In a recent meeting with the Defence Committee, Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, underscored the UK’s commitment to the defence of the Falklands.
The comments come amid discussions made during a meeting of the Defence Committee regarding the British military’s overall readiness and strategic posture.
During the session, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, was questioned by various Members of Parliament, including the Chair of the Defence Committee, Tobias Ellwood, and MPs Sarah Atherton, Richard Drax, John Healey, and Gavin Robinson among others.
The dialogue encompassed a range of topics, from the readiness of the Royal Navy’s warships, the UK’s capabilities in defending territories like the Falklands, the handling of misconduct allegations in the military, to the evolving domains of cyber-security and space.
Sarah Atherton:
“It is generally accepted that the Royal Navy is very capable of deploying key capabilities with limited platforms as part of a multinational operation. We have received considerable evidence saying that the Royal Navy is not capable of putting together a whole-force package, which I think we often liken to a Falklands taskforce. Are you concerned that there are so many key players in the defence domain, or ecosystem, who share that opinion?”
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin:
“You refer to the Falklands scenario, which is one of the few scenarios where we might anticipate fighting on our own, so I think it has an elevation from a military point of view as well as a political and psyche of the nation point of view. When we look at that in terms of the strength of Argentina and the differences now, with the base that we have in the Falklands and our continued presence, with Typhoon, a small Army presence, our ships that are down in the Falklands, and our ability to support that with submarines, carriers and escorts, that is not a concern.
This is a Navy that is on the up—a Navy that between 2020 and 2030 becomes a carrier Navy again, that alongside the Air Force goes from fourth generation jets to fifth generation jets, and that then has, by dint of previous investment, 22 ships and submarines coming through. Those straddle some of the workhorses—the solid support RFA ships—to new frigates, Astute class submarines and also our Dreadnought deterrent. So I suppose I see it differently. In terms of all the commitments that we are supposed to meet at the moment—this applies across the whole of defence—there are 41 operations ongoing, and all of those are being met.
Sarah Atherton:
“So could we defend the Falklands?”
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin:
“Absolutely.”
Do we still have the support ships required from the MN
Tanker and cruise ship fleet is still going strong.
Container ships would be where the issues would begin to arise.
Another loss is the breaking up of P&O.
The container section sold to Maersk, Maritime logistics moved to Dubai and although the Ferry section is still British, it is foreign owned and has no Red Ensign ships.
👍👍
Who are we hypothetically protecting the Falklands from?
Argentina, they have zero military capacity and in reality 41 years after the War, have never recovered from that absolutely crushing defeat.
China then??
Why would someone invade today, oil?
Much easier oil to access as fossil fuels get progressively less important year on year…
Fish stocks, peat, penguins??
It is about an exposed possession and driving a political wedge between UK and others. To that extent it is strategically important. The mischief making hypothesis: if you like.
I agree China’s thirst for oil will be resolved
– by the very large scale greening going on in China; and
– vassal state Russian oil and gas
In the next couple of years, expect to see a ramping up of Chinese fishing vessels in the South Atlantic. Last year, China’s Foreign Minister signed a deal with Argentina for both fishing licenses, agriculture and other food stuffs.
Chinese fishing “fleets” are notorious for working areas near to extinction. Plus going beyond their licensed entitlements. So expect to see a lot more vessels in and around the Falkland, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Fisheries protection will become a big deal in South Atlantic/Antarctic waters. Especially if China send a few “Coastguard” vessels to protect their fishing fleet.
Agreed on that front.
We may need 3 Rivers and a T31 down there full time to deal with that.
A while back Falklands Islands Government did offer to pay for a frigate to be stationed there full time. RN declined as it would remove their freedom to task.
This was when the oil licences were hotting up so there was plenty of cash about.
OPVs perilously under-gunned for any type of actual conflict, considering what eg. the Russians place on their corvettes like Buyan of only half the displacement. Would need bigger main gun, Anti-ship missiles, VLS cells, plus a sonar suite/UUV-USV, and rotary drone with Martlet or lightweight torpedoes… Am only a civilian but would hate to send any child of mine out in their current guise.
We may need to pull OPV’s back from pacific deployment. These deployments are nice to have but not essential.
And by catastrophic demographic decline.
Argentina with kit supplied by China?
Benefit to Argentina – distraction from problems at home?.
Benefit to China. Influence / ports etc. in yet another region?
China cosying up to Brazil as well too supplying them with howitzers. What the hell do they need them for? All ways for China to weasel its way into other countries via military-political relationships. Like you say, and spread its influence.
👍
I’m not a fan of the communist China regime but they are not doing anything that we and the United States do not already do.it’s all about power projection weather soft power or hard power through military sales. And China like the Americans and the Europeans are trying to make more money and buy influence through arms sales
True and of course we’re very biased, but I think the West is politically and ideologically freer, values democracy, a level of equality, the rule of law and the freedom of passage of the seas. The Ukrainian conflict has given some Western economies a boost and added joint purpose. I’m not sure about Russia’s current and long-term capacity, China’s watching and waiting, and Iran, North Korea in the mix. Maybe it’s a bit simple to say this but seems like it’s kind of a heightened “goodies vs baddies” struggle going on, both sides making money out of it and people suffering and dying in the meantime. I think the West is definitely doing the morally right thing and showing courage when needed in supporting Ukraine and its people. It’s also woken NATO and the West up plus has put a lot of weapon systems to the test in a war environment and spurred on further development. So we should all be a bit better prepared for “next”.
I wouldn’t be too worried about Russia apart from it fragmenting and all those thousands of nukes they have. I think the long term threat to our country and the rest of the “free” world is China. The communist leadership and Xi In particular seem to have grand ideas of a Chinese superpower/empire. Russia in the long term will become almost a vassal state of China.
I think the West are doing the right thing by supporting Ukraine defend themselves against Russian aggression however the western nations including certain European countries and The US are a bit fickle in their support. If a new administration comes to power in America their will to support the Ukrainians will not be so strong especially if Drumpf gets back in to power. Macron is already looking at a diplomatic solution which would probably involve Ukraine ceding captured territory to Russia which if I was a Ukrainian I would politely tell Macron and France where to go with that one. Thing is in this multipolar world no one are goodies and baddies just different shades of grey.
Like the “multipolar” and “shades of grey” comments. Well put. I think there is some stirring going on in Western countries about standing up more for their national interests and shared democratic values with other like minded nations and I think the will is still definitely there to fight to defend it too.
I agree with your response. In addition I strongly suspect plenty of the current internal sociopolitical strife in Western and recently EU-acceded nations like Italy, France, Hungary…can be attributed to Putin and his mastery of social media manipulation.
As in the recent US elections and possibly even our sickening domestic Brexit-Anti Brexit hatred, just follow the money!
Nato states and the west in general need to revitalise their defence industries and get back to some of the basics for example being able to mass produce heavy artillery shells and artillery rockets and maintaining larger stockpiles instead of being dependent on countries like South Korea who seem to be able to mass produce quality artillery shells and main battle tanks in large quantities in an efficient and cost effective manner.
Im pretty sure genociding muslims and threatening to invade your neighbours is something neither we or the US do.
I agree about not committing genocide but we have gone along with invading other countries when the Americans invite us to join in their illegal invasions/wars like the gulf wars and Afghanistan.I’m not a fan of despots or dictators but we are not nations of angels either.
As much as I can look askance at post 1945 foreign policy – a zig zag between naiveté and overkill, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was condemned by the United Nations and an international coalition was raised to expel his forces that committed widely reported atrocities against the Kuwaitis. Iraq was not invaded at that time. That came about as a consequence of Hussein defying sixteen (some sources claim seventeen) U.N. Resolutions and expelling U.N. appointed weapon inspectors who had uncovered extensive evidence of an hitherto unsuspected Iraqi programme of W.M.D.’s. Iraq has had at least two elections since the fall of Hussein and is currently being supported by an international coalition following a mishandled and chaotic civil war and an on going insurgency by the Islamic State. Even withstanding oil resources in the region this is not a part of the world the international community can afford to watch slide into anarchy.
