Argentina has officially signed for 24 ex-Danish F-16A/B aircraft in addition to Sidewinder and AMRAAM missiles.

Today in Denmark, Argentine Minister of Defence, Luis Petri, led the signing of the historic purchase agreement for 24 F-16 combat aircraft, with which Argentina will recover its supersonic interception capacity after many years.

“Today we are completing the most important military aeronautical acquisition since 1983. These are 24 F-16 aircraft that have been modernized and equipped with the best technology, and that today are at the level of the best aircraft that fly in the skies of the South American region and the world,” said Petri, who also spoke with President Javier Milei, who witnessed the event via videoconference.

“With these new aircraft we are taking a momentous step in our defense policy, recovering the supersonic capacity of our aviation and achieving the definitive entry of our Air Force into the technological challenges of the 21st century,” Petri asserted.

Ending his speech, the minister assured: “Thanks to this investment in defense, I can proudly say that we are beginning to recover our aerial sovereignty and that our entire society is better protected against all those threats that put us to the test.”

The Ministry of Defence in Argentina said:

“It should be noted that these F-16 fighter aircraft will be the backbone of the air defense system in Argentina, a mission that the Mirage aircraft performed for more than 40 years until their deprogramming. The purchase of these aircraft ratifies the government’s decision to promote investment in Defense with the objective of strengthening the capabilities of the military instrument.

The F-16 system acquired from Denmark includes single-seat units, two-seat units for advanced pilot training, weapons and support equipment. This aircraft of North American origin has characteristics of a multipurpose aircraft with functions of air-to-air and air-to-ground combat.

The agreement includes the delivery of four flight simulators, eight engines and spare parts for the aircraft will be guaranteed for five years. In addition, the contract provides for the training of pilots and mechanics who will work on this weapons system.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

259 COMMENTS

    • We have to trust the Americans that if F16ā€™s used in anger against Britain the USA will cut the supply chain.

      • A conflict in the Falkland’s would always be quick and sharp. As such a cut to supplies wouldn’t impact Argentina militarily in any realistic scenario for this conflict. If Argentina can either destroy or ground our Four/Three Typhoons then they have one.

        • At least Sky Sabre air defence system is stationed in the Falklands, plus Argentina may be getting the planes but I reckon a RAF pilot in a Typhoon will fly rings around them.

          • Say what you will about the Argentine Airforce capabilities during the Falklands, but a lack of skill and courage was not on the list.

          • What capabilities they had faster aircraft more of them yet they couldn’t claim air superiority over the 8 Surviving Harriers.

          • Some were used for air defence carrying A2A side winders and the majority were used for ground attack payload included cluster bombs and 1000lb bombs then laser guided bombs later on. There were RAF pilots who had dog fighting experience but they flew lightenings but limited experience with Harriers and never operated from a carrier before, the RAF pilots flew their harriers down and used air to air refueling. the navy pilots didn’t have dog fighting experience but we’re experienced Harrier pilots trained to fly from the carriers but Harriers were never intended as a air superiority fighter but a ground attack and air support fighter.

          • cheers Mate- my understanding it that once the 1 sqn Harrier GR3s arrived, all the Se Harriers were allocated to air defence tasks.

          • Oh my goodness. Where to start?

            8 surviving Harriers makes no sense. Argentina needed to gain air superiority over the combined 26 Sea Harriers and the small GR3 fleet. It never significantly eroded the Sea Harrier fleet.

            The Fleet Air Arm pilots were very well trained in air to air combat. On the Sea Harrier and some of them previously on Phantom. Sharkey Ward would be utterly horrified at the suggestion they were not!

            Sea Harrier was multi role so there was no distinction between Sea Harriers used for ground attack and this used for air defence. 800, 801 and eventually 809 squadron shared all the work between them.

            Sea Harrier was designed for air to air. Specifically it was intended to protect the fleet from shadowing Soviet aircraft. Harrier GR3 was not. It had no intercept radar. There was no intention to use GR3 for air to air unless the Sea Harrier fleet was significantly reduced (which it wasnā€™t). GR3 was not used in an air to air role in the Falklands.

            While GR3s were flown to Ascension using air to air refuelling this was also true of the Fleet Air Arm 809 squadron Sea Harriers that deployed later.

            But yes there were RAF pilots embedded in the FAA squadrons.

          • A good piece you posted Benjamin. I believe only six Sea Harriers were on station over the San Carlos area at any one time. This was due to other aircraft still incoming to relieve the standing patrol and other egressing back to refuel.

          • They were operating at the absolute extremes of their range, they had no fuel to dogfight, bombers had no escorts, this is not to take away from the performance of the FAA Sea Harrier pilots, but the argies really were handicapped.

