Danish Minister of Defence Troels Lund Poulsen and Argentina’s Minister of Defence, Luis Alfonso Petri, in Buenos Aires signed a letter of intent entailing the sale of 24 Danish F-16 fighter jets to Argentina.
“I have had an extremely fruitful meeting with my Argentine colleague who has expressed great satisfaction on becoming member of the family of F-16 nations across the globe. The deal has been negotiated in collaboration with the United States”, says Danish Minister of Defence, Troels Lund Poulsen.
The decision to sell the Danish jets to Argentina has been made in close collaboration with the American government, which has approved the sale of the US-produced aircraft.
“Danish Defence is in the process of replacing its F-16 fleet with new F-35 jets. Denmark is donating 19 F-16 jets to Ukraine, and the government has decided to sell 24 Danish F-16 jets to Argentina. I am therefore very pleased that my Argentine colleague and I today in Buenos Aires have signed a letter of intent on the possible sale”, says Danish Minister of Defence, Troels Lund Poulsen.
Good to have friends you can rely on.
If it’s the F-16 I looked at, these are very old. At least 25 years old. I think it’s more to keep Argentina on the side of the US instead of Argentina buying and shifting towards China.
That’s exactly what this is. I’m also certain this agreement did not come as a surprise to the UK. The long game here is trying to prevent China from establishing a stronghold in South America.
Yes less of an issue with the new President..giving the new guy all the support we can to keep the Peronists out of power. It is good for the UK and western liberal democracies as a whole…Argentinian via the Peronist government was slipping into the grasp of china and that would have been a far greater security risk than a few old f16s.
Jonathan, what makes you think this negates the Chicom influence?
The CCP want naval and airbases in Argentina. That permission alone would cover the purchase of combat aircraft and crew training. Maybe even amphibs and tanks. The F16s could be just argie maskirovka.
Hi George the present President is very very anti communist and he won on a resist Chinese influence platform ( he for instance idolises thatcher as one of the key breakers of the Soviet Union..he considers the CCP as one of the last great evils ). Many portray him as a right wing populist..which would make him a danger…but he’s not actually that, he’s very much a right wing libertarian..which is a different fish…choice and the individual is all to this guy..he’s come out and Said he believes the Falklands are Argentinian ( as all Argentina politicians do) but the big difference is that he’s made it clear that the views of the islanders are paramount..in all processes..in his words “no one gets forced”. He’s made it clear any process is a very long term..dialogue with the islanders and negotiations with Britain…I don’t have an issue with that ( Britain, Argentina and the islanders can share in the Falklands future as long as it’s a future based on the choices of the islanders…the level of resource extracted that the UK and a stable Argentina could do together is significant).
anything that helps keep him in power is very good for the west and resists the anti western power block…we are in a Cold War and we have to play Cold War tactics.
Basically anything the west and the UK can do to support someone that believes in individual freedom and can guide Argentinian away from the Peronists is good for the future of the Falkland Islanders, Argentina and the wests influence in South America If we can find a way to work with Argentinian in the Falklands and BAT it’s a good thing.
Then I will take your word on that Jonathan. But all things considered. They are just one election or revolution (South American forte.) away from the old style Junta or marxist rabble.
Hi George, Jonathan is correct the current president is a libertarian so anti China and anto Socialist of any form.
Cheers for the intel lads. Looks like I have some background reading to catch up on.
This agreement was the price the UK had to pay to get F16 to Ukraine. I’m sure Denmark would match rather have given these to Ukraine than got a couple of quid to send them to Argentina.
True but plenty of life extension / upgrades out there. Get them, get them into service, develop your capability and the look at a local Block 70 + life extension and they will have a very capable force that have a long service life ahead of them.
Without US approval?
I have no problem with this. A country like Argentina needs some fast jets to protect their airspace from hijacked airliners or similar threats. It will take them quite some time to be able to operate 24 F16s competently and even then they will pose a limited threat to UK sovereignty in the Falklands.
What is an actual problem for the Falklands is the withdrawal of the T1 Typhoons without replacement, especially as it is T1s down on the islands at the moment. A fleet of 107 T2/T3/T4 Typhoons isn’t enough for QRA, NATO patrols, allied exercises, training, maintenance, Falklands station and flying bomb runs down to Yemen. We need a new Typhoon order to replace the T1s (which should be postponed until the new airframes arrive) and keep skills alive at Warton until work on production Tempest starts.