Here is an interesting article about the Iraqi WMD question.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-64914542
Gulf war yes but we left after we installed a democracy, Afghanistan was not an illegal war, Afghanistan attached America with no provocation and we invaded Afghanistan under nato article 5. We also left after installing a democratic government.
That’s not what China is advocating over Taiwan, Taiwan is like the US invading Cuba or the UK invading Ireland.
We installed a pro Shia government that was then and even now extremely corrupt and very much pro-Iranian. Ironically Saddam Hussein kept control of Iranian Influence in Iraq and did not allow it to flourish to the extent it has now.it was also proven as far as I’m aware that Iraq did not possess WMD and the claim by Blair to justify our invasion beside the Americans was proven to be decidedly false. Iraq did not have the capability to attack the U.K. You now have Iraqi militias that are supposed to be part of the Iraqi army that takes billions in wages and do not take orders from senior Iraqi military but are loyal and take orders from Iran. Afghanistan was an illegal war pretty much because even though article 5 was invoked the actual perpetrators of 911 were predominantly Saudi and it was financed with Saudi money. Again we installed a “democratic” government that was extremely corrupt and consisted of former warlords that had committed atrocities against their own people. I truly hope we have gone past the stage of regime change by invasions because clearly they don’t work and the net result is we leave the countries and people in a much worse state than before. The Taiwan scenario is a bit more complex. It has shades of Ukraine conflict in the sense that both nations are ethnically the same. I agree that we should help and defend Taiwan against China though.
Precisely why we as Africans should learn from the first waves of colonialisation and enslavement by the Arabs and the Europeans by not surrendering our fish stocks and risk further ongoing environmental destruction all in hock to the two-faced Chinese Communist Party.
Whatsboutism is of no help here. There is already plenty of YouTube footage of how casually entitled they feel to abuse and discriminate against their African hosts in their own countries. Some governments are fortunately waking up to this behaviour already! Let the profit from the processing and sale of Africa’s considerable natural resources stay in Africa, not create ‘China’s own new Chinese sweatshop’!
Mr Angry from Tooting☹️👎🏿
🇬🇧🇳🇬
We can retake the Falklands if they get invaded again. We just need a gung ho PM who would send in Astutes with orders to sink absolutly everything on site. Then a CBG can escort in an Amphib group to retake the islands.
Don’t think a “re-take” is even a possibility. We have enough force protection currently to deter any invasion that could be rapidly backed up. Any attempt at re-invasion would fail from the get-go!
We did it last time with half the amphibious fleet of today and two helicopters carriers, why don’t you think we could do it today when we have two super carriers and Argentina no longer has an Air Force.
Sorry Jim I think you have misunderstood my point or I wasn’t clear in the first place. We could easily do it again. The point I was trying to make was that any invasion attempt (from Argentina) would fail so there would never be a need to re-take.
👌👍
👍
Agree absolutely. There’s no good will on either of those parts and neither is totally stable internally.
Feels like we’re just hoping for the best.
Remember all UK defence spending takes place in a vacuum and we need the ability to send the Grand Fleet to the Falklands to guard against attack by aliens.
Being facetious is of no help, just projecting ignorance.
Is that before Orkneys reverts to viking mode. 😜💪
China can currently operate a carrier strike group with some very ineffective planes or an amphibious group a couple of hundred miles past the first island chain. It’s along way off being able to get to the Falklands and if it did the US would intervene in a heart beat as control of the FI would prevent US carriers transferring between the pacific and Atlantic.
They have been wanting to build a base in Argentina for some time. China sponsoring an Argentinian invasion is more likely. They would then control the sea gate around the cape, a massive issue for the west should the Panama canal be closed.
And I’m sure the USA is going to sit back while China establishes base in Argentina and invades the FI.
👍👍
If China did build a base in Southern Argentina. You can bet that the US would bend over backwards, to also have a base in neighboring Chile, probably on their half of Patagonia.
PLAN may have significantly enhanced capability w/in 5-15 yrs.
The West will have to respond in kind and some of it is already underway.
I’m sure it will but we can only go on a basis of what we see today.
It’s possible in the future that China might want to do a proxy war to gain influence in the region but as it’s close to the US it would be very dangerous for them economically, as it could give the US the excuse it is looking for.
We are however stuck spending a fortune defending it, because of we ever pulled out it would be giving Argentina the green light. They don’t have the capability to take a defended island but they could easily take an undefended one.
China is known to want to build military bases in the south Atlantic and has been courting Argentina. China would gain a huge advantage in supporting an invasion by Argentina. 1) Should the Panama canal be closed than they would control the sea gate around the cape 2) UK forces deployed to the SA can’t be deployed to the far east.
Absolutely agree w/ your post.
Maybe the UK/US should try and counter and rebuild their relationships with South Africa if it’s gone a bit flabby? Even Aus and NZ too. The UK still has the rugby and cricket connection with them and even rugby with Argentina too!
African older leadership still have affection for historical soviet support for independence and anti apartheid. Bourne out by no condemnation of Putin invasion and South Africa even doing joint navy manoeuvres.
Well, some Argentinean politicians love to use the ‘Malvinas’ as a rallying cry to distract from their domestic problems.
Their military is run-down but not totally defunct, they still have Exocet armed frigates and corvettes.
Until the day Argentina totally accepts the UK is not going to give up or share the Falklands, we should remain vigilant.
I’m very curious if losing the Falklands would effect the UK’s Antarctica claim.
Aside from that I think the CCP would happily fund whatever it can to deny the west a base in the south Atlantic and keep Britain bottled in Europe.
The ChiComs will only respect the military capability of others to enforce their own rights, as demonstrated in SCS every day
100%
If and it’s a big if American oil companies rob the falklands or the North Sea the fault of that lies with the government’s that agreed to the contract terms that allow that. Can’t blame a company for trying to make the most money it can in a capitalist economy
The question posed re ChiComs is not necessarily an idle, rhetorical one. Recently, US public learned scum-bag, slimeball ChiComs have established and developed a base in Cuba. Have you checked the Channel islands recently for an infestation?!?
Dont understand why the US government doesn’t make a bigger effort in making some rapprochement with Cuba. Engage for more influence. If not China will and is. They more countries does business with the more votes it might get in UN and other world bodies. Trying the old, softly, softly, catchee monkee routine. They might overreach and leave a back door open. The gelling of the West in supporting Ukraine shows that we will come together if pushed.
Agree, previous administration had reversed course.
Much of the issue is like Israel support for Cuba runs strong in the house, however unlike Israel that support is anti government.
The US embargo looks increasingly silly in the 21st century and it’s hard to not find parallels between Cuba of the US and Taiwan for China.
I don’t understand it. Why not take some initiative, invite the Cuban leadership over to the White House, have a seriously good chat over some lunch and see what happens? Tourism, investment, help to lift
country’s standard of living opportunities there. China will do what the West won’t.
Agreed, isolating them clearly isn’t working and so why not open up trade and hope growing wealth of the island would bring a more friendly nation. Just seems to be one of them odd polictical bring in the US where history is stopping a more logical thought process.
Good point,for that matter has anyone checked the Isle of Wight for Chinese military facilities!
It’s Reds under the bed all over again!
Nope, corkheads all have passports. 😊😜
That’s not the point John, it’s our land that is in active dispute with another nation who has past form to try and take it, whether they have the tools now to do it, or like penguins is irrelevant. The public consciousness of Argentina has a deep primeval desire for those islands, it’s symbolic to them and that will always need mitigating. We have to include the Falklands in our defence strategy and build the kit to protect lands many thousands of miles away. Btw, it’s not just penguins and peat there, there’s also the blood of our servicemen in that soil, so we can remind Argentina that we take it seriously, whether they have the means or not to take it, yet.
I think people misunderstand one of the reasons the question of the Falklands rears its head time and again. “If the Falklands happened again” isn’t always about the group of islands in the South Atlantic. It’s really asking the question, if we had to fight without allies against a totally unexpected enemy far away from the UK, could we?
Of course we can defend the Falklands against Argentina; we’ve garrisoned it and Argentina is still weak. But could we defend Tristan da Cunha, or the Pitcairn Islands if we chose to? What about the British Antarctic? What if we were asked to support a former colony in Africa or relieve Gibraltar? Can we consider the currently unthinkable and act alone without NATO? Is that an option the UK government wants to keep available?
