The U.S. State Department has cleared the transfer of 24 F-16s from Denmark to Argentina.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security in the State Department, Mira Resnick, delivered the letter approving the transfer to Jorge ArgĆ¼ello, Argentinaās ambassador to United States on Oct. 11, according to local media.
Today @StateDeptPMās Mira Resnick šŗšø delivered a letter to @JorArguello approving the transfer of F-16 aircraft from Denmark š©š° to š¦š·Argentina. The transfer reaffirms our close defense ties and steadfast support for Argentinaās air force modernization efforts. pic.twitter.com/ia4D92An40
— Political-Military Affairs, US Dept of State (@StateDeptPM) October 11, 2023
Also cleared was the transfer of four P-3 maritime patrol aircraft from Norway to Argentina.
According to La Nacion here:
“The United States gave the green light to a sale of 24 F-16 fighter aircraft equipped with air-to-air missiles from Denmark to Argentina and is working on a financing package for 40 million dollars to facilitate the purchase by the government Argentina,Ā an operation of enormous geopolitical impact in which Washington competes directly with China, which has offered the sale of JF-17 aircraft from Pakistan.
The Government must now decide whether to carry out this operation, whether to accept China’s offer, or whether to postpone any decision to modernize the Air Force and Navy fleet.Ā In addition to the F-16 sale, the US government also paved the way for a purchase of four P-3 aircraft from Norway.”
Resnick clarified that the transfer does not require approval from the United Kingdom, which has maintained a veto on Argentina for purchasing military equipment since the Falklands War, because no components require British approval.
Good, and we’d have been daft to object the sale if we did have a veto. The last thing we want is Chinese influence stoking the discussion around the Falklands and the fishing and oil resources that surround them.
That does raise a question though: who makes ejection seats for NATO aircraft other than Martin Baker?!
I agree Joe. I’m sure others on here have greater knowledge on the ejection seat question.
Apparently Raytheon ACES II ejection seat.
It is very concerning for me that China supports Argentina’s claim to the islands. If China wanted to support Argentina we would have zero hope of keeping the islands unless Uncle Sam stepped in, which I think is unlikely considering the way US Foreign Policy is drifting. Another big problem is Chinese vessels plundering the waters around the Southern Ocean, South Atlantic and Pitcairns. We don’t the the assets to properly monitor let alone enforce our EEZs abroad.
Theres a hell of a big difference between China supporting Argentinas claim to the Falklands and China supporting them militarily in a conflict. The Chinese government will work to destabilise if it can but its focus is on the South China Sea
Should China move on Taiwan it has an interest in the UKs resources being diverted to the SA
True, but do they have to provide direct military support to create an insurmontable threat on these islands? Weapons sales would be allready troublesome. EU respect the ban, but Argentina should not be squeezed so much, or we will all face worst perspective.
Part of the deal to sell fighter jets to Argentina, was also lucrative trade deals AND the establishment of a CCP PLA military port plus an air base. Same arrangement they have offered Pakistan and Iran. I don’t think 24 F16’s can compete with that offer. Do you? Especially considering the well publicised CCP support for the Argie claim on the Falkland Islands. Just imagine how the PLA presence at current 2023 levels would have changed the Argentine invasion and the dispatch of our task force back in 1982. Their support for the argies would have changed everything. I can see the Argentinians accepting the CCP offer and asking if they can buy some amphibious warfare ships and destroyers too!
CCP naval and air assets based in the South Atlantic would totally change the balance of power in the region and give the CCP what they crave most. Challenging and eventually replacing the USA/western alliance as the worlds leading power. They have already set themselves a deadline of 2050 for world domination. It looks like they are actually ahead of schedule.
I donāt think China even has a blue water navy as such and it definitely wouldnāt be able to take on the Royal Navy that far away from its home
certainly does Tim. Do take a look on wikipedia as a reference.
Iām not using wiki China cannot do carrier operations at anywhere near the ability of the U.K. or USA or even India itās only recently got a central HQ for combined arms warfare ship numbers donāt make a blue water navy
As you wish
Tim, each generation of carrier, destroyer and submarine, is closing the gap on western technical superiority. As is their ability to conduct combined arms warfare. (Straight from a US senior naval officer. Not Wiki.) The CCP are far from stupid and their military industries do not have the same constraints as ours. The latest carrier being constructed has all the advances necessary to correct the previous mistakes.
As I’ve written in comments above that part of the deal to sell the argies jet fighters is also to build a military port and airbase in Argentina. I don’t recall exactly where they proposed to build them. Let me search the archives and do a follow on post.
I’m sure you agree. PLA destroyers and submarines stationed in Argentina with land based air cover, would be a game changer. Incidentally the CCP are making the same military hardware and lucrative trade deals with Iran and Pakistan. In return for being able to construct naval bases and airfields. Who knows what else is on the table we do not know about?
China’s navy is approaching that of the USN & is growing faster than any other. However, it would have to get past the USN & others(Aus for example) before operating in the SA.
24 F16s will replace the ancient A4 Skyhawks for natioinal security. Their forces are still a shadow of what they had in 1982. Of what little they have left, they’re able to keep far less operational. Although we too are a shadow of what we had i 1982, apart from the 2 huge QE carriers. We do have a big air base there ow whuich could rapidly recieve reinforcements & our flight of Typhoons resident should make even F16 pilots very nervous if they tried it on again.
We have a River 2 OPV on station at the Falklands, plus aircraft too, perfectly capable of enforcing our EEZ there.