So very disappointed with how the Conservatives have handled defence over the last 14 years, not saying Labour will be better but the Cons deserve their impending election wipeout. Even though they know they won’t be around to deal with the consequences in a years time they are still not enough commiting money and orders for defence.
I have a problem when the government of Argentina has publicly stated its intention to ‘take back’ the Falklands.
The present president of Argentina has made his view clear.
1) he thinks the Falklands should be part of Argentina ( that’s fine he’s allowed that view).
2) the sovereignty of the Falklands can only be settled peacefully.
3) the view of the islanders is just as important as the view of Argentina and UK governments ( he’s fundamentally a libertarian and does not believe in governments right to force any decisions).
essentially what he is said is that he will keep talking to the Uk government and and with islanders, trying to change minds and get them to the point they agree to a change of sovereignty…he even thinks this will be a very very very long road….
I don’t have an issue with that….
The US has required Argentina to provide guarantees that the aircraft won’t be used against the UK much in the same way Pakistan can’t use F16’s against India.
Me too. We need to have words with Denmark and/or destroy those F16s ASAP. If the deal goes through they will be transported by sea, giving several options.
I see you are extremely scared of Argentina, from this nonsensical post
Not at all. Just once bitten twice shy. They do have a bad track record. Only very slow learners would be unconcerned.
That is the act of a terrorist state, it’s something Iran would try and do…we are not that…Argentina is not our enemy we are not at war..we have a disagreement around the sovereignty of one island..we also happened to have the same sort of disagreement with Spain and Ireland, we have had a number of diplomatic incidences with France over jersey and fishing rights. you forget there is a difference between conflict ( and I mean that in all domains…we are actively in conflict with china in a number of domains) and disagreement…you also forget that just because we had a war does not make us permeant combatants…if we destroyed the military assets of a nation we are at peace with on the high seas,undoubtedly killing innocent seamen we would rightfully become an international pariah..right up there with Iran and the pirates of the Horn of Africa …sorry it’s a suggestion that is immoral.
Well, I did say options. Such as stopping, boarding and pushing them overboard mid Atlantic. Not the first time we have blockaded or enforced arms/drugs embargos. But considering what you just said about the nature of the Argie government (at present) I’m inclined to just ask for assurances. While doubling the RAF, RN and Army contingent on the Islands. Perhaps improving the targeting packages for all of their airfields, command/control infrastructure and port facilities.
Once bitten, twice shy my friend.
I know former enemies can become friends but not Argentina, who behave like rabid dogs at the very mention of the name Falkland Islands. They still covet those islands for the off shore resources we currently have rights to. Which we should be exploiting now. Building an on-island terminal and become energy independent. As for southern Ireland/Eire/IRA home base. It is we who should be pushing to reunite the British Isles. We already magnanimously defend the bloody place! Like it or not.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a bit of a believer in hard line geopolitics..if Argentina started making real threats or started building forces to take the islands, then we could justify a gloves off approach …active defence is enshrined in international law ( so if you have evidence of an imminent attack you can attack first)…but as there is no active risk to the UK or no UN sanction so we cannot interfere with international shipping on the high seas without losing all international credibility…an one thing the west really needs to maintain is the credibility of the present order.
Jesus man, calm down
Did you remain calm last time the Falkland Islands were invaded or HMS Sheffield and the others were sunk.
No, but I’m not going to get over excited by this.
That makes two of us. I’m perfectly calm about it.
Agree. Well written response. It’s long overdue for either another batch of F35Bs or typhoon tranche 4 to be ordered.
(A) Has anyone stated that the1435 Flight Typhoon’s will be withdrawn ? – these are FGR4’s after all ,and (B) We could replace them with F35B if need be ?.
The 4 T1 Typhoons in the Falklands will remain until 2027, then they will be replaced with 4 Typhoon T2/3 aircraft.
👍
can the UK block the sale? afterall Korea could not sell the FA50 to Argentina because of UK components, such Martin Baker seats.
Even though these are early model F16A/B, they still use some decent weapons and could later be upgraded to latest Viper standard, which are much more of a threat than the FA50 ever was.
I don’t think the Danish F16A aircraft use Martin Baker ejection seats, but the ACESII ejection seats.
ok thanks. so i guess it’s doudtful that a UK veto is even possible
We could but we agreed not to so Ukraine could get the other F16’s.