Could we defend the Falklands, isn’t really about the Falklands.
You wage war for a number of reasons. Four that spring to mind are: a) To take back what you believe is yours, b) to dominate an area, c) to plunder it for resources, be that natural or human, and finally d) because it gives you influence.
I can’t really see that Tristan da Cunha or Pitcairn would meet any of those requirements. Ascension Island would bring in the USA against the aggressor. Those in the Caribbean would garner the wrath of the rest of the Islands, and again be difficult to do without alerting others to your intentions. That only really leaves Gib, and I am sure we would notice the Spanish massing on the border.
The Spanish Government like to harrass Gib especially around election time – lots of votes in it. In the real world though attacking a NATO ally seems foolhardy although stranger things have happened.
I said unexpected. Argentina were allies before ’82 and we were selling them military equipment in ’81. Things can change remarkably quickly. This isn’t about any of the specific scenarios as much as it’s about all of them, and far more.
Why defend Pitcairn? I don’t know. Massive Exclusive Economic Zone, perhaps. Perhaps a new discovery will make it valuable. Why the Antarctic? Maybe to stop others pillaging rather than doing it ourselves. Who knows what will pertain in five years, or after a sudden climate-change tipping point? But stop thinking literally about individual scenarios (limited by my imagination and yours) and start thinking about “the unexpected”.
Do we want to keep the capacity?
👍👍
Excellent thinking!
In the past, there would not have been a question re US response, however since learning of a ChiCom base in Cuba, w/ no response from current administration…😉😳😱☹️
Thanks Jon. You have hit the nail on the hand. Also if we over-concentrate on the repeat Falklands scenario we miss considerng and planning against defending the other BOTs etc. It goes wider than the BOTs too as you suggest:
If Belize were seriously threatened by invasion by Guatemala would we be well-disposed to help Belize before that?
The UK has done UK-only ops before (so it is hardly unthinkable), in addition to Op Corporate – Sierra Leone (Op Barras) springs to mind. Before that there were the brushfire wars of colonial days and more recently suppport to Oman in the 70s etc.
Graham,
Interesting hypotheticals re BOTS and SA. Does the UK have an obligation to come to the aid of Commonwealth members under attack? 🤔
We have an obligation to defend British Overeas Territories, but not any member of the Commonwealth. Canada being the exception due to NATO.
Both India and Pakistan are Commonwealth members remember. Imagine having to defend both!
Would be an unenviable and thankless task to referee their multifaceted dispute. 🤔😳😱☹️
To me it’s not about the obligation, it’s about the choice. If the government is asked, it should have the option.
There’s nothing about the Commonwealth itself that obligates us, but we are militarily allied to more countries than anyone else, and we take the obligations we do have seriously. Some of these go way back, as we were recently reminded by the 650th anniversary of our alliance with Portugal.
An interesting legacy from the period of Empire…🤔😳
You may like some background first. The UK has granted independence to 65 countries over many years. Today the Commonwealth has 56 members (including UK), most of whom were former colonies, dependencies, dominions etc. Total of 2.5bn people in Commonwealth countries (about a third of the world’s population – and 25% of the worlds landmass). The word ‘British’ was dropped in 1949, so it is now called The Commonwealth of Nations (The Commonwealth for short). 4 members were not ‘British’ before – Rwanda, Mozambique, Gabon, Togo. Some countries that had been ‘British’ have decided not to join – including USA and Ireland. King Charles is Head of State for 15 members (including the UK) – the vast majority of members are Republics.
Interesting that many today say the British Empire was evil, committed atrocities, stole resources and denied freedom – well, today 55 countries are happy to associate with the former colonial power, which must be unique.
The Commonwealth is of course not a military alliance and there is no formal obligation for the UK to come to the aid of a member under attack, be it from an external state or internal rebels. However if a Member asks for British military assistance, it would be considered, there may well be some consultation with other countries and military support may well be forthcoming.
Here is a list of British operational engagements to support former colonies who required British help:
Afghanistan Tribal Revolts, 1944-47
Dhofar Rebellion in Oman, 1962-75
Indonesian-Malayan confrontation, 1963-66
Sierra Leone Civil War, 200-2002
Additionally British forces used to have a long term presence in Belize to deter Guatemalan invasion.
Huh…never knew, or even suspected there are unaffiliated nations w/in Commonwealth.
Even more interestingly, it certainly would have been beneficial if some old hand from the Foreign Office had counseled the US to stay the hell away from Afghan…what might have been. 🤔😳
Good point. We fought three Afghan wars (The three Anglo-Afghan wars: 1839–42; 1878–80; 1919)
and gave them full independence after the third!
Then came back in 1944 to help the Afghan government with tribal revolts for 3 years.
…so we should perhaps have opted out of participating in a 5th war in the country the 21st Century!
Hi Graham. You missed a couple. British troops to Tanzania shortly after Independence to quell Army mutiny;Brits to Swaziland(Eswatini)at time of Independence when some locals threatened the legit government; British ‘ Bobbies’ to Grenada(our American friends finished the job)😂
ps can make no sense of allowing countries never part of the Empire to join the Commonwealth!
Thanks Geoff, I thought I might have missed a few. We always help our friends. No bad thing to have more friends so I have no problem with 4 countries joining who were not ‘Empire’.
Good post Jon. I have often thought that some parts of the Atlantic chain of UK Overseas territories stretching from Ascension to the Antarctic are vulnerable. Ascension has a small US/Brit presence and a nominal contingent of military from both. An attack there would meet with a swift response. St Helena has a small Police force with side arms. What if terrorists moved in on the SH Airport? The UK would respond but might be an idea to set up a local part time Regiment such as the Falkland Island Defence Force-(SH has a population of 4500-more than the Falklands so should easily be able to raise 200 volunteers),as with Gibraltar and Caribbean regiments to provide some initial capability until the Calvary arrived. Tristan only has 240 residents and no airfields and not really much strategic value so unlikely target. The Falklands are well defended and easily reinforced. South Georgia is an unlikely target and has less than 100 residents and no permanent population along with the South Sandwich islands. Pitcairn is very vulnerable with only 60 residents and no military/police. If some proxy wanted to “çlaim ” Pitcairn and occupy same, it would require a serious response and subsequently, expensive job of defending the vast seas around the Pitcairn group. What if some nation did a Goa type grab disputing Britains right to Sovereignty? The UK might want to consider forming a Condominium with the Aussies and Kiwis in this regard
Excellent questions and suggestions. 👍👍
Thank you FormerUSAF-appreciate your comment. I have a friend based in Phoenix Arizona, a former 1st Engineer on a USN nuclear sub with whom I correspond regularly with snippets from UKDJ. Also had an Uncle with the American Red Cross based near Kings Lyn alongside the USAF in the 1950’s. They lived in a beautiful little village calls Wells and at the age of 6 in 1955 I had my first taste of Bubble Gum and fresh orange juice!
Cheers from Durban
Request you invite your friend contribute to UKDJ commentary, at least in re to USN submarine related articles. Basically, if an article does not reference USAF heavies, have no firsthand knowledge or experience. Generally, opinions expressed on other topics vary between SWAGs and simple WAGs. 😉👍
Purchance, did you keep any associated baseball cards? Own the right ones and it could be a viable alternative to winning the lottery.
Hi. Background-I was born in London of Ulster parents. Brought up England Ireland until 1961 then Africa Zim until 1963 SA since. Always been an Americophile but only one of the family who never visited! Family in Cleveland Ohio, California and Canada thus an Americophile for many reasons. Will speak to my friend in Phoenix who has a sharp mind but suffering from Parkinsons so will see if he is up for posting on UKDJ.
Cheers from Durban South Africa
Many of the US National Parks are rather impressive, including the Grand Canyon, if, purchance, you would be considering a pretext to visit your friend in AZ. 😊
This raises some interesting questions like would Britain support a Chinese attack on Guam or one of the other US islands in the Pacific?
Would we support the French if one of their colonies were invaded, like French Guyana?
Don’t read much about the French being asked to decolonise or pay reparations to Haiti.
What do we do if the Chinese build a base on Queen Elizabeth Land?