Not if the CCP PLA manage to secure their planned deals for lucrative trade deals and cut price military hardware. In return for a naval base and airfield. The Shenyang J16 aircraft supplied to Argentina would be the least of our worries. PLA AWACS, destroyers, submarines and Chengdu J20 would be the problem.
Their frigates and destroyer sold to Argentina would be enoughā¦
They do theoretically have a semblance of a Blue Water navy. However, it has no experience of long-range power projection beyond counter-piracy operations, and is generally regarded as focusing on trying to dominate the South China Sea, which itself is a big ask given what’s ranged against it out there. So your sentiment is likely correct.
Gifting Hong Kong back was a huge mistake
It us a shame these are going to Argentina and not to Ukraine.
I suspect the Danes would rather send them to Ukraine me anyway as it has more of an effect on their own security.
I did wonder that myself. Ukraine needs every F16 going. The conflict is turning into a long one and aircraft are going to take losses. If they use the F16s offensively then replacements are needed.
New migs is not an option.
Ukraine is going to need 100+ aircraft to secure its skies even after the war.
Best option the U.K. could do would be to finance the aircraft for transfer to Ukraine. Denmark gets the aircraft sold and Ukraine get what they need.
As a bonus the U.K. can offer Argentina the T1 typhoons. If they fly within 50 miles of the falklands the engine cuts out.
Does the F-16 have the combat radius to reach the Falklands? What about Port Stanley on East Falkland?
They don’t on their own change the military balance over the Islands.
There is very little defence wise in Port Stanley apart from I believe the FIDF.
I would say they do, they can reach and return. That allows the Argentinian airforce the ability to push and test the RAF. Add in the 3 patrol craft and it could be really problematic for the airforce. If Argentina decide to play games of the none lethal sort.
That is the worry.
They push the typhoons and start to figure out serviceability levels.
Pushing g typhoon will reduce serviceability.
Which means we will then need more frames down there to keep a credible defence.
They can probe, yes. So there is the fatigue issue that SB mentions.
I was looking directly at a Typhoon vs F16 scenario.
And then we have half a Skysabre Battery there too.
Any air to ground ordnance coming with them?
Hi Daniele, from a war/invasion point of viewā¦itās not so much an issueā¦itās still an amphibious operation in some of the nastiest seas aroundā¦unless Argentina suddenly get increased capacity across the board to undertake that I would say itās not an issueā¦the big concern is in a few decades a concerted effort by all the regional powers to isolate and control the Falklands as a gateway to the BATā¦we will not see that yet. But in the future..prevention is important thatās why in their 50 years of life the Elizabethās will be important to to Falklands and the future of the BAT as will be the SSNsā¦knowing what the RN could do is what will keep the lid on the Falklands for the next 50 yearsā¦.it would also help of the US was unambiguous in its support of the UK but because itās the Americaās and Chinese influence in the americas it may see the UK as less relevant than the South American regional powers to keep onsideā¦we have to be prepared for that and understand that south Atlantic and Antarctic geopolitics is not an area we can depend on anyone.
Ally or not.
Morning J.
Ahh, a good old Jonathan geo strategic consequences post. Great stuff.
Agree, the SSN QEC assets are vital. I do hope the incoming government is as wide eyed to the importance of the BAT as you.
I do worry, if I’m honest.
I think you give the US more credit than it deserves on forward thinking foreign policy and Geo politics. Itās reactionary at best with half the political system wanting to have nothing to do with the outside world. The US has maybe 5 actual allies and none in South America.
That will change if Milei wins in Argentina. He’s going to he very pro US, he wants to drop the peso and use the Dollar..you will have not seen a politician like him
https://youtu.be/V5yfuMMKuK0
Morning D (or evening your time). I think the AAF Achilles heel is limited air to air refuelling assets, with only 2 KC130. I’m unsure of the ops status of these two? This will place restrictions on endurance and payload options.
These F16 are going to require a lot of TLC, ops wise they will be a drain on AIF servicing /maintenance resources. I wonder if the Danes considered donating these to the Ukrainian – that would be my choice.
Must confess, I did not see this coming. I imagine the Argentine deal for the Chinese Jf17 is now off the table.
This has been in the wings for nearly quite a few years. Ever since the UK vetoed, the FA50 sale. Argentina have been actively looking for an aircraft that does not have UK kit. China have been cozying up to Argentina over these last few years. Having fallen foul of Argentine fishing laws, with quite a few ships confiscated.
Now everyone knows Argentina are broke. So China have made an agriculture and fishing deal. That comes with a wad of cash. China were more than willing to sell JF-17s, especially as thereās no UK kit on board.
This is whatās been worrying the US, where China gets more influence in South America. As this could lead to Argentina becoming financially dependent on China. Which could lead to Chinese military/coastguard being allowed to help police and protect their interests in the region.
This would get especially difficult for the US, as the southern passage through/around Patagonia is the main way the USN carriers can get from the Atlantic to the Pacific and vice versa. As they are too big for the Panama Canal.
So it therefore makes sense for the US to allow Argentina to purchase secondhand F16s. As it keeps away more Chinese influence.
However, Argentina has a notorious history of failing to pay for kit it has ordered. As it really doesnāt have that much capital reserves. This is where China has some leverage. As it offers financial aid as well as kit. Therefore if the US want to keep China away from Argentina, then they will also have to help financially.
Geopolitics at its finest. So weāll have see how this plays out. As it may mean sending few more Typhoons to cover the numbers.
Cheers for the reply Davey, interesting insightful commentary
The Typhoons are not the only defence, the Islands have Sky Sabre with networked mobile launchers. If they put a launcher on high ground near Stanly it should do the trick. In any case the capital is not the vital area of defence – it is RAF Mount Pleasant. It is the other end of the airbridge from the UK.