Better Argentina have old F16s of which we probably know everything about their capabilities, rather than new Chinese jets of which we probably know very little.
even with AIM 120 which could potentially be part of the deal according to respectable website DefenseNews?
Not to mention other weapons suppliers, who knows what anti ship they could get tgeir little hands on? Turkey has early F16s and a budding missile industrial base, not to mention India and China
Not impossible to add aftermarket weapons on planes even if not optimal. ie Ukraine Soviet era fighters using weapons like Scalp/Storm Shadow, JDAM ER and ASSM Hammer with a little elabow grease and some tinkering. Maybe not optimal, but still deadly.
Underlying all this is the fact that Argentina is not a stable democracy. With some deft political moves or a military coup you could see someone with ulterior motives in charge overnight. Are we prepared for that ?
Let’s be honest Argentinian has no hope of successfully invading the Falklands…it was only the fact they were completely unguarded in 82 apart from a token garrison…it’s now got functional air defence as well as a significant ground force…the only way Argentina could ever threaten the Falklands is if it got significant support from china in a massive rebuild…which I could see happening at some point if some specific geopolitical events occurred..but we would have a hell of a lot of warning for that to occur…and one SSN in the area would make even a Chinese backed invasion difficult in the extreme..unless china was willing to enter a direct confrontation with the UK in the south Atlantic ( china has a great deal of navel power but I don’t think they would be that interested in the south Atlantic).
ofc it would be nuts to invade, but that was also the case back in the 80s. history often repeats itself in bizarre ways, and crazy shit happens usually when you least expect it. ie Ukraine, Red Sea etc…
To be honest, the 1982 invasion was something that could have been predicted…
the Uk was dangling sovereignty of the islands in front of a military dictatorship with a history of armed conflict..it then went back on those discussions and said we are not discussing it anyone.
At that same time the UK government pulled back on its military commitment to the area.
All the while this military dictatorship was having domestic issues and the sovereignty of the Falklands was a unifying issue for Argentina..
Argentina is 400 miles away from the Falklands it takes a hell of a lot of effort to mount a sea based invasion across 400 miles of south Atlantic Ocean..essentially against an enemy with an good set of defences and say what you will the Falklands is a very well defended island…and there is no way Argentina is regenerating its navy and airforce in a way that could support an invasion..unless it got massive backing from china.
Not just predicted, there were warnings from both HUMINT, diplomatic, attache, and SIGINT sources which the FCO ignored or downplayed.
Now days, we are even more capable in those areas.
We had hints in the seventies and mounted Operation Journeyman. I am fairly certain we could not do the same again at such short notice. In 82 it was all over with not a thing we could do about it. Could we even put an SSN to sea. There was a period last year they were all in Faslane. I admire your optimistic outlook on our capabilities. I will say in Warfare you should never underestimate your foe. Learn from your past mistakes.
I never realised that China are such a great belly button power. An interesting point.
The reality is mate that if we had what we had on the island in 82 Argentina would never have invaded in the first place and the Argentinian navy now is a shadow of its former self…
just as an example in AirPower the rn was very significantly on the back foot in 82..most of the frigates sent to the Falklands could not really defend themselves let alone anything else…the Harrier was not generationally better than. Anything the Argentinian airforce or navy had..( infact the Argentinian navel fixed wing aviation was probably more powerful) I total Argentina had around 240 combat aircraft..against a few handfuls of harriers..and the majority of escorts with local control Guns ( sea cat was a pointless. Missile as was sea slug) and we did not have more than a coupe of sea Wolf armed ships…the navy in the 80s was not designed to operate inside an enemy’s air envelope, it was designed to hunt subs mid Atlantic and what it pulled off was a miraculous blend of navel strategy and tactical willingness to take very significant hits.
any rerun of 82 would be undertaken by the 21c RN, which may be small but is specifically designed for siting in someone’s neighbourhood..the carriers with 24 F35s would dominate and destroy any South American airforce…there is nothing in South America that Comes close..all modern rn escorts can provide a very good short range air defence..and a type 45 could denude a South American airforce in one morning if they attacked.. we also have no less numbers of amphibious vessels than we did in 82 and the ones we have are better than what we had in 82…Argentina is a shadow of what it was and 20 is old f16s will do sod all to change that…they cannot even attack the Falklands effectively without refuelling capabilities that Argentina have not had in a generation.
so yes our navy is smaller by a long way..but is one specially now designed for expeditionary warfare..the navy of 82 was very specifically denuded of that capability ( it as just the RNs grit at keeping some of it alive that allowed the retaking of the Falklands).