Er…really hope UK would NOT support a ChiCom attack on US possessions. 😉
That my friend is an excellent point, and well made.
Does the UK have the Sovereign capability to act unilaterally, on a global basis and in line with it’s responsibilities to its overseas territories, Commonwealth and friends around the world – and can it do it on an enduring basis?
My personal opinion is that the answer is no however, I would caveat that by saying that we’re not ‘that far’ from being able to do so.
Excellent question, seeking answer to same.
That is what I think is being lost. The ability to operate a lone operation that May go on for a while.
All I hear from defence chiefs and government is nato this, working with allies etc etc. While that is important the U.K. has people and places around the world that expect the U.K. will come to the rescue if required.
The U.K, a leader of the free world, where good stands against evil and so on.
A lot comes down to money. Unfortunately the U.K. continues to overspend every year. The NHS and pensions have become a total money gobbling monsters. While the NHS obviously needs money to function why does it need such huge increases and what has that bought? I can see what other stuff has lost out to pay for it. More money isn’t always the answer. Defence has lost out, poor people etc.
I’m not saying funding should be cut just not increased as the number 1 way of fixing an issue.
👍👍
This Admiral is typical of the UK military top brass dreaming of Britain still being a global power, what a joke , we could not put together a task force to defend the UK against an aggressor ,too many warships out of service , being updated ,or in dry dock , and not enough useable aircraft or manpower, let’s get real and stop dreaming
Another Russian bot,
Agree. I started to compose a reply in detail, then thought, why bother? With those sort of questions.
Its the State that so dreams not the military they do the States bidding as directed. If you want the capability you have to pay for it and the UK never has really. The EU for a greater part also shelters under our umbrella with our constantly at sea deterrent. The Service personal will stand up when asked. To be an effective deterrent you have to be able to show what you can do and that means inflecting unacceptable damage to an aggressor, the UK can still give a bloody nose.
The Russian ‘Super Power’ has not done so well as yet of late in their aggressive push? Just goes to show all show and no real punch and as for China, although a large fleet support is greatly lacking.
So yes the UK is still a WORLD power even if a shadow of its once self.
Whatever you say, it’s the most powerful military in Europe. It’s also the most powerful non-superpower (US/China) military. And there still isn’t anyone except the US with quite as much global reach.
You need to analyse our capabilities against the capabilities of our potential enemies and what they could deploy to a potential area of conflict…..basically we can still deploy more effective forces across the globe than any of our potential enemies into that conflict zone.We are not going to be fighting major enemies on their front door so it becomes more of question of can we win at somewhere near equidistant and the answers when it comes to Russia and china is yes we can. The other question is could we win against a minor regional power and against the answer is yes. The only scenario where the answer is we cannot win is if we decided to kick off a war on our own in the front door of a one of the 10 or so major powers…but then even the US would struggle to do that.
Of course you are right, but as we’ve seen, if we lose capability and budget because we don’t need it right now, getting it back is all but impossible short of an existential war. If the threat level rises back to the same level as the late eighties (and I’d argue it’s not far off), Defence still won’t get the 5% GDP in its budget that we had back then. It won’t even get the 3% currently being argued for.
The aftermath of the 1990s peace dividend shows us that only paying for what we need right now to fend off potential enemies may be too conservative an approach.
Hi Jon, yes indeed that’s why our force levels should be assessed against the risks, not just can they manage present tasks ( which seems to be the way of assessing need at present).
The IR was supposed to present the risks ahead of a defence review/defence command paper.
And therefore, bated breath until Command Paper released? 🤞
Yes, certainly. Said to be released by end of this month.
The real question is can the Royal Navy do its job with what it’s got. During 2019 in the Persian Gulf the UK was embarrassed by Iran and the US was no where to be seen. During that time the UK government also proved spineless. I do believe the Royal Navy trains the best naval warfighters in the world. But they are horribly let down by their political masters.
Remember the Navy has less escorts than it did in 2019 too.
In the future things will improve as long as current ship building plans are stuck to, but this means nothing when things are happening now.
Video summary of 2019 Iran UK shipping disputes in the Gulf.
https://youtu.be/Y8naCYieMls
Actually while I agree the navy is run down and needs (and is getting) massive reinvestment we could still put together the 2nd or 3rd best naval force on the planet. Within a few weeks
1 carrier
4 type 23
3 type 45
Amphibous ships
RFA support
2 nuclear attack subs
still an amazing force, who is better ? USA? China?
Interesting link
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-navies-in-the-world
That is ridiculous website and claim. So China with several hundred patrol ships which aren’t worth a damn in shooting war and crewed by barely trained. Naval militia are rated more highly than the USA that has huge peer navy which is the most heavily armed on earth
are you Russian troll or just stupid
Clearly you have no idea of what’s going on in the real world, and keep your pathetic comments to yourself
Well I watch and read more than I comment here but it’s telling that no one on this site seems to agree with you or even have any respect for you. If you disagree with the articles so much why don’t you stop writing your propaganda rubbish. If you love Putin and his failing regime go there. His own army hate him so much they didn’t even try and stop wagner
I have no allegiance to Putin or his country , I would suggest from your comments that you would be more supportive
Why the hell would I be supporting Putin? Are you mixing up my comments with someone else? I merely dislike you always running down our forces. Chinas numbers of patrol boats would not be considered warships in any other navy and in a shooting war would be as useful as a river class ie none
Just confirming my original comment about the admiral being very confident in raising a fighting force now if we had a similar falklands incident , I think he is living the dream if he believes the current available warships are enough
👍
We are more than a world power rusdua will ever be . Apart from the yanks we could match anybody China are a totally untested force and equipment we are top 3 easy .
Defending the islands and recapturing them are two entirely different things. You would expect that the UK would get wind of anything well in advance and could reinforce with ease. If it comes to recapuring then technically we have less hulls but many times the capability. The most important thing is that any potential enemy would be aware that our policy would be to defend and/or recapture all British territory wherever it is.
in 1982, the British had only warnings from the Foreign Office but over 40 years later, if someone tried we’d know about it while the prep was ongoing.
The British method back in the empire days was when some nation was getting up to no good, the RN sends a Protected Cruiser or Light Cruiser saying we see what you are doing, then if they don’t stop then an Armoured Cruiser or Heavy Cruiser turns up saying you are on notice, stop what you are doing then if the others ignores that then the Royal Navy sends a capital ship armed with 12”, 13.5” or 15” guns which say to the other, you are going to stop you are doing immediately
Yes well I suppose the empire days are over & the method of communication have moved on but the result should be much the same.
Indeed the labour government in 78 sent an SSN and several frigates worked a treat.
What could Argentina possibly do against four typhoons much less if they were reinforced . How could Argentina land mechanised forces if the infantry are armed with Javelin and NLAW and how could Argentina stop a task force with atleast one maybe two carriers operating 20-30 F35B carrying 16AAB and 3 commando.
The UK is better positioned to defend and retake the Falklands than at any time. Even if China magically intervened and the US did not.
The mood music with the US seems to be that they will intervene if China attempts to throw their weight around militarily. The Chinese strategy at the moment seems to be ecomonic influence.
China’s problem is how to feed its population.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66089408
Change is not good for world stability. The Ukraine conflict is more about food than anything else. Crop failures are a challenge that will only be addressed by advances in science.
The world already produces more than enough food to feed everyone. Yet millions go hungry. Global agribusiness apples science so as to maximise its profits, not to feed everyone.
https://assets.ctfassets.net/vy3axnuecuwj/35a2471a1de40ba099e224755f1c1214a3efa6b6e08a5f7da60c8f36981b9ae9/3360899c045dc4a79f0e2c2530258aff/CAFOD_discussion_paper_on_food_systems_reform_final_Oct_2022.pdf
Paul the world population can’t agree to stop fighting each other let alone share their food evenly. It is not part of human nature. If you can’t beat them join them. it is not difficult to imagine new methods of growing food in the desert of Africa with or without the help of the existing agriculture industry. Pointless moaning about businesses which feed much of the world merely because they have the audacity to make a profit seems pointless to me.