Typhoons and Sky Sabre which I suspect will rapidly go ER or MR as soon as the Polish collaboration matures. That wonāt be slow either as the Poles want/need systems in place.
In Port Stanley, SB? I was referring to what is in Stanley, as I, re reading, read Matts comment wrong. š
Yes they do, Israel sent them on a bombing mission over a total distant of 1100nm without refuelling.
The distance was 860nm each way. As Iraq and Iran were at war ( the Iranians had bombed the reactor site previously but it was repaired) and they were known to have provided photo intell, some say that there was more cooperation than has been said. Big difference in relations 40 yrs later!
On the face of its its ‘almost unfeasible’ for the F-16 although those were early model F-16A which were real lightweights not like later models. However they were heavily loaded which also is a range killer The very low level flight reduces range too , which is optimum at high altitude only.
Israel used them in 1981 to bomb Osirak nuclear site in Iraq. I think that’s about 600 miles. So F16s with drop tanks could reach the Falklands.
It’s worth remembering that Typhoons and F35b have the range to reach Argentina from the Falklands as well. Storm Shadow has proved itself repeatedly against Russian air defences in Ukraine. The acquisition of these F16s won’t necessary give Argentina an initiative advantage. Besides, attacking the Falklands again would risk crippling sanctions.
We also have 2 carriers with F35, Type 45/23 and SSNs with Tomahawks. If they managed to take the Islands again they could not keep them. The UK has cutting edge kit the Argentinians fave kit that is a generation out of date.
yes bit with real restrictions on payload and time on target. Very little room for ACM, wouldn’t want to go into afterburner (well not to much).
Like the Battle of Britain the Argies have too fly at least 200 plus miles before reaching the islands where as the RAF just take off from MPA for more air time fuel consumption is the Argies Acillies heel
Yes, but with reresection around ToT and payload.
Wouldn’t want to go into afterburner much!
Supirse at this, if anything thought F16 would go to the Ukraine. However don’t think it’s a problem for our Typhoons.For the USA Biden to put this on the table is a little out of hand always said he’s not really a UK fan. š¤
Agree Biden is a descendant of Irish nationalist immigrants. He probably has a deep rooted hatred of the UK. Doubt the Americans even consider the British defence posture and response. It might have been useful to have pre warned the US if they support the transfer the UK will need to deploy more typhoons , land Ceptor and possible a 2nd infantry company to the Falklands leaving less for NATO.
I think the UK government will have not been involved and blindsided by this transfer.
I agree with other comments these aircraft would have been much much better served going to fight the Russian fascist empire builders in Ukraine.
Of the options on the table to modernise the Argentinian Air Force, the F16 should be the least troublesome for the RAF. It’s a well known, 4th generation fighter that although the RAF havn’t owned, they have trained with and against. The RAF will better understand it’s capabilities and limitations. Better to fight an American aircraft you know, than a Russian or Chinese aircraft that you don’t.
Is it wise for the US to do this probably yes..but letās be very clear this is the US putting its own geopolitical positioning way above the UKsā¦The US has a history of this in regards to the Americas, we just have to understand that the American continent and what happens there are the US,s geopolitical priority over UK interestsā¦.if handing the keys to the Falklands to Argentina was a way to prevent South American falling into the sway of china the U.S. would do it in a heart beatā¦.would they be wrong, from their point of view ?
Geopolitically China in Argentina is bad for the UK. 24 old knackered F16ās and 4 old P3ās is no problem for HM Forces.
Geopolitically, China in the Caribbean, Central and South America is bigger issue for the U.S.A. Jim.
The Argentine currency has been described by the leader of the country’s opposition as worth the same as ‘excrement’. They have chronic economic issues. China has very serious problems looming at home. If the combined Argentine-China strategy in the south Atlantic amounts to anything more than a diplomatic nuisance, they had better do something soon. Tomorrow will be too late.
What annoys me more is that each of those F-16s sold to Argentina means one less available to go to Ukraine.
Yes I agree, I canāt imagine Denmark is interested in getting $40 million form them. No doubt this was part of the arrangement to get the US to ok sales to Ukraine.
Geopolitically China in Argentina is bad too for Argentina & the USA. That’s probaly why the US has decided to sell a few olld F16s, to reduce PRC levergage in the region. Our Typhoons & Skysabre SAMscan handle them & even 24 will not result in 24 operational. Their airbases can be hit by our own missiles & Mount Pleasant rapidly reinforced with more Typhoons or F35s.
I think you are overreacting a little. 16 old F16s is the bare minimum for a country like Argentina to police their airspace against civilian threats (hijacked airliners). This acquisition poses practically zero threat to the islands but stops Argentina buying Chinese jets. Reducing the Chinese sphere of influence is equally important for both the US and UK.
At a moments notice the UK could send QE with 24 F35s, a whole squadron of Typhoons and a Type 45.
Itās not about hot conflict, itās about Argentinians ability to push the Uk forces in the south Atlantic..every time time Argentina sends an f16 pottering towards the Falklands and UK airspace then the RAF have to react to thatā¦if your taking 24 f16s and 3 patrol aircraft the Argentina airforce can have the RAF run off their feetā¦itās what I would doā¦.make it hard work for the the RAF make it cost the UK more treasure..keep the pressure up until the UK thinks itās not worth the effort anymoreā¦will it work no..will they do it anyway of course they will..Russia does it for a pass time.
True. But the flip side of that coin is that those F16 airframes that are already quite worn and I’m sure maintenance intensive will become dangerously fatigued if they pursue those tactics.