As I said we could not mount Operation Journeyman again today or within a month. One of the key aircraft in 82 was an obsolete relic. Cost a lot of lives, UK lives. Never underestimate your enemy. I could mount a plan now with what the Argentines have to retake the Falklands. It would not take much. How long they could hold it is down to the will of the then defending force.
Hi royal, we could mount something like journeyman, but it would hit other operations in support of nato.. in reality though we would not need to do journeyman and it would be a waste of effort…in the 1970s the Falklands would have been impossible to do a significant quick re-enforcement/response by air as the runways in the Falklands were at best able to take a hercs only and any trip is 4000 miles from UK to Ascension Island then 3500 miles from ascension to Falklands which would require inflight refuelled there and back on all the legs..for each sortie…there was also no infrastructure even if you wanted to dump an air mobile brigade and you could not have any fast jets or strike other…so navel was the only way to go for something like journeyman….mount pleasant is a game changer: as is C17 and A400:
1) we can land strategic airlift.. C17 and A400 which can both do the trip without air to air refuelling.
2) we have significant logistics infrastructure to support large numbers of personal
3) support fast jets and other Air.
which means instead of sending a navel task group 8000 miles into the south Atlantic to get pounded my the weather taking 40 days to get into theatre after it’s been assembled..we can dumb 16 air assault brigade into mount pleasant along with a front line typhoon squadron, rotor support and dare anyone to attempt a contested landing….with only one nation on the planet actually able to take up the bet ( and they are our besties)….
A very good post – thanks. Rounds on target – fire for effect’ 👍🇬🇧
👍
Here we go with the navels again…
Navels are very important..they keep your head and legs going in the same direction.
Does Argentina have any AAR capability? As without it what are the use of these in some theorised attack on the FI?
This is to keep them on side with the west, and not in Chinas camp.
In the Falklands War era they used C130 for AAR,im not sure if this is still the case or if that capability has been replaced.
They have 2 KC130H in service. Furthermore F16 can carry drop tanks.
So in theory they could, but no current appatite for conflict. Milei said he wanted the FI via diplomatic means not military. But circumstances can always change, esp in a country with a populist leader and a failing economy.
Yes most people forget that Falklands are actually a really long way away from Argentina..infact it’s 440 miles from Argentinians closest air base to the Falklands…and with 2000kg of ordnance a f16 is not getting there and back ( it’s combat radius is around 350miles for hi lo hi)…the big a
danger is china not a few f16s…china building a navel base in Argentina…building up the Argentinian navy and then china supporting an invasion of the Falklands…that would be a problem.
Agreed. This article will always get some folk excited, but in itself it is not an issue for me.
Yup.
But I’d rather the F16’s had been donated to Ukraine TBH.
Good point.
That is very true..I don’t have an issue with them going to Argentina as it’s geopolitically sound if irritating..but Ukraine is the fulcrum on which the future direction of geopolitics sits.
Exactly send a token 8 to Argentina so they can build up capabilities and the rest to Ukraine.
As you say Ukraine is the fulcrum of geopolitics.
Agreed
China has zero interest in getting mixed up in any Falklands conflict. less chance of that scenario than a solo attack from Argentina, which is extremely unlikely imo
but F16 with drop tanks can more than cover that distance and back, not to mention longer reach of weapons than back in the day. furthermore Argentina has 2 tanker aircrafts.
So it is possible materially even if improbable and a crazy notion.
But it is still an uncomfortable situation, because F16 is much more of a threat than FA50 is, and yet Uk gov stopped that from happening.
I wouldnt lose sleep over it, but i also wouldnt ignore/dismiss it
I believe China is very interested in the falklands as they can get leverage on Argentina , increase their opportunity to exploit resources in the area . The other benefit for china is it can increase its influence on Antarctica region and other islands . if the UK gets booted out of the area .
Indeed most people forget that geostrategic wise the Falklands are huge…they are the Key to the BAT, an area the size of Alaska that includes the Antarctic peninsula and is full of untapped resources…the Antarctic treaty has held for now..but at some point some nation is going to fire the starting gun on exploitation and all hell will break loss…even if it holds the treaty is up for review in 2048 and there is not a snowballs chance on a warming planet that its going to stay in place…the BAT is the very best bit of the Antarctic and we say we own it…that ownership is only possible due to the Falklands…china wouls love to to get the UK out of the Falklands so it can get its mites on the Antarctic peninsula…most of the worlds powers would fancy a bit of the peninsula if the treaty failed.