Please see my reply to Jim. There is a reason African countries and Brazil do not support the US Ukraine line in the UN and line up with China and Russia. And a couple more frigates is not going to change their view. They think they are being screwed. And they have a point.
Millions don’t go hungry the few hundred thousand that do is normally caused by war.
We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on the scale. Agreed conflict is a problem. But even if this were to abate there would remain the fundamental issue of transitioning to more resilient food systems in which small farmers in the 3rd world grow food for themselves to eat not what the first world wants. 40% of soya imported into the UK is fed to chickens. The rest to other animals, including farmed fish. Your chicken nuggets and salmon steaks are bought by forcing monoculture sterile hybrids on powerless families whose governments have at the behest of the world bank and global agribusiness passed legislation which makes it illegal to keep your own local seeds ( which are often better adapted to local climate variations).
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/un-says-millions-left-with-no-aid-as-west-africa-suffers-worst-hunger-crisis-in-10-years
Which one of the driving factors behind last year’s trade deal between Argentina and China.
China is now one of the only few countries that will loan Argentina money. After the trade deal, Argentina announced that it has put an order for some 12 JF-17s aircraft. How is Argentina going to pay for these aircraft? If in the past they have reneged on every contract.
I think the answer is that there is more to the trade deal than has been made public.
As Argentina becomes more beholden to China through loans and influence. We may start to see their military being rebuilt. But also with lots of Chinese advisers arriving in country to help support the rebuild. Something to keep a sharp eye on!
Indeed, a base for Chinese trawlers perhaps? I think China financed the construction of a deep port in Lagos, which has been visited by a Chinese destroyer. The Chinese ‘belt and road’ program has been busy with infrastructure projects in Papua New Guinea. Both Kenya and Mozambique have significant Chinese debt. They are buying friends and influence and diversifying their source of food so as to be less dependent on the US.
Except our focus will become North Atlantic, North Sea and Europe. Falklands and other UK territories in the region is a fly in the ointment for China, worth a read.
https://isdp.eu/why-china-looks-to-argentinas-southern-hemisphere/#:~:text=The%20agreement%20identified%20the%20Argentinean,the%20first%20outside%20of%20China.
I seem to remember similar articles about China in Africa 5 years ago, now everyone is defaulting on the debt and telling China to get lost and there is little Xi can do about it. I can imagine much the same from Argentina in five more years. China is the only country daft enough to lend money to any of these people anymore and Xi thinks he is building an empire with it. Shows how stupid he really is.
With modern weapons systems much easier than last time.
Who are we protecting the Falklands from USA and China ? because Argies are no real threat .
The UK has been extremely effective in embargoing arms transfers to Argentina from many third parties. This, and general Argentine government neglect, has helped reduce the Argentine navy and air force to an empty shell.
But Argentina will not give up its claim to the Falklands. The claim is an integral part of the national culture. What Argentina waits for is a UK government willing to negotiate, and they believe that eventually they will have one. The UK signal that it is prepared to negotiate with Mauritius on the BIOT has spurred Argentine hopes.
BIOT is a totally different story, there we are the party in the wrong but it’s f**k all to do with Mauritius. It’s just a land grab for them. Bring back the islanders let them decide.
British willingness to negotiate sovereignty on BIOT is a precedent as far as Argentina is concerned. Argentina views the expulsion of Chagossians exactly as supposed expulsion of Argentine population from the Falklands in 1833. For them, the only difference is the degree of elapsed time. “Right and wrong” is largely subjective in international affairs.
No evidence that anyone was expelled from Falklands in 1833 and Argentina never had a claim on the islands, Spain and Uruguay have had but never Argentina.
Argentina is a completely self-deluded country. The point is that Argentina takes encouragement from Britain’s position on BIOT … AND the reality is that the British government KNEW that Argentina would take such encouragement. That is why (clearly misnamed) Cleverly simultaneously referenced the Falklands when he announced negotiations on BIOT. Very shortsighted decision by UKGOV.
Argentina made the mistake of attacking the islands and so putting themselves in a different position. If the war never happened, I could see them eventually being handed over. The lack of usable oil has meant economically the islands aren’t really worth it Vs a trade deal that could no doubt by struck with Argentina over it. However the war did happen and so it won’t be handed over any time soon.
Argentina can wait. Argentina has lots of options to press this if they choose to escalate. UK should be lending no encouragement to Argentina’s view that ultimately Britain lacks resolve.
What happens if Argentina decides to do its own version of Morocco’s 1975 “green march” on Western Sahara? Load up 20-30 ships with civilians and simply sail to the islands.
If they were civilians then it would be easy, they would be there illegally and could be deported back to Argentina. The population of the islands is pretty small so would be pretty easy to identify them. The miltiary would probably be needed to help, as I doubt the local police has the manpower to do it alone.
And what if there are thousands of civilians who land in remote areas, with supplies, and just proceed to set up their own settlements? How aggressively does the UK even defend the home islands in the face of migrant incursions? It doesn’t.
The risk is that Argentina decides to aggressively press the matter – for years – until a future UK government just caves in.
Not a lot that the government can do about it here, partially because it’s easy to blur into the crowd due to the population size and partially because when processed most are granted asylum anyway as they are fleeing from pretty nasty countries.
In the Falklands it’s a small island with small population and they would be coming from a stable ish country. So they could be processed and returned quickly. A smart Argentina would work to legally settle people there over a number of years so to get to a point where a peoples vote would be to join Argentina. Not that there are going to be many queuing up for that, as it would mean having to live there. Even smarter one would be to open up trade so to encourage people to travel between the two and that would over time result in cross mingling and family ties being created, making the locals become more aligned with Argentina over time
Most argentines don’t go back to Argentina once they get out.
Asbolutly right 👌👍
It would be political suicide for any British government to cave in, can you name a point in our history where a nation protected by the British government was at threat and our government just gave in. I can’t. I can name numerous times we have fought to defend such countries at great cost to ourselves even when it was against our interest to do so.
Have you been to the Falklands, how would settlers from Argentina survive? The fresh water is not safe to drink(all sorts of bugs, worms etc not very healthy, )and elephant seals the Billy Bunters of the isles the secret settlers would be asking for our help to get them out of there after a Falkland winter.
I suppose Argentina would have to plan for it and admittedly that would be a tough challenge for most governments in Argentina because that is not a national forte. But Argentina has 45 million people; they have very rough areas of the country in the south to prepare for it; and the idea that the islands are rightfully theirs is part of the national psyche.
The UK has walked away from quite a few places: they walked out of Palestine after promising the place to two peoples; they walked out of Aden; they left 250,000 settlers behind in southern Rhodesia; they left 6 million people behind when they walked out of Hong Kong (including the parts not under the 99-year lease). Sadly, it is not out of the question that they would walk out of the Falklands.
Roy wrote:
“” The UK has walked away from quite a few places: they walked out of Palestine after promising the place to two peoples; they walked out of Aden; they left 250,000 settlers behind in southern Rhodesia; they left 6 million people behind when they walked out of Hong Kong (including the parts not under the 99-year lease).”
1) No such place as Palestine
2) It was a LoN mandate, just as Lebanon and Syria were the French mandates. Meaning it never belonged to London.
3) Aden was a small city state and was handed over to the locals in 1963, the British miltary remained to help the nacent state until 1967
4) The Uk didn’t leave Rhodesia, rather it left the Uk in 1965 when it declared independence , that said the Uk did help negotiate the (then) peaceful handover to the majority population via the Lancaster House Agreement, granted it was to a typical black African despot who used the “R” card in which to excuse his own evil nature turning the then breadbasket of Africa into a basket case.
5) Hong Kong without the NT wasn’t feasible
Roy wrote:
“”But Argentina has 45 million people; they have very rough areas of the country in the south to prepare for it;”
They could, but they haven’t neither did they do so in the run up to 1982 and whilst they do have vast areas of areas similar to the Falkland’s, the vast majority of the population live around Buenos Aires an area where the coldest it gets in winter is between 16 to 8 degrees C. After my first tour of the Falkland’s I was walking around wearing a T shirt in April when others were still wearing coats and jumpers.