Argentina plans to get Chinese jets more than doubling their air force which clearly indicates despite no neighborhood threat they plan to direct pressure on Britain!
In the last year Argentina had been buying jest from Indian, South Korea, Pakistan, China and now the US.
Big issue is they donāt have any money.
Actually Jim, I’m wondering if this means the Chinses JF17 deal is off the table? I imagine so.
The Chinese have jet production capacity to supply Argentina what they want. The Chinese jets wont be as capable as Eurofighter typhoon but can be supplied in volume and crucially with stand off munitions.
Argentina cant pay for the recapitalisation of their airforce- no problem China will extract payment via basing rights for its navy, access to Argentinian fishing zones and mineral extraction plus or minus agriculture supplies and food deliveries from Argentina to China.
Argentina is actually quite a raw goods rich nation- they could afford to fund an airforce on a buy now pay back over the next 2000 years at high interest rates Chinese scheme.
For China this would be another source of raw goods to feed their population and ongoing national development- I can see China being very very keen to close such a deal, especially as it would mean UK defence forces would have to posture to counter drawing forces away from Europe and the South China Sea.
We really should be undertaking a crash rearmament programme now- waiting until the inevitable war is upon us and our enemies are emboldened by our lack of numerical forces is really going to bite us hard.
you’re spot on PC, As an ex Air Force operation fella, from personal experience I can see a raft of maintenance issues coming with this, My lesson with combat aircraft- if something can wrong, it’s likely it will.
I cannot think it is ‘pottering’ to send a single seat, single engine aircraft on a 800-1000 mile round trip. High risk unless there is some serious planning and preparation involving more than a solitary ageing F-16. What would such a ‘trip’ prove? If might actually give our people something real to practice on and sharpen their skills.
Especially when no pilot in your Airforce has flown a fast jet much less a 4th Gen one for a decade.
The A4, Mirage, and Super Etendartd we used in the Falkland war were all single engine/single seat. But you don’t have to worry. Despite how badly we want these islands, Argentina has no intention of a military escalation with the Brits. Also we don’t have the money. One thing is to have the airplanes and another thing is to maintain them and operate them. Today we are flying almost nothing of the few jets we have (a few A4 and a few Pampa). We will most likely fly the F-16 very little and use them most to secure our northern borders with Brasil, Paraguay and Bolivia where we have a lot of drug trafic with small general aviation airplanes. Argentina is not a military threat for Uruguay, let alone the UK. And will not be in the foreseeable future. We have too many internal issues in the economic and social fronts, and also internal security front (like drug cartels), and will continue to have those for decades in the best scenario, our government is not the military junta of back then, and all our political parties are anti-militarist (and the most militarist one is the closest to UK and the furthest from the “Malvinas” cause), and the people today would not support military actions (even provocations) as we did in 1982, If at some point we become a military threat to the UK several decades down the road, it will not be with the F-16 which by then will be as old as the A4 are today. Now you have radars, SAMs, army, fighters, a battleship, etc stationed in the Falklands. A couple of F-35 of yours could obliterate a couple dozens of F-16 with no sweat and with the F-16 pilots never knowing what killed them.
Thank you for your clarity. The attack on the islands in 1982 was disastrous mistake but it wasn’t a British mistake.
Mate, Iād be more worried about getting in bed financially with the Chinese. Just look at what has happened to other Countries that couldnāt afford the repayments. China aways gets paid.
But all those sorties will also knacker out their F-16s, which aren’t new.
We’re far better able to maintain our Typhoons than Argentina is to maintain their incoming F-16s. Heck, we could also quite easily just build another 30-40 or so new Typhoons if we wanted to – if the political will was there.
I keep praying and wishing the UK government would do just that. Long overdue and desperately needed.
Second that šŗ
Those F16 wonāt last long if they keep doing that. They are likely to find as well that while they donāt think there are UK parts in them their actually are. Every time we open anything made in Russia or China itās full of UK electronics so I canāt image F16 is not.
Even F35 had Chinese components and the defence contractors building it did not even realise.
spot on Jim.
Yes if we are not maxed out with deployments all over the world trying to stabilise and reassure allies, prevent a new Balkan war, support a potential evacuation from Israel of British citizens, face down China and support our allies in the far east and maintain our NATO commitments to battlegroups, standing maritime forces and enduring presence to secure NATO airspace. In summary the British armed forces are like a small jar of jam- spread very thinly and the craven folly of defence cuts and inadequate numbers will likely soon come home to bite us in the derriere.
All Argentina has to do is slowly build up its forces quietly and consistently and then when the UK is maximally committed elsewhere and has no reserves (wont take much) – so the claimed QEC battlegroup, type 45s and more typhoons might not be available then the UK might just struggle to hold the Falklands. I know 24 old F16s don’t drastically change the balance of power but they are a capability we will need to now plan to counter.
I’d like the UK government to demonstrate strong political will and determination and just get another batch of say 36 Eurofighter typhoons ordered in, and possibly follow up with confirming the order for the 26 additional F35Bs promised. That and the Poseidon fleet having 4-5 more aircraft and the Wedgetail order going back up to 5 would be a big step in ensuring an enemy nation with intent to causing mischief will be up against an adequately resourced air force to counter them.
The defence budget needs to go up by at least Ā£6-7 billion a year more and work to add numbers and attritional reserves back onto the armed forces are vital. Ending non-dom tax loopholes and pursuing the fraudulent covid grants and claims would pay for that and more.
Yeah all this does is show to those in the UK that don’t like America that the US is an unreliable ally who they would view as happy to stab their ally in the back when it suits them
Iām sure we were consulted and did not give much of a f**k. Argentina had to get jets from somewhere and better they are old US ones than China sticking its nose in.