Explained very well , south America and Argentina should be more concerned with China than the UK falkland Islands status
A few facts on the aircraft in question (Taken from F16 Net)
The Royal Danish Air Force bought a total of 77 F-16A/B aircraft in 2 major batches and 2 attrition replacement orders. Of these, 48 aircraft and 14 spares, were upgraded to MLU standard .
The initial Flyvevaben (Royal Danish Air Force) order was for 46 single seat F-16A’s and 12 two-seat F-16B’s. Final assembly of these planes was carried out by the SABCA plant in Belgium, and all were built to the initial block 1 standards. Deliveries to the RDAF began on January 28th, 1980, with the arrival of the first F-16B. The 58 F-16A/B’s in the initial RDAF order were later upgraded to F-16A/B block 10 standards by the RDAF’s Aalborg workshop in the Pacer Loft I program. A follow-on batch of 12 block 15 (large-tail) aircraft was ordered in August 1984. The order consisted of 8 single seat F-16As and 4 two-seat F-16Bs.
Attrition Replacements
Three former USAF Block 15 aircraft from the 170th Fighter Squadron of the Illinois Air National Guard were delivered to the RDAF in July of 1994. A second batch of 4 attrition replacements arrived in early 1997.
1980-1983
F-16A Block 1 (3)
F-16B (2)
F-16A Block 5 (12)
F-16B (3)
F-16A Block 10 (15)
F-16B (3)
F-16A (16)
F-16B (4)
Follow-On
1987-1991
F-16A Block 15 (8)
F-16B (4)
Attrition I
1994
F-16A Block 15 (3)
Attrition II
1997
F-16A Block 15 (3)
F-16B Block 10 (1)
Regards variants;
F-16A/B Block 1/5/10
F-16A/B Block 15 (the variant level the Argentina is receiving)
F-16A/B Block 20
F-16C/D Block 25 (entered service 1984)
F-16C/D Block 30/32 (entered service in 1987)
F-16C/D Block 40/42 (entered service 1988)
F-16C/D Block 50/52 (entered service 1991)
F-16C/D Block 50/52 Plus (entered service with Poland in 2006)
F-16E/F Block 60/61 (only in service with the UAE entered service in 2004)
F-16V (block 70/72) (entered service with Taiwan in 2019 as an upgrade, first new build entered service with Bahrain in 2023
The engines on the Danish F16s is the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 turbofan, rated at 14,590 lb.s.t.
The latest V comes with the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229EEP turbofan, rated at 17,800 lb.s.t.
China has every interest in the the South Atlantic. Firstly if the Panama canal was closed the US would need to transit via the cape, Falklands in UK hands allows us the ability to support the US in controlling that route. Its very easy to shut the Panama canal, we saw the Suez shut very easily recently. If the US had to fight its wat around the Cape or deploy escorts is going to impact how it can fight in the Pacific
Also China supporting a conflict with UK removes assets that could assist the US in the Pacific should China go after Taiwan.
What use is a belly button base?
Gathers a lot of dust.
I think you mean fluff mate…
There are no logical reasons that I can see, where attacking the FI’s again, would be even remotely sane…… They would need a massive increase in capability across their entire armed forces…. Most of us bemoan the state of the UK’s capability but Argentina’s is in a Dire state. Just look at their Navy.
Yes mate. We’d see them coming long before anyway. As long as MPA remains available.
I can’t see them being a threat anytime soon. Personally, I’d like to see some diplomatic talks with a view to working together and helping each other…. a bit like the US and Vietnam.
Agreed there are a lot of resources and wealth that can be extracted from that region and an onside Argentinian would facilitate that.
Land Ceptor and/ or land based Aster 30s should suffice for Falklands defence with typhoon providing ultimate security. It would take all 24 F16s simultaneously attacking the Falklands to offer a credible threat. Not going to happen.
This purchase by Argentina gives the MOD and RAF a dilemma.
The 4 Tranche 1 Typhoon’s of No 1435 Flight currently based at Mount Pleasant in the Falklands are due to leave service in 2027 – after March 2025 they will be the last of a once 53 strong force. It’s currently expected that they won’t be replaced as there are barely enough Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft to keep 5 frontline squadrons up to strength – and these are over-stretched just meeting UK QRA, NATO and Operation Shader commitments.