I was down the FI in 1982 (Nov- Apr 83) and the vast majority of kit the Argies had simply wasnt good enough for a life in the falklands (Saying that our kit wasnt that much better, I mean as a Combat Engineer I was still issued DMS short, thankfully I had purchased a pair of Norwegian winter boots off of the booties the year before and I was in a much better place than a lot of my mates)
I agree with you on your second points. My main point is that the Falklands are a national obsession for Argentina. Should they decide to embark on a concerted non-violent effort, they are capable of organizing a campaign that could be challenging to counter. That said, I agree that their track record for national planning is extremely poor. But where you create national fervor (even if it is based on nonsense – as Argentina’s claim to the islands is), it may take on a life of its own.
My points in relation to the series of historical examples are that the UK has walked away from previous commitments in the past. Policies often change when confronted with new circumstances. In each of the cases referenced, a decision was made where certain previous positions had to be sacrificed. Those previous positions may have been sacrificed for good reason, but they were sacrificed nevertheless. It is feasible that the same could occur in the Falklands.
As stated, for Argentina the islands are a (irrational) national obsession; for Britain the position is based on sound principle. One just needs to sustain a very strong commitment to that principle.
You have got to be fucking joking! No disrespect to any Islander, (major respect in fact) but just turn up n pitch yer tent, nah. Meteorologicaly yer beaten. Try a visit if you dare. 🙄👍
Also good chance that anyone landing on the Falklands away from a settlement would just die from exposure. It’s a pretty brutal place.
The FI islands police will arrest them and send them back, it’s 500 miles through some of the roughest seas in the world. Not the kind of thing you get many ships in for and anything major vessels wise won’t illegally enter FI waters.
Argentina claiming the FI is like Britain claiming the Faroes. Proximity is irrelevant when the island has a settled population.
I was thinking they could also do that with a military force. Put a load of troops on civilian vessels and send them over. The RN wouldn’t dare sink civilian ships, as that would bring mass critism, had they been full of civilans. So they would hope to deal with the issue once they land thinking it’s a policing issue, not realising they are full of troops. The question is whether they could get enough troops disembarked to create a beachhead, before the defensive forces realise what is going on and counter attack. Probably not as would need some heavy gear which takes time. They would also be isolated as the RN vessel and the typhoons would then be able to prevent any further vessels crossing. Although one river2 vessel that is there could probably be dealt with using anti tank missiles, as it lacks any form of defensive equipment. The typhoons and the garrison would be harder, but a load of manpads could make the typhoons job difficult, as we lack any form of long range anti ship missiles, and there aren’t many of them meaning can be of limited impact against ground forces.
Then it would be over to the land forces. There isn’t many infantry units there, but they are massively better trained, geared and battle tested so would not be easy to deal with. It would come down to attrition, how many troops could they get landed and could they overwhelm the defenders, or at least isolate them, until they could. It would be a race against the clock as reinforcements from the UK would be airborne and on their way within hours or at least within a day. The attackers would need to be able to get close enough to the airfield to be able to use manpads to stop the transports from landing, although that wouldn’t stop the reinforcements being para dropped somewhere else on the islands.
It would be a massive gamble, but it’s possible they could win, very unlikely but possible. At which point they would have a few weeks to get more troops over and reinforce positions before the taskforce would arrive. They would have no way to deal with the fleet, and so they would be completely cut off from supplies, meaning even if we couldn’t send enough troops to win back the island, we could effectively blockage/seige it out. Although that would also cause a humanitarian problem for the islanders so probably not viable. However cut off from supplies would mean they that any counter attack would eventually win.
In the end it means they could potentially capture the islands without high end kit, but wouldn’t be able to hold them, so pointless exercise. At least until they get some more jets to allow them to deal with the Navy.
Interesting thought experiment, I went in thinking maybe but clearly it wouldn’t work.
I don’t see any military option as credible for Argentina for the next decade or two at least. The Argentine air force only flies a few serviceable A-4s and a couple of dozen trainers. The navy has no operational submarines, its surface combatants are a minimum of 30 years old and its amphibious shipping is completely inadequate. There is also the time it would take for Argentina to assemble a force. Time = it is going to be noticed; and UK reinforcement can now fly in rather rapidly.
But does Argentina have a civil option?
Right now they have been pursuing a purely diplomatic/domestic law approach that has been low cost but yielded no results. Could they tap into the national fervor about the islands, prepare/train civilians in the rugged Argentine south, assemble civil shipping and thereby force the UK to keep more forces in the South Atlantic to deal with a potential civil “green march”? I don’t know.
Even that approach has high costs and could lead to more national frustration but at some point all their talk and bluster may need some sort of outlet.
Who needs trade deal with Argentina , I feel sorry for their people but it’s a pretty small country with an economy that just keeps getting smaller all the time.
There was no Argentinian population population expulsion from the islands in 1833.that is fabrication of the Argentinian government…they basically lied to the UN in 1965 and got a UN resolution around the negotiation of sovereignty and decolonisation…but it was all counter history and untrue. In 1832 Argentina actually invaded the island ( that Britain held sovereignty over)..by sending a garrison of around 20 men, these men promptly mutineed killed their commander and turned to piracy rape and pillaging…attacking US and other whaling boats..as there had been previous episodes of piracy from Argentinian settlers ( who had sort legal permission from the British government to settle and did not dispute UK sovereign of the the islands, these settler had actually been attack by a U.S. warship for piracy and some were forced to leave as crimson and a pirates by the US..but the last of these settlers,died on the island in the 1870s…there were only every a handful ) the RN sent a warship to sort out the criminals and pirates as it was pissing off the US. The British rounded up the survivors of the mutineers from the Argentinian garrison and sent them back to Argentina as criminals…the Argentinian government promptly found them all guilty of murder and various other acts and either shoot then or sentenced them to service in the army. At no time has Argentina ever held sovereignty over the islands or had any sovereign population on the islands other than that illegal garrison that turned to criminality and were sent back to Argentina to be shot…and at no time has the UK ever removed an Argentinian population or settlers from the island ( just solders turned pirates) there has literally never been a reasonable Argentinian claim to the islands it’s literal BS..it was a deserted islands in the mid Atlantic that the French and British founded colonies on with a year of each other in 1764-5..the French were forced to give up their claim by the Spanish in 1767 Spain then launched an attack on the British colony out the blue but was forced to give it back..both Spain and the UK agreed they contested sovereignty the Anglo Spanish agreement of 1771 in which they both agreed they had rival claims. The Argentinian claim comes from the fact on its independence from Spain it decided it could also take the Falklands from the UK, by 1850 it had given up on this blatant imperial land grab and gave up on its claim as part of the 1850 covenant of peace ( stopping all the conflicts from the fall of the Spanish empire ). It tried to reclaim the Falklands again in 1884 after it conquered the coastline of Patagonia closest to the Falklands and then again in WW2. It used the expulsion myth and counter history to lie the the UN to get resolutions on negotiation around sovereignty in 65 and 76..then broke those resolutions by invading in 82, broke it again in 94 by placing claim to the Falkland in its constitution and finally in 2009 when it put the Falklands in law in the province of Tierra del Fuego.
The behaviour of the Argentinian government since 1816 and the fall of the Spanish empire has been one of constant aggression and expansion as it conquered and destroyed indigenous peoples across Patagonia as well as other European colonies. It’s spend pretty much it’s entire history as a nation in one land grap or another.
Good summation, thanks
I try to be very balanced on my geopolitical view and not be completely Anglo centric and freely admit that the British empire while going a lot of good stuff and setting the corner stones for the modern world, also did some pretty selfish stuff ( especially in regards to Africa and the Caribbean transplantations). But in the case of the Falklands its very clear it’s always been ours, there were no indigenous people and Argentinian from its inception was a highly aggressive imperial state that has tried to take the Falklands by any means it can, simply because it thinks it can( it took the worst bits of Spainish imperialism and mixed it with a transplanted/colonial populations feelings of appsolute right…leading it to pretty non stop wars of conquest against indigenous peoples and its colonial neighbours….if you look at most of the American colonies that become independent in the 18-19 century they followed the same hyper aggressive mentality ( look at the US view of Canada, it only stopped invading because the UK pretty much side stop or else…it’s wars with Mexico and it’s brutal destruction of the North American tribal nations.)