The real shame is they did not go to Ukraine. It would not surprise me if this is what the UK and itās partners had to give to the USA to get F16 authorised for Ukraine in the first place because it makes zero sense that Denmark is selling them to Argentina for $40 million.
I think strategically this deal will get them back onside with the West a bit. And why not. It’s a serious enough counter purchase to ever more Chinese influence in Argentina South America. Maybe it’s playing Chinese at their own game. At least the UK will know exactly what they carry and can and can’t do. And just imagine if these F16s were “electronically tagged”… Lol š
Agreed. If jets were coming best they be an older US design. In the hugely unlikely event that anything did go hot down there (another Falklands war) we know a lot more about the capabilities of that generation of F-16 and we also could exert political pressure on component manufacturers/suppliers to cut off or severely reduce the supply of spare parts (shades of the Exocet stuff playing out in the shadows in 1982). Detailed design knowledge and supply chain interventions would not be as readily accessible if the jets had been sourced from China.
Clearly, we need more aircraft.
Aviation Procurement: Winging it?This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government. The Government has two months to respond.
Tenth Report of Session 2022ā23
Date Published: 10 September 2023
Combat mass
” There was a consensus amongst our witnesses, including the MoD, that the ability of the UKās combat air fleet to deter aggression and to gain air superiority in a warfighting context had taken on a new significance as the prospect of conflict with a peer or near-peer adversary had drawn closer.
Against this backdrop, we heard widespread concern that the Command Paper cuts would leave the UK with simply too few combat aircraft to credibly deter and defend against aggression, with the fleet only around a third of the size it was at the end of the Cold War. Dr Sophy Antrobus argued that we need to be taking seriously deterring, and deterring by denial rather than ever trying to countenance deterrence by punishment, which means seriously reviewing our combat capability in the air.
Whilst cautioning against like-for-like comparisons, she added that āthere is no way of getting away from it: the number of fast jet combat aircraft and squadrons that the RAF has is a significant step back from where we were at the end of the Cold Warā.
1973
1993
2013
2023
UK
500
450
230
169
France
500
630
290
231
Germany
460
450
209
214
Italy
330
320
220
199
125. The far-reaching cuts to aircraft numbers set out in the 2021 Defence Command Paper weakened the UKās air power capability at a time when the armed forces were already over-stretched. The scale of this gamble became clear less than a year later, when Europe faced its most serious security crisis in decades as Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The MoDās acceptance of capability gaps and its cuts to combat mass across the fleet have left the UK dangerously exposed at a time of increasing threat to national security and risk diminishing our role within NATO.
126. Although these risks were acknowledged in the Defence Command Paper Refresh (DCPR), the actions taken to address them are totally inadequate to the scale of the challenge. The DCPR stands as a missed opportunity to reverse the deeply damaging cuts of 2021: the Royal Air Force, as with all our Armed Forces, must be afforded the funding and equipment it needs to properly carry out its critical role in protecting our nation.
Conclusions and recommendationsCombat Air1. With the prospect of UK involvement in a major war on the European continent closer than it has been for decades, there are serious questions as to whether the UKās reduced combat air fleet still provides a sufficient deterrent and whether its limited numbers of admittedly highly capable aircraft could overcome a peer adversary in a warfighting context. These questions arise not only in the context of the UKās sovereign capability, but also in relation to its contribution to any wider alliance.
2. The RAFās combat aircraft fleet now provides a boutique high capability: it lacks numerical depth and has an inadequate attrition reserve. Exquisite capability has its place, but in a peer-on-peer conflict such as a shooting war with Russia, every airframe will count. Combat aircraft numbers are already low. The Defence Command Paper cuts will create a combat air capability gap which, on current plans, will persist well into the 2030s. This is unacceptable. The MoD and RAF must consider as a matter of urgency how they can increase combat air mass in the short term.
3. Increasing the UKās F-35 fleet beyond the 74 aircraft already planned would be one way to address the combat air capability gap, and this was an approach supported by several of our witnesses. However, although acquisition costs for the aircraft may have reduced, sustainment costs remain unacceptably high. The fleetās slow force growth rate is a continued concern: the RAFās failure to correctly calculate the number of maintainers required to service the aircraft is simply inexcusable. At present there are too many unresolved questions about the development and operational deployment of the fleet.
Yeah the P-3 Orion’s engines are technically British because the T56 engine manufacturer is owned by Rolls-Royce now
Be very careful with that one ! There is a huge difference between ownership and Sovereign rights of products. Which as we have some pretty important things built in UK which we have the Sovereign rights for but are foreign owned might be not a good idea.
Cobham, Ultra, Thales etc etc.
Oh and as that same company you mention is building all the new engines for the upgraded B52ās we tend to keep it that way.
Indeed look at BAE..half the worlds stuff is build by BAE (not really true but run with it)..and BAE is a UK company..but it has many sub companies BAE inc etc that it wholly owns but are legally separate from the UK BAE parent company for that reason..the UK does not have access to the intellectual property BAE inc hold with the US for example.
RR has some interesting subsidiaries, and not just the former Alison company in US. Germany loves selling diesel engines to just about everyone and their dog. Most Western Tanks, warships and conventional subs have either an MTU powering them or generating the Electricity.
MTU is a full owned subsidiary of RR power systems.
Whats not to like.š
Thatās the same for Thales and Leonardo and LM and GD operating in the UK.
Pretty standard stuff.
Big difference is the UK government exercises direct control over BAE and RR via golden share. Not so with the others.
