets, as well as making their own domestic missile. And in upgrading their primary fighter jets.

The Royal Navy on the other hand still has badly outdated ships, which are woefully inadequate in air defense or anti-missile defense. Argentina has moved most of their offensive power to the 21st century. But the UK defensive systems on their ships are still primarily 1970's era.

The Type 42 Destroyers were designed in the 1960's, launched in the 1970's. 2 of the 16 built were lost in the Falklands. Yet they still did not get around to building an updated replacement until 3 years ago, when the first Type 45 Destroyer was finally launched. Which when finally completed will be a class of 6 ships.

And their frigates are not much better. Designed in the late 1970's, they are also sadly lacking in air-defense and anti-missile systems. These are supposed to be the "heavy" ships in a UK fleet. Yet, their only air and missile defense is 32 Sea Wolf misiles, with a range of 13 km.

Yout typical Exocet missile has a range of 70-180 km. So in the scenario, my main consideration was the fact that Argentina could salvo wave after wave of missiles as the UK fleet, while the UK fleet could do little to nothing in return. Argentine missiles could easily reach the ships, while the ships could not attack the aircraft in return.

This is not delusion of grandeur. It is simple tactics and logic.