Have a read of Argentinas land grab of Patagonia. The Argentine Government paid a head bounty, for getting rid of the indigenous population. Even during the Empire building days, I don’t think we encouraged legalizing the mass extinction of a race of people?
Argentina is a colonial construct itself, with a history of genocide against the native peoples. It has no more claim on the Falklands than we have over Northern France, Belgium or the Netherlands. Juxtapositon here is no basis. Making a territory a national fetish by decades of properganda is criminal both for Agrentine’s “Malvinas” & the PRC’s SCS theft from several much closer nations who have international law on their side.
I think “can do better” could be applicable here.
These soldiers in Argentina can’t peel the tatties! Like all of us know what happened in the Falkland War 😁
How much frigates, cruisers, subs etc. should be there do youse think?
Let’s face it now the RN could just stand off the Argentina cost line and just hit there air fields or there military bases with cruise missiles .But still best to keep an eye on them.👀 Has some countries sleep others build .
Indeed. Our nuclear deterrent didn’t deter in 1982 because the Argentine junta calculated,correctly, that we wouldn’t use it. But long range missiles with conventional warheads are much more likely to be used and thus a better deterrent. Destroying key infrastructure, power stations, bridges or military bases would soon bring an end to any invasion attempt.
But relying solely on SSNs to launch Tomahawk or similar weapons isn’t enough. We need to extend the capability to the surface fleet, just as the US have done.
Agreed Peter 👍
Which is why T31 and T26 will have Mk41 fitted.
11 sets of NSM 88 missiles embarked us quite big fist too.
A good step in the right direction after years of RN down playing the requirement.
22 ships over 10 years is not the right drumbeat to even maintain what we have
The NSS is a 30 yr plan so 22 very 10 yrs = 66 ships which is well short of what we need
Drumbeat was identified as critical by SJP as the best way to break the cycle of boom and bust by having a sustainable level of orders at a consistent rate.
From this response we are either not implementing the NSS (B Wallace is responsible for this) or are planning a much smaller RN.
How big do you think the RN is?
7 Astutes
4 Dreadnoughts
8 T26
6 T45
5 T31
5 T32
3 FSSS
2 MROSS
5 MCM motherships
4 Tides
6 MRSS
5 River 2
3 River 1
That’s 63 which is already an increase from now with T32 and FSSS
Even if you add in 2 Waves that’s 65. Of course submarines have to be counted separately, same with the carriers.
The number they use for RN + RFA ships also includes Archer class and MCMV’s which a yard like Appledore or the smaller one on the Clyde could do, and is small work which is why tonnage built is a better indicator to an extent.
Drumbeat shouldn’t really be counted in a large group together as a yard like H&W won’t go for high end escorts, and a yard like Govan won’t go for larger ships
Realistically the drumbeat isn’t enough for spme of the yards. On a 30 year life T31 replacement won’t start construction until the early 2050s. Assuming T32 goes ahead up until 2035 is sorted. Past that there isn’t much except the 3 River batch 1s which are small work for a yard like Appledore.
Rosyth of course has perfect facilities for large ship building- second only to H&W-with 3 large dry docks, lots of space and a Goliath crane installed already. Unfortunately 1 dry dock is tied up for the carriers and another for submarine decommissioning. Hopefully the backlog of subs will clear up in the next 15-20 years and from then on Devonport can manage alone.
Again hopefully the MOD will invest properly in the dry dock for the carriers once the Babcock contract runs out. The ideal spot is of course Portsmouth but the most cost effective is H&Ws smaller dry dock. Rosyth is very spacious so you could have Babcock and H&W competing for larger ships, Appledore for smaller ships, CL for medium ships and Babcock and BAE competing for escorts.
Every time the topic of shipbuilding comes up I always mention it, but to have a strong sector you need both exports and commercial sales. Britain currently has neither but it shouldn’t be too hard to diversify.
British companies should get some benefits from the Government for buying British and ships like tankers or Points will have transferable skills to commercial tankers and large RO-RO ferries.
Cruise ships would be good to get into with Western Europe heavily dominating the market, but it’ll be quite far off into the future.
Given a lot of the ferry companies in Scotland have been nationalised, CL, Appledore and Ferguson can get those.
A lot of the shipyards in the UK are modernising. Appledore is quite modern, H&W will be modern, Babcock is modern and Govan will be. There are still yards like Pallion for large medium ships that’s modern, or Portsmouth for escorts which is quite modern. CL is modern for medium ships but is suffering from the boom and bust cycle.
Wiki states a combined RN/RFA ship count of 83, + some RoRos we could count at a push and whilst this clearly involves some lesser vessels, i will,play the politicians at their own game and count vessels whilst increasing tonnage.
its worth noting that at the start of the Falklands war the RN had 64 escorts. Now there’s food for thought.
for the planned fleet merge the MRSS and mothership into one and replace the rivers with a new corvette or more T32s and it’s not too bad, but we need a larger submarine force and more of the river replacement type imo.
ultimately we need to get back to 2010 levels of the RN and RAF in particular but need to choose platforms wisely.
add in all other government funded ferries and the RN support fleet (c. 2.5k vessels are contracted to be supported so I assume we own them) then there is enough requirements to keep multiple yards busy, but they must be within benchmark coatings and upgrade regularly.
AI and robotics may well help the uk become more efficient in this sector going fwd, but for me the investment also helps some of the poorer communities in uk and taxpayer does get a whole load of its money back, something that doesn’t happen if it’s bought from abroad.
£6bn pa could get us a 100 ship joint fleet, including the much needed 11+4 subs, but they certainly need to be fewer classes built in greater volumes with the river, sandown, hunt & echo classes merging into a single corvette type that becomes the RNs go anywhere policing vessel.
lastly, we spend a lot of money on LEPs, and I would stop this practice going fwd in favour of new build.
Could defend?
Or, retake?
Arge is a nothing now.
As above, defence is rather easy now given non-existent Argentine offensive capability.
Let’s say that somehow the Argentines were in control of the islands, I would say that retake is also possible since Argentina has no air force worth considering and no submarines. That would permit the UK to establish local air and naval supremacy, starve the garrison and land (as in 1982) at a place of choosing, this time with no air or naval opposition.
So yes, I would say both defend and retake capability is there, but the retake is really not needed given state of Argentine forces.
The thin pin striped line wrote an excellent piece on this…well worth a read
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/?m=1
Over the years there has been bred into the British psyche a sense of negativity, defeatism, of pending doom. Just look at any newspaper, TV news to see what I mean where the negative aspect is always given precedence over the main story. We see it in play regards where the remit is always, the Uk isn’t doing enough and we should be doing better:
Climate change
NHS
Obesity
UK power supply
Intake of Migrants
Defending the rights of Trans-wohmen
And of course, Defence, where we are fed a constant diet of “The sky is going to fall in” by so called experts with a political agenda be it Elwood who is still stamping his tiny little feet over Wallace getting the DS job over him. Healey as Labour DS wants the full time job. Nicholas Drummond who led the charge regards replacing the Challenger 2 with the Leopard 2 just happens to be strategic advisor to KMW or even the green haired black shirt wearing members of the Scottish Nationalist party (I see the Great Leader has now come out with decriminalisation of all drugs)
Lets not forget the blame game taught at school (Empire, White privilege) So is it any wonder why people here feel the Falklands is ripe for the taking. A few facts:
Its 340 miles from Argentina in one of the most inhospitable regions on the planet meaning that any attacker only has a certain window, which is what I bet the junta were banking on when they invaded on the onset of Winter in 1982. Huge mistake.
I’ve been 3 time (2 six-month tours and 1 battle field tour in 2014) so I have seen the lay of the land, why on my second tour we spent our entire time on the West Island building something, we started off with tents and on our first morning we found our tents had been blown away including the chest fridge freezers we had brought along. That resulted in airlifting the iso containers which contained all our stores and equipment off the stores ship been repositioned by Chinooks into a small city (with a lot of help via the use of Stihl saws) where we only had to venture outside in which reach our sleeping containers.