Rolls Royce is building all of the engines for the B-52 in their just upgraded $600 million manufacturing plane in Indiana.
Those engines , used in B717 passenger jet ( ex MD95) and many larger business jets are designed in Germany by the RR subsidiary.
US allows *final assembly* to count as manufacture
OK it makes sense for the US to allow this sale as it keeps China out if South America and to be fair it also means they have leverage over their usage.
But as Netherlands, Norway and Denmark are donating 60 odd F16ās to Ukraine between them, that leaves very little left for future donations.
These F16ās all underwent a MLU in the 2000ās so are still pretty useful and in active or recent service. The US has huge stocks of F16ās but they have been in the Bone Yard for years so no more usable F16ās would be available for Ukraine.
Argentina is broke, again. Have our American allies given the Argentines lots of money for spares and servicing?
How does Chile respond?
Considering they haven’t been able to keep their current air force in running condition, I do wonder how long these will last in their service.
This is what seems to be neglected by the conversation here. To have a half decent air force, you need to be able to invest in and maintain it. Argentina has other much bigger problems to deal with. This is just a geopolitical message from the Americans and a political play in Argentinian domestic politics.
Thanks Paul. The gain for the U.K. is China hasn’t sold (given) any planes and thereby has no leverage for fishing licences in Falkland waters; I also expect the R.A.F. has the full service histories of these airframes by now.
Unless there going to sit on deck chairs instead of ejector seats this required U.K. agreement
Collins ACES ejector seats, not Martin-Baker
Ahh yes, I was thinking about some other aircraft that had been put forward for Argentina.
I am puzzled by the numbers. Will $40 million really buy 24 F-16s ? They must cost more than this – unless the airframes are completely knackered.
Early Block F16s vs Typhoons with Meteor and ASRAAM…it would be like clubbing seals.
1435 Flight at the Falklands only has 4 FGR4 Typhoons. If Argentina gets these F16s we have to hope that quality beats quantity. It’s another example of how Biden takes decisions without consulting America allies, even us
Would you have preferred they bought Chinese and built a deeper connection with them? Maybe have some PLAN stopovers? Also why assume there was no consulting, the saga of Argentina buying new fighters has been going on for years at this stage.
Limited threat to the FI mate, 24 bought, maybe 12-14 operational at any time, bare minimum for Argie Air Defence and QRA, never mind wasting the limited hours on the platforms with a long and useless transit to the FI, just to be intercepted by a pair of Typhoons, full tanks and plenty of hours and ASRAAMS! Cheers.
And a Typhoon can also reach Argentine airbases, Not to mention a SSN lobbing in a few well placed Tomahawks into the mix.
Clubbing seals? FFS ššššš
I guess this was inevitable as the USA tries to stop China’s growing influence in South America.
The F16 is however a far more capable aircraft then the Chinese J17 series or Pakistani light fighter trainer they might have turned too.
It’s going to require a re-evaluation of British defence posture as 24 F16s could, in theory, overwhelm the Eurofighter typhoon flight at Mount Pleasant.
Land Ceptor, Aster 30 silo and a doubling of the typhoon numbers are going to be needed. So thanks for that USA. Did they even consider or ask one of their allies what they thought about this? Doubt it.
If however this means tranche 1 typhoons are retained or better yet a new batch of latest version are ordered then that’ll be great.
Your not gunna see typhoon nos doubled there. Also donāt think the need is there. How capable are 24 early model f16ās flown by pilots that have little modern fast jet experience. As it stands they will need huge amounts of training and then drop tanks to get to the falklands which limits their weapons load.
Out of the 24 take away repairs, training and the fact they are older units, I think we need to up our game but itās not battle stations right now!
Andy, it’s also about the age of the F16s, It would take considerable effort to keep them serviceable on high tempo operations . Can’t see this going well for the AAF.
Won’t matter if Milei wins the election. He a bit of a character who doesn’t like the current government. He’s more likely to be pro US and UK.
https://youtu.be/V5yfuMMKuK0
ā¦ and on the condition that the US facilitate the immediate return of the Falkland Islands to U.K. sovereignty should Argentina demonstrate aggression.
Time to add more defense to the Falkland Islands I think. More Typhoon’s ground to air defence systems.
The last time the US armed Argentina (supposedly to prevent Russian influence), tge arms were used against the UK. I have a feeling they have not learnt a thing. It is lucky or Typhoons have Meteor… I am not sure how many planes we have down there but the UK fighters should be able to take out all their F16s if they attack.
I thought the UK was happy to be arming Argentina as well at the same time, seem to remember a couple of Type 42’s for example?
Indeed but we are not making the mistake of giving them any more kit….
Not sure how some people sleep at night. As soon as Argentina buys a machine gun and a few bullets, the fall of The Falklands and the defeat of Britain is predicted.
Lol, exactly! And we even play Rugby with their Pumas! Good to remain watchful in case things turn.
England v Argentina in the final with the Pope backing the Pumas š
Sorry why does Argentina need to modernise their military no one is threatening them. Also if the US wants them to have F16 why not sell them some of theirs.
Why shouldn’t they?
but it has to get permission from the UK for the pilot’s seats which is a major problem for all western aircraft when it comes to Argentina. Or use US in older models f-16A. New F-16 block 70/72 use MB ejection seat.
Friday sillies.. Just has a thought… what if you could remotely get your adversaries to suddenly eject. No pilots, no worries? Anyone working on this?! š
how abaut if we de-escalate, and close a Pandoraās 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 Islands is located?
How about we let the people who live on those islands determine their own fate?
