Argentine Fleet in dire straits

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by SONAR-BENDER, Nov 25, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Interesting read, maybe the Scum and the Wail should read it before they start their usual rants about not being able to defend the Falklands.
     
  2. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    Many on here should read it as well, Wrecker. According to them, the Argentine nation is primed, pumped and ready to go. Fortunately people who have been there (such as me) know differently.

    Levers
     
  3. Funny how different people read the same article differently.
    I read that the Argies were in no position to buy new/visit other ports/exercise with other nations. What they did have was some old boats that could be bastardized to make a few good `uns. Granted, a lack of munitions would hamper things, but back-door deals in the arms industry aren`t completely unheard of. Goodwill visits to other ports isn`t necessary. Being part of another nations fleet didn`t come into play in `82.
    And as the article points out, they could bastardize a fleet quicker than we could build one.

    So yes, right now they`re in no position to send in an armada. But they could be ready a long time before we were.
     
  4. You reckon?. Their surface fleet mainly consists of Meko class destroyers and corvettes, their newest submarine was built in 1983 and they have no amphib capability anymore and have an obsolete air force.

    Why does every scaremonger focus on "oooh they can invade again and we can't stop them". They won't FFS, they can't afford it and the present government has far more say in affairs than the right wing military one they had in '82.
     
  5. Governments don`t go to war when they can afford it, they go when they can`t afford not to.
    And if they`re in the dire financial straits that the article points to, whats to stop them (politically) ? Bit of prestige at home, potential oil reserves, throws El Presidente onto the world stage.
     
  6. The political scene has changed there now, it won't happen.
     
  7. Errant nonsense? WTF is that? I just can't take ceriously any articul contaning such a speeling error.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
  8. No sensible government willingly goes into a conflict they don't think they can win (I deliberately exclude the Labour Government and the Afghanistan situation in this respect because they have never been particularly sensible in my opinion).

    Given the dramatic shift in capabilities in Argentina and despite the (arguably) even greater decline in UK force projection capability I do not think that any sensible Argy military strategist would realistically bet their own money on Argentina being able to take and hold the Falklands if they tried it again.

    To echo Wrecker - it won't happen.
     
  9. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    Firstly, tarting up old vessels is an expensive, resource-hungry evolution, sometimes even more so than designing and building your own new stock. I have been to Puerto Belgrano, spent an extended period of time there and experienced their quite meagre naval infrastructure at close quarters. Their docking and port support facilities are at best sparse and not impressive. Their dry docks are crumbling and would not be ideal at all to regenerate their small flotilla. A detachment of frigates and destroyers would smash any surface ambitions - provided they first got past any UK SSNs. They have absolutely no amphibious capability whatsoever, which would be very much needed to gain purchase on the Falkland Islands, again, provided you could get past the 2 or 3 SSNs that would definitely be waiting. Argentina would not have th industrial and academic capability to sub-proof her vessels - as they found out in 1982.

    Secondly, to be in a position to 'build a few good uns' not only overstates the past capability of Argentina's fleet, but also Argentina's financial status and popular impetus to engage the UK in war - a country who they'd tangled with in the past when they were a tad flabby packing out the Rhineland and slapping Paddy about. Look at now. We may not be very large as a land force, but we have some of the best combat troops in the world and ones who have had continuous combat experience throughout twenty years of warfare against a multitude of foes, from Western Africa to the Hindu Kush, using lightweight and heavyweight equipment across a vast range of disciplines. I'd say that any Argentine semi-conscripted occupation force (where even a quarter of them successful and able to endure an attrition skirmish against embedded forces and able to be resupplied), would hardly relish another repeat of 1982, this time faced with today's land expeditionary forces. In essence, Argentina's 'few good 'uns' would have to be backed by a bit more than blind ambition and resolve. It would be suicidal and apart from a few ********* cheering the notion of recapturing Las Islas Malvinas, the rest of the rational Argentine nation would be dreading the body count it would cost. And any such gesture this time will be seen as an act of war bcause we all know, and have always known, that the citizens of the Falkland Islands wish to be (and remain) British.