The options seem to be:
(1) Retain in service a small number of Tranche 1 Typhoon’s after 2027;
(2) Demonstrate annually an ability to rapidly deploy a few Tranche 2/3’s to the Falkland’s (cheapest option so strong favourite);
(3) Purchase a small number of combat aircraft specifically for the Falklands, e.g. some used Saab Gripen’s (most expensive option so least likely);
Or just give up trying to defend the Falklands. Probably still politically unacceptable, although the Treasury, Foreign Office and probably even the MOD would love to get rid of this expensive and inconvenient commitment.
Well, Labour keep telling us about their “NATO test” so who knows.
No one in labour knows that’s for sure. They literally dropped all policies now in the run up to the general election.
4 T2/3 Typhoons will replace the 4 T1s post 2027.
Have you a recent official source for this? Apologies if so. Otherwise, a Parliamentary Question is in order.
But everything is uncertain with a new government very likely within 6 months. Starmer’s prevarication on spending more than 2% of GDP on defence means that whilst the present is bad, the future could be worse.
It was written on the MOD website about T1 Typhoons being retired in 2025 except 4 T1 airframes currently serving in the Falklands that would retire in 2027. They will definitely be replaced with Typhoon. . Our defence posture for the Falklands remains unchanged. And I don’t believe a potential future Labour gov would change that. Or a Conservative gov.
Agree
👍
It’s funny how different views you have compared to us, argentineans. We have been submitted into poverty by leftists and corrupt politicians. With almost 52% of poor population, the least we want/need is a war with a NATO member. Malvinas will eventually be Argentinean in the future, but we’d need more than a handful of aging F16s.
Falklands will never be Argentinean ‘in the future’. Get used to that idea and all will be well.
👍
Not interested in “being well” with you. So, don’t tell me what to think. Get used to the idea that you’ll die some day and you won’t see that most of UK’s colonies will be free to choose their own fate as history already showed. Good day, faceless and anonimate keyboard warrior.
I’m not anonymous Jose, I live in Barnsley Northern England and the last time I checked in the mirror, I definitely had a face.
I’ve had many battles in my life so far but none on a keyboard, so I’m no social media warrior, therefore you need to turn down your hatred please. I said the Falklands will never be Argentinean and that’s a valid thing to say given blood has been lost over them and 99% voted to remain with Britain. Couple of things aside that, why do you come on a UK defence site to make statements like that in my language? It is you who’s the keyboard warrior, so buzz off. Lastly, Argentina is a colony so maybe hand yourself back at the same time.
When I wrote about your anonymity I was clearly talking about your UKDJ account. BTW, I live in Almirante Brown, near Buenos Aires. A city named after Argentina’s Navy father, an Irish born sailor.
We’re in agreement about the blood shed. I should have never happened, and I’m confident it will not happen again. At the same time, I trust that at some point in time, by peaceful means, las Islas Malvinas will be argentinian.
Why do I come to a UK defence site to make statements in your language? Simple, because I can and I want. Does that bug you?
Again, you don’t need to tell me what to do, nobody does, so I’ll stick around unless the Admin says the opposite😉
So you’re a joker and didn’t tell me. This one killed me, very good one, mate!
Happy Easter to your family and people of Almirante Brown. I mention you coming to this site because UK defence has no interest for you, which means you are on here to be provocative to talk about the islands belonging to you. This is a defence site for a country that had to fight for these islands so I am not going to agree with you am I. Of course you are free to be on here but you are not contributing to discussions about UK defence are you, you just want to make a political point about those islands. Nothing keyboard warrior about that, plain facts.
Thank you.
That’s true, I brought the geopolitical view to this convo. End of the discussion for me. Anyway, if that happens, they won’t belong to “me”.
Correct
This is also true, but at the same time, a UK defence site writes about an aircraft wich is US made, being sold a nation which is not the UK. So what does that have to do with UK defence? Is the UK really considering Argentina a military threat?