š š¬š§
If push came to shove and Argentina attacked the Falklands, there would shortly be whispers. So could the UK not fly a squadron of Typoons with air to air refueling down at short notice? Plus they could keep the ten mothballed single seat T1 typhoons at mount pleasant. They could be left in a dorment state as a back up?
With friends like the US, Denmark and Norway, who needs enemies. One can see the Argiesā objectives. Weāll make a note of this date for future reference.
Do you prefer to be the Chinese?
No threat to the FIs, simple. 24 acquired, 12-16 operational at any one time, just enough for Argie QRA! Aside from why waste limited remaining hours on a useless long transit to the FI just to wind up the Typhoon ninjas a give them a decent operational scramble with a full tank, plenty of flight hours and a shed load of ASRAAMS.
Anyway aside from that, you have to hand it to the Argie Air Force lads during the 82 conflict. Big sets of nads all round, the only organisation to come out of the war with any respect. Put a South American big tashed sports car love in a fast and powerful performance machine and you will see skill! Respect to those guys however that skill set has been pretty much lost, the will may be there but the opportunities definitely not! Cheers.
Spot on AB ,Argie Air Force fought bravely in 82 let’s face it back then there were Flying the likes of Sky Hawks which were classed as old in the conflict .But look at the Damage their did ,now put there pilots in an F16 ?
Agreed but give them F16s, yes better than the Mirage and Skyhawks so they would be a more difficult opponent! However it works both ways, and 2 troops of Sky Sabre, modern radar coverage and 4 Typhoons will make any future ātripā to the FI a one way ticket. But as I said, the Argie airforce achieved what they did through pilot skill and panache, despite the issues they had in 82 with their kit and platforms. Saying that, it was an eye opener for both sides as the RN had a serious learning curve in regard to how pretty shit the weapons, radar and the actual ships were.
Learnt the hard way sadly š
Totally correct not really an issue for the Falklands and even if it was an issue, Iām sure the US would guarantee they werenāt used against the islands, if we suggested that BIOT would be handed immediately to Mauritius therefore US would lose Diego Garcia bet weād have an agreement.
how abaut if we de-escalate, and close a Pandoraās 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?
How about acknowledging the Falkland islanders right to self-determination?
We cannot accept that because the United Kingdom forcibly evicted our population in 1833 (same as what is doing russia with ucranian dombass region today).
According to Rosalyn Higgins, former British judge and former President of the International Court of Justice: āUntil it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have the right of self-determinationā. In other words, the Anglo-Argentine territorial dispute must first be solved, in order to know whether the British inhabitants can decide what they want for their territory.
We could go to the ICJ, if the court rules that what the United Kingdom did was legitimate, that sovereignty is British and that the current islanders have the right to self-determination.
We will accept the ruling and be good neighbors
1833 you say? Why, that’s some 68 years after the British first lay claim to the islands. Tell me, did Argentina exist as a country 68 years before 1833?
I could give the arguments if the argentine position, but I think we wouldn’t get anywhere.
In my opinion, the proposal to resolve the dispute would be for both countries to agree to go to the ICJ.
The United Kingdom can present the arguments they consider valid, such as the occupation of Port Egdmont in 1765 (and any others).
If the court rules in favor of the United Kingdom, (which would not be to my liking, we would accept it.) and we can be good neighbors and close a Pandora’s box for future generations.
With such solid arguments, and having possession for 150 years… the United Kingdom would have nothing to lose… after all, they say that they are sure and without doubt of the sovereignty titles they have.
I believe that the path we are heading towards will not be beneficial for any of our countries.
and that we could solve it as civilized countries in the ICJ.
And even ending this open dispute would allow us to focus on the true enemy of the West, which is China, Russia and the Arab world.
You’re correct that we won’t get anywhere presenting our arguments as neither you nor I work and live on those islands. You cannot dismiss the islanders right to self-determination. Neither can I. I hope that the UK continues to defend this right until such time as all pressures on those people’s cease and desist and finally we can leave the islanders to preside over their own internal affairs, in peace.
agree to go to Court and peacefully resolve the territorial dispute. With all those solid arguments that you are mentioning there is nothing to fear. The ICJ judges should rule in favor of the fact that the right to self-determination exists and we can be good neighbors.
The ICJ doesn’t get to judge the right to self-determination, Sir. That is a inalienable and enshrined right under article 1 of the UN Charter of Human Rights for which both Argentina and the UK are co signatories.
There is a dispute over sovereignty with Argentina. According to Rosalyn Higgins, former British judge and former President of the International Court of Justice: āUntil it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have the right of self-determinationā. In other words, according to the distinguished British jurist, the Anglo-Argentine territorial dispute must first be solved, in order to know whether the British inhabitants can decide what they want for their territory. This means that the alleged āself-determinationā of the British inhabitants cannot be imposed to Argentina, nor can it constitute an excuse to leave the dispute over sovereignty unresolved.
The British argument of self-determination in the case of the Falklands is also seriously undermined by the United Kingdomās indisputably inconsistent policy. There was no āself-determinationā when they expelled two thousand native inhabitants from the Chagos archipelago. In 1966, the British government leased Diego GarcĆa Island in the Chagos archipelago to the United States, for it to build a military base on the island.
There was also no āself-determination referendumā when Margaret Thatcherās government returned Hong Kong to China, its legitimate owner. Even less did it grant full British citizenship to the five million Chinese residents in the territory, as happened with the two thousand inhabitants of the Falklands/Malvinas whose origins were European. In other words, self-determination is a specious argument being used to maintain one of the last vestiges of the British Empire, with no legal basis whatsoever. The population is a simple adjustment variable to maintain their colonial remnants around the world. When the population becomes an obstacle, it is expelled, as occurred in Diego GarcĆa and Banaba Islands; when it can be used as a tool to legitimise occupation, a supposed right to selfdetermination is invoked, as in the case of the Falklands/Malvinas
You’ve brought whatabouttery into the discussion in order to swerve around Article 1of the UN Charter of Human Rights. Wow. I think I’m done here!