Something very similar (but on a much larger scale ) can be found at Mount Pleasant Camp
We already have troops there, we already have stores and equipment in place if the need arises to reinforce the island. Any invasion force will have to:
1) Take the weather into account
2) Take the standing forces into account and I’m pretty sure that the use of weapons such as Javelin and NLAW in the Ukraine won’t have gone down well with the Argentine armed forces especially taking into account the inability of vehicles to move cross country, the lack of metalled roads forcing any attacking force to use defined routes of attack. (I somehow doubt any South American military been able to yomp on mass cross country like we did in 1982)
3) Resupply from the mainland, just the threat of 1 nuke sub off the coast is enough to make any invading force think twice.
4) Moral. The defeat in 1982 brought down the government, the British know this only too well, how do you think Public mood will react if a number of ships are sunk by the RN. All Argentine parties know this and that will be the main deciding factor for them all.
The biggest threat for the British over the Falklands is the nihilistic mindset which has taken root here.
Agree, middle class nihilism has always been the Uk’s greatest weakness.
Bravo. As always.
Farouk- “Over the years there has been bred into the British psyche a sense of negativity, defeatism, of pending doom”- clearly you are referring to the media here in New Zealand. 😚
I believe the time is right to encourage a South Atlantic Treaty Organisation (if such a thing exists) Base on the Falkland Islands.
Sends a clear message to China, to sod off, rather than them cosying up to Argentina in any way.
I have to say the comments on this website are as good as the articles. knowledge enhancing, thank you for teaching me so much! Top blokes
With the defences in place we could repel/defeat any invasion Argentina could mount atm. If we recognised the signs we could deploy reinforcements & deter it happening better.
If someone like China added a task force to assist Argentina we’d struggle. If occupation was acheived, we do not have the numbers or capabilities that allowed us only just, by the skin of our teeth, to retake the islands in 1982.
China would love a base for fishing fleets to fish-out S Atlantic & Antarctic stocks, plus gain mineral rights. The few Falklanders & our garrison could easily be dismissed by the CCPs lack of concience, if they ever thought they could get away with it. If NATO was already at war elsewhere, the opportunity might sem far easier.
I see the BBC is in top wonk mode:
https://i.postimg.cc/FRv15N0C/Opera-Snapshot-2023-07-07-201938-www-bbc-co-uk.png
Yeah nasty nasty USA, its as if the BBC has an agenda
https://i.postimg.cc/yNJBQdWC/Opera-Snapshot-2023-07-07-205243-www-bbc-co-uk.png
“As if”…they do mate, as we know only too well.
As my old granny used to say “Two wrongs don’t make a right”
hhm, by “abhorrent” I’m sure the correct adjective is “force multiplier”. Team idiot at the BBC outdoes itself yet again. Before they wax on re the evils of cluster munition, maybe they should learn about air burst shells as well. Not a murmur from them when the russians were using cluster munitions in Ukrainian civilians areas.
Honestly BBC et al, just shut the f**k up and let the adults do their work.
Tee hee hee hee. Love it. 👌👍
I wonder if this means that the US will give them the M26 cluster munition rocket for their MLRS/HIMARS?
The Falklands are very very well defended and can easily be reinforced if ever the need should arise. Argentina on the other hand are not in any way capable of mounting any attack on the Falklands. They have virtually no surface or subsurface threat to speak of and almost no Air Force, except for a handful of ancient and barely airworthy Skyhawks. China will not be setting up in Argentina in order to invade the Islands either. It’s ludicrous! Consider the vast distances involved, something close to 13000 nautical miles, and then consider the continuous stream of logistics required, and then having to sustain all of it over the very very long term. Consider the vast expense of all of that and the economic and diplomatic consequences for China. Argentina does not have the facilities or the political will to give host Nation support to a long term Chinese industrial and military build up on its territory. It simply is never going to happen.
Since the end of hostilities in 1982. The Argentine forces have been on the Falklands a number of times. Primarily their Agrupación de Buzos Tácticos (Tactical Fivers Group) delivered by sub.
There was evidence of them scouting out the radar base on West Falkland. Normally the resident infantry company does patrols around East Falkland, But that was changed to include West Falkland. Which is where they found an abandoned punctured inflatable in King George’s Bay.
It is believed that the ARA San Juan submarine was returning from such a mission, when it was lost with all hands.
Argentina only have to send immigrants in boats unarmed.
Why did NATO not assist the UK when it was invaded in 1982? Yet the UK went to war with America in Afghanistan after 911? If Russia invaded Hawaii would it generate a nato response?
Ha ha ha!! Russia invading Hawaii !!
The territorial limits for an invading Russian military are about 50 miles from its borders.
Geography. NATO would no more go south of the Tropic of Cancer than a London cabbie would go south of the river after midnight.
“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
Article 5 was triggered in Afghanistan by the World Trade Center attack in North America, not because Afghanistan itself is covered.
Because, firstly it was outside the NATO treaty boundaries. Plus the UK believed it didn’t need the help.
Oh oh, 01’s mate 🙄
The question which should have been asked is could we retake the Falklands and the answer is a definitive no. Insufficient amphibious shipping, helicopters, and FGA aircraft etc etc.
A little of topic but good to see an automated panel line going in to H&W Belfast. I wonder if BAE will be able to do 800ts pw of steel panel with 12 people.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7082763188387094529-zLxJ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android
I’m sorry, so sorry they, the media and the public try to crucify our Armed Forces! This is really despicable….. !
The great failure of the Falkland War was intelligence. In fact worse; the Foreign office couldn’t be asked to read Argentina’s news papers who had blithely announced the juntas plans to invade months earlier. A similar threat in 1976 led the then Foreign Secretary David Owen to respond by requesting P.M. James Callaghan (a Navy veteran) to put forces on alert. The Argentine’s received the message.
The Foreign Office then, and very likely now, wanted shot of a lot of remote places called Dependancies where some jolly jack tar had jumped ashore in 17 canteen and planted a flag in the name of one of the Georges. By this it comes the country with the greatest responsibility for the globes coral formations is yours truly. In the late 20th century the Argentine’s were foolishly promised something by London they never wanted before. China would like the fish licences to operate in Falkland waters and Buenos Aires will oblige for a price. Watch this space.
No entirely true.
The military attaché and ambassador had been increasingly frantically communication Argentinian intentions to London.
London turned a deaf ear.
Read what I wrote again. Where is it ‘untrue’?
More than just putting naval forces on alert, the Labour Government sailed a small task force down South.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597581.stm
Thanks Graham. I wasn’t imagining that as I thought.
It certainly did the job.
If Mrs Thatcher/John Nott had done the same before 1982 (and also not said they would retire the ice patrol ship and sell 1 or 2 of our brand new STOVL carriers to Australia), then the Falklands Conflict would have been avoided.
Ocean as has been stated by Gunbuster etc on here wasn’t is a good state. The cost of the refit was most likely part of the deal to sell her, hence getting some sort money back on her
I can attest to the poor state of Ocean. When we were off Norway and an engine gave up the ghost. Apparently this happened on regular occurrences. Did mean we spent two weeks in Trondiem though – happy days!
Ocean couldn’t realistically stay in service without huge investments.
The bigger crime was not choosing the Swan Hunter design which was a proper warship, ending the yard.
I would agree a “through deck” design for an amphibious ship does offer certain advantages, over a deck layout such as Albion’s. Primarily for helicopter turn arounds. As it’s far easier and faster to coordinate take offs and landings. Similarly a well deck is also highly beneficial for loading/unloading vehicles on to landing craft.
Fitting heat protection to the Mistrals does make sense. As the RN will be operating with them during exercises. Having another place to land will be helpful, just in case. Plus it opens other options.
The Canberras are a larger class of ship than the Mistrals. But are dwarfed by the America class. The Italian Trieste is an interesting design as it sits between the America and Canberra in terms of size and displacement. Which I think would make an excellent replacement for Ocean and the Albions.
Our forces now Vs the argies now then yes.
Our forces now Vs the argies numbers in ’82 then now that’s going to be a close one, the problem now is we cannot sustain many loses without it turning into a complete fubar. The constant short sightedness has done far more damage than any enemy ever has to our forces.
how abaut if we de-escalate, and close a Pandora’s box open to the future generations and both countries present and accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ so that the court determines where the sovereignty of the Malvinas/Falklands Islands is located?