    Levers
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
  10. Its ok having a highly skilled and motivated land army, but if you haven`t the capability to get them to the action, a conscript rag-tag army wins everytime.
     
  11. Aren't there enough assets in situ to hold off an attack to allow resupply from the UK?

    And why am I even bothering to type this?
     
  12. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    What makes you say that?

    We have an LPH, a CHV/LPH, 2 x LPD(R) and 3 Bay Class. We have a decent show of frigates and at least two T45, plus two Astute and at least five SSN, to hand at any time.

    Give we have at least 1500 combat-ready troops on the islands, plus RAF Regt, plus ancillary support, plus six Typhoon and their support Regts, do you really, really think that the Argentines would tarry with that?

    In 1982, the Buzo Tactico plus their Amphib raiding platoons faced NP891 and struggled to take Stanley. They wouldn't have the numbers to threaten MPA and besides, talking of being 'caught by surprise' again and Argentine dominance shows crass naivety. If you have seen their forces close up and know anything about our capability you wouldn't make such daft comments. Do some research please.

    Levers
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. I didn`t.

    I was commenting on the article. And our naval capability has not been tested since `82, when we had a much bigger fleet, with fast jets, and just managed to win.

    Easy tiger.
     
  14. "And our naval capability has not been tested since `82"

    I would have thought that both Gulf Wars and Libya counted. Or is that just me? Happy to stand corrected, as ever
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
  15. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    So, you are saying that with the huge advances in warfare over the past thirty years which we have benefited from immensely, ranged against the Argentine military capability, which has been practically static, we should be concerned?

    As said elsewhere, it's a no-brainer. All these scare-mongers, "Ooooh ... the Argies are coming to get our oil ... "

    Brilliant.

    Levers
     
  16. We were part of a multi-national fleet, incorporating land based AWACS and US E-3`s, giving an all round data display.
    If we had another FI based conflict, we`d be on our own. In `82 we had to resort to picket ships to give advance warning of attack, with a much smaller fleet have we the luxury of standing a boat off on the horizon ? And don`t tell me the T45 can see a million square miles, its limited at sea-level just like the rest of the world is.

    Worried/panicked ? No.
    Concerned ? Yes.
    `82 occurred not because of a failure of the navy, but a failure of diplomacy/boots on the ground/spying that gave us the intel about what was to happen/capability. Are we absolutely sure that the same failure couldn`t happen again ? Particularly when you see the cut-back in embassy manpower/costs ? Satellites don`t give a feel for the mood. History is littered with the vanquished `thinking` the opposition never had the capability.
    But it is purely academic. I`ve outlined how i would re-take the FI previously, and it wouldn`t be a frontal amphibious attack. Is it possible ? You bet it is. Is it likely ? Hardly, a chance in ten million, but those odds never stopped people playing the lottery.
    And if it ever did happen, i`d want the biggest fleet the world had seen, with AWACS flying above, and fast jets as cover, which we just ain`t got.
     
  17. RR, SSN's were used as advance warning for air attack in 82 as they were off the coast, plus we have TLAM now so a boat could easily take out their airfields (airburst TLAM are good for parked aircraft, there's a film of exactly that on youtube), so no, it'll never happen for all the reason's Lever's has applied. Just out of interest, your not a Daily Mail reader by any chance?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

    The author of said blog happens to be a terribly cool, suave and sophisticated RRer, who may or may not be a Mod here...

    Try reading the 3 part article from Jan this year on the realistic chances of an Argentine invasions succeeding - it may perhaps provide a little more context.

    For Argentina to succesfully invade and hold the FI would require them to inflict the single most succesful surprise amphibious assault in history.
     
  19. Well Said twig, a lot of decent comments on here, interspersed by Daily Mail reading scare mongering *******. 1 t45 and astute class ssn would do for any argi belligerence.
     

Share This Page