There is no right to self-determination for populations established after evicting pre-existing ones.
That Putin invaded Ukraine and displaced its inhabitants does not grant rights to self-determination to the Russian inhabitants of the Donbass
Oh do behave Juan!
The Falklands island’s had there vote a few years back and 99% voted to stay British š¬š§ end of story my friend š
Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have the right of self-determination..
in Donetsk, Lughansk, Crimea, Kherson and the entire Donbass region. Citizens voted with 99% to consider themselves Russian citizens.
The right of self-determination of peoples must meet specific conditions to be applied, and it is not at the cost of violating the territorial integrity of a country and expelling its inhabitants.
Firstly there is no territorial dispute between Argentina and the UK. There is one between Argentina and the Falkland Islands an independent overseas British territory. As far as the UK is concerned any supposed dispute was settled in 1982 when Argentina illegally invaded the Islands forcing a military response to get them back for the people of the Falkland Islands.
Secondly the UK did not evict any Argentinians from the Falklands in 1833…Argentina didn’t even exist. There were some settlers from the United Provinces who were on the Islands who were allowed to stay and many Falkland Islanders can trace their ancestry back to those original settlers…all of them are proudly British. In 1833 there were some troops from the United Provinces on the Islands illegally who were removed and sent back to the mainland.
In the end asking to negotiate with the UK is a waste of Argentine diplomatic time. The only people who can decide the future of the Falkland Islands are the people of the Falkland Islands via their democratically elected government. That Argentina does not recognise that government is immaterial and the UK purely guarantees their security from Argentine colonialism now and always.
The uk evicted the united provinces settlemen.. there is not self determination for populations implanted after an invasion and eviction.. same as the inhabitants of donbaas implanted by russia
There was no indigenous population on the Falkland Islands, the settlers from the United Provinces arrived after the UK had claimed the Islands making their settlement illegal. Nevertheless they were allowed to stay and became Falkland Islanders…who still have ancestors today on the Islands. The only people forced to leave were the illegal United Provinces Garrison. The issue of the Donbass is completely unrelated to what happened in 1833 on the Falkland Islands. What happened in 1833 is ancient history and the events of 1982 settled the issue of Sovereignty once and for all. The Falkland Islands now have a vibrant population with their own Government. The UK cannot negotiate away the Falkland Islands to Argentina, only the Falkland Islanders and their government can decide their future. The Argentine Armed forces treatment of the Falkland Islanders in 1982 ensured they (the Islanders) would never want to become citizens of Argentina in an Argentine colony.
RAF will have to game how they would respond to this potential threat. USA wonāt want china getting a foothold.
From the comments, it seems like it’s 1982. But ok, British being British.
Gentlemen, Argentina will never attack or try to recover the Falklands by force, because it is Unconstitutional. After the 1982 war, this impossibility became an ironclad clause. But it is also true that in the Argentine Constitution it is prohibited to fail to claim sovereignty over the islands diplomatically. So, the fact is that Britain will never abandon the islands, and Argentina will never stop claiming them, until the end of time. And nothing else beyond that.
Now I write as a Brazilian, and with the eyes of someone who did not participate in the conflict: Great Britain should get closer to Argentina, make concessions, and abandon the warlike spirit. Argentina is too important, and China sees this clearly. If you think that these 24 F16s will make China abandon Argentina, you are wrong. In fact, all of South America. But there is hope, just do what I say and treat Argentina and South Americans with respect and on an equal basis with other European allies, with companies setting up shop to generate jobs, investment in infrastructure and energy, with fair profits and competitive prices, technology factories, sharing knowledge in medicine, for example. Because this is what the “evil” China does on our continent, different from the common sense spread as false propaganda, that they exploit us.
Brazil is different, due to its greatness, and we definitely do not have alignment or bend, neither does China, nor the USA. But we don’t control others. It’s time to use your brain, promote unity, good, fair relationships, and peace. Greetings from Brazil.
The UK should buy these F-16s from Denmark … and then donate them to Ukraine.
I think the U.S. has made a mistake by authorizing the sale and training of Argentine pilots in P3 Orion and waiting for F-16 Block 10-15.
Argentina is a country that has 50 % of starving people, economically not viable country, corrupt for decades its political system, used to not pay or honor its debts.
U.K., I believe that it should get closer and better with Chile and its Air Force, since it is a reliable country, an ally, with an extensive tradition of professional camaraderie/exchange between institutions such as the Chilean Navy and the Chilean Air Force.
The FACH, requires in a short period of time, to decommission the remarkable F-5E III, which are coming to an end, after serving the FACH.
Chile has demonstrated its loyalty to the U.K. during the support given to the Expeditionary Forces to achieve the overwhelming triumph in the theater of operations.
Cheers,
Hernan
Lucky all 24 f-16 couldn’t beat the 4x Typhoons based in the Falklands
Good call by the USA. It completely puts a halt to the Chinese offer (if need be greased by a loan at ‘very favourable conditions’ without any hidden intentions at all) of JF17 fighters. And it would not surprise me a lot of water will flow through the Falkland Sound before a couple F-16s if any will arrive in Argentina. It would surprise me even more if these F-16s would ever be equipped with BVR-missiles; and without them they don’t stand a chance against Typhoons who will just slaughter them before they get WVR-combat.