IT’S British acutely 🇬🇧
The decision is not up to the Argentinian people, you have never inhabited those islands apart from a coupe of individuals before Argentina existed..who actually acknowledges Uk sovereignty and has asked permission from the Uk crown to set up a whaling station on the island …the islanders will make any decision on sovereignty and the UK government will support that decision…the Argentinian people need to stop trying to enforce their will on others and work with them….
the first people to actually live on the Falklands were french and British..the French gave up sovereignty the British never did..and it’s a British cultural population that exits on that island..there was no indigenous people that were removed it was a deserted island in the middle of the ocean..Argentinian sovereignty is based on a a pope making a unilateral decision to dived the Americas between the Spanish and Portuguese in a treaty made in 1494…that was the only basis the Spanish claim on the islands ( even though Britain and France found and colonised them)..the Argentinian claim is entirely based on this catch all we own everything treaty.
dear british readers: the argentine government have not any wish to use the force for Malvinas soverign. We think the 1982 war was a big mistake of an undemocratic government (fact governmet). Argentine need supersonic capacity to defend our big continental territory and to return to the wester hemisferic. The place that Argentine live, far away of Chine. We will continue asking for our rights about those islands, but always by diplomatic force, never by military force. We live in a solid democratic sistem sice 1983. And all argentine people wanna live in democracy and in pace. Personaly I apreciete to british people and I hope to work together for the peace around the world and the international rights of system. Maybe we never think the same thing about those islands territory, but we are not enemy in the present.
Edgaro wrote;
“”We will continue asking for our rights about those islands,””
I always find it interesting how people who demand something based on emotion, never seem to quote the facts for example under UN law countries can claim ‘exclusive economic zones’ (EEZs) up to 200 nautical miles from their coastlines, when other countries get involved common-sense arbitration and usually a line down the middle is the done thing. So the Falkland islands, the closest Argentina gets to them is around 301 miles , in fact Chile is much closer at around 215 miles away. But for some strange reason they are happy to allow the people of the Islands to live in peace under their own rule.
Regards self-rule, Self-determination is a core principle of international law, we see that in practice around the world be it Ukraine, Taiwan or in 1816, when Argentina claimed independence from Spain .
Argentina has never owned the Falkland Islands (albeit it for a few months 1982 which was due to the bullet and the bomb rather than the ballot box) in fact the British were living on the Islands well before Argentina was born. The only people who have a say on the matter are those people who live on the Islands and the local government there asked the people who live there the question if they would like to ditch the Uk and become Argentinian in 2013. That vote saw 1,513 people vote to remain British, and 3 who wanted to become Argentinian. Only those 18 and above could vote with 11% of the electorate found to have not been born in either the Falkland Islands or the UK; this included 13 people born in Argentine. A common trope banded around the world by those who want something for nothing is “We should do the right thing” with that in mind how about we listen to the people who live in the Falkland’s who have lived there as in historically (well the vast majority) for longer than Argentina has existed and who voted 11 years ago they want to remain in control of their own affairs.
Personally I find it annoying that even 3 people voted for it.
Annnnnd, no surprise, no responses from our readers in South America.
I think you didn´t understand my last text. I know the really history about Islas Malvinas, but you prefer to heart about the history telled for your Government. You live to 14000 km to Malvinas and my Country is to 500 km to the islands. The Malvinas islands are on plataform continental and submarine. Since 1810 thats territory is argentine land, by the lew, by the history and by the geography. UK don´t have any right in front the Argentine coast. You know that and you prefer don´t listen about that. I don´t believe you are my enemy, and the UK people are our enemy, but you have to know the true about it. I think you can be my friend over the diferences betwen ours countries. We are a pacefull Country and We wanna be your partners in many business. Please, think about it.
ERC wrote:
You think wrong, I make it a habit of learning the history of any place I visit (and usually live) So when I lived in Northern Ireland, I learnt the history ( from both sides of the argument) when I lived in Cyprus, Bosnia, Germany, I did similar and when I was in the Falkland’s in 1982 (yes i was there in 82) again in 83/84 (perks of being a combat engineer) and then again for a Battlefield tour in 2014 .
I have visited the Islands 3 times, so spare me your sanctimonious twaddle I don’t know nothing, as I have not only have read the book, I’ve met the cast and I’ve got the T-shirt
I based my post on actual facts devoid of any emotion, which would colour my opinion. can you say the same, especially seeing as how you conveniently washed over the fact that the UN stipulates that a country’s ability to legally claim territory ends at the 200-mile point. Seeing as the Falkland’s are outside of the South American continental shelf (geography doesn’t lie) and outside that 200-mile limit exposes the fact you haven’t a leg to stand on based on international law. Also, and a big also your entire stance ignores the will of the people on the Island which is paramount in this date and age.
My point, I’m the wrong person to try and hoodwink with misinformation and falsehoods.
I think you are wrong. The Malvinas Islands are on the Argentine continental shelf, and the territory is a detachment from the American continent. You are English, you have nothing to do on the American continent. Just imperial colonialism. The self-determination of the population implemented by the colonial power does not count. You should know that. The United Kingdom forcibly occupied the Malvinas Islands in 1833 and forcibly evicted the authorities designated by the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. I am glad to know that you are a former British military man and you have all my respects. I am also a former Argentine military man and as I said in my first text, I do not expect you to believe my arguments, but if I ask you to study the issue and you will understand that the Malvinas Islands are Argentine territory and the United Kingdom has nothing to do 500 kilometers away from the Argentine coast. I leave you a cordial greeting.
Oh deary me….. all of a sudden, some new accounts spring up from nowhere….. and people are being hooked ! 😂
Mate everyone on here loves a good argument…bring them on…the fact their only claim to sovereignty comes from a unilateral treaty creates by a Pope in 1490 just makes is more fun to argue.
Let’s sell a couple dozen typhoons to the Taliban and see how Congress likes that… The argument for the argies to go American over china is dumb and lazy at best, I’d bet the RAF and US intelligence wouldn’t mind having a crack against modern Chinese jets. It’s just a prelude to the inevitable big game.
You have to raise the bar, not to measure yourself against South American countries with limited military resources…
The danger is the ridiculous number of fighters in the RAF, about 130 and falling, not the Argentines themselves, Italy and Spain already have more fighters than Britain.
Yes, far too few for the RAF.
Italy and Spain don’t have SSN either, so, I wonder if they’re tearing themselves apart over that.
If Argentina sends those F-16s anywhere near the Falklands the UK reserves the right to destroy them immediately and with no notice. No funny business should be tolerated and it should be communicated clearly to Argentina’s government. Keep them away from the islands and they will be tolerated.
Give it up now….. 😂…. I see what you are doing here.🙄
Given Argentina’s geographical location and the state of the economy the question is why do they need fighters at all?
It’s not got fully trusted relationships with Chile or Uruguay….
We have 1/3 the area of Europe, with yet unexploited natural resources (some other exploited by ilegal nations) we need to care of that business. In a year or two? Nah. In 5 or 10yrs? Who knows.
I would have thought that maritme reconaissance and transport would be of more use. I suspect the UK may even help you out but attack planes. Not good for economic use.
As you may know, F-16s are multirole, supersonic fighters, a capability we lost with the retirement of the old Mirage III back in 2015. Our budget is extremely limited and armed forces lost many capabilities in the last two decades. We gradually need to recompose our armed forces, little by little. I agree on the maritime reconaissance, hence the fact that a handfule of P-3C Orion have been acquired from Norway (did not arrive yet though).
When the F16s are in service do think the Argentine Air force will maybe buzz round the Falklands island’s just to show they new piece of kit off. But no lost sleep guys sure Typhoon and sky sabre will keep them at Bay 🇬🇧
The. F. 16 is an old design and has evolved in many years and it is still a formidable platform.
And I’ve no issue with these airframes going to Argentina for all the reasons stated above – except for the fact that they are desperately needed by Ukraine .
F16’s are going to Ukraine from the same sources,people underestimate the work required for them to operate a Fighter like the F16.
Indeed. But still, there are many detractors in Argentina, mainly because they were bought (well, technically not yet) by a new governement who won the elections against “peronists”.
The US wanted this to counter a possible purchase from China and is concerned about a potential new Chinese naval base in Tierra del Fuego.
I personally would not trust Javier Milei who is the first post Falklands War president committed to modernizing the Argentina military. If there is ever a Falkland 2.0 it will be with direct support from other South American counties that Argentina is has been actively seeking military cooperation. The probability of at least indirect support of China is almost a certainty.
I would also expect no direct support from other NATO countries.
Well, Argentina is getting F-16s because the US does not want China in their backyard. So they had to make a deal and sweeten the deal with Argentina. I also think the US arm twisted the UK and told them that if they didn’t go along with the F-16 deal, they could deal with the Chinese fishing fleet fishing along the waters of Falkland Island themselves. The UK was pressured to go along because the UK didn’t want China in their neighborhood, and the US didn’t want Argentina to fall under Chinese Influence.