          • Yes but 6-1 advantage in the air !! Fuel usage of the solitary fighter against 6 won’t last long

          • Because we probably trained them along with Orderance that they dropped on us was ours as well

          • So your point is. 6-1 are better odds than the harrier pilots had. Plus the Falklands have Sky Sabre air defence system, it can pick targets up at 120km 360Ā° the missiles fly at Mach 3 depending on the missiles they have a range from 15miles to 60 if my memory serves me right.

          • People like me used to go around training to take these installations out. What makes you think they wonā€™t?

          • We do have a fair few military personnel on the ground in the Falklands and Iā€™m not sure Argentinian has the level of amphibious capability or commandos needed to either undertake a covert mission or a contested landingā€¦a RM commando is after all a pretty exquisite capability that very few nations can emulate or come close toā€¦

          • US marine or Royal Marine.
            At present there roughly 1500 troops who’s main job is to protect the islands there’s a surface ship on patrol at all times. There’s an Astute attack sub patroling the waters around the islands as well. I don’t think the island will fall for the trick the same in 1982. How would you take out the installations with your great experience. I’m not sure what regiment is on the islands but these are British highly trained troops not some Argentinain conscripts. If you’re a Royal Marine you probably could take them out, if US marine I won’t answer.

          • The RN Astutes are a precious resource, if you think we have one spare Patrolling the Falklands I may have a Bridge to sell you šŸ™„.

          • I didn’t mean they sail around the Falklands in circles, there is always one sub patroling the south Atlantic it also could be the last remaining Trafalgar. The patrol area of these things are vast but close enough if need be to get there in a hurry plus either the Astute/Trafalgar are armed with tomahawks. Plus what type of bridge do you have to sell plus do you deliver šŸ¤” plus my reply was to a ex-marine probably US who said he trained people to take out air defence systems, implying it would be easy to take the Falklands so I point out what was in the area and it wouldn’t be as quick like before when there was just a small contingent of British Soldiers even then they did a great job.

          • Royal Marines not Soldiers were based down at moodybrook barracks in 1982 They would have fought on but the island Gov Rex Hunt had them stand down

          • Was thinking that myself, but again unless there were absolutely no warning, far more difficult than in the 80s, even ISIS have trouble hiding their plans these days, I would not want to risk sailing an invasion fleet myself because they simply wonā€™t know where the closest Astute might be and thatā€™s assuming their commando forces take out much of the island defences in double quick time without being detected. Begins to look like one of the greatest military shock and awe surprise actions since Pearl Harbour

          • You say a surface ship patrolling…not really, not anymore. Until pretty recently we had a frigate or destroyer(l deployed there on one myself)with anti ship and air defence capabilities. Now only an off shore patrol vessel with a small close range gun. The Argies would do things a might different if they ever tried again and I think it would be foolhardy to think they would have no gains at all.

          • I stated surface ship no mention of Frigate or destroyer. But I wasn’t going to let an ex-marine imply it would be easy to take out the air defence systems on the Falklands just let him know what was in the area and it wouldn’t be that easy. It my be just an off shore patrol vessel but its there patroling. US marines are large and allowed and full of it. Comparison between US marine and a Royal Marine if you wanted to wake the dead send in US marines if you didn’t want to wake the baby send in the Royal Marines šŸ˜‚ Andrew

          • Totally agree,a 30mm gun is pretty useless unless used against pirates with AKs,it’s pathetic that these “patrol” boats don’t have a couple of SSMs at the least,the boats are big enough to fit them

          • I think he’s Royal, for certain comments years ago I won’t repeat.
            Considering HMG and the RN most of the time keep the locations of Submarines classified, unless they’re shown for political or publicity reasons, you cannot say with certainty an SSN is there.
            Unless your actually COS Ops and you work in a CTF?
            There is no one regiment on the islands, the Infantry contingent roule in and out. All other Corps bar ones like the RAC and AAC are also represented.
            Overall, I agree that taking the islands is something beyond Argentina at this time with current force levels and the fact we’d see them coming.

          • Youā€™re right Daniele. Although I couldnā€™t see how I could be confused, it is a UK orientated board.

            in dc647ā€™s honour and to avoid confusion, today, ā€œEx-Marineā€ is reborn as ā€œEx-RoyalMarineā€.

          • Must admit it would be an incredible feat if they managed to organise a force sufficient to take out defences and then take the islands without many days, perhaps weeks of warning which would then allow substantial reinforcement to take place. The potential disaster would probably get a President and most Govt Ministers hung I suspect.

          • The Roulemont Infantry Company of 110 men has been drawn from a variety of Infantry regiments. When I was there for 6 months in 1999-2000 it was a Ghurka company.

          • ā€¦and thereafter the quick take over of the islands happens how. Not impossible if like in the 80s total incompetence reigned in what was a far less sophisticated environment of course, but would need an incredible level of efficiency on a massive level to pull off. Not sure I would have total confidence in our forces pulling it off far, far less Argentina, when any offensive action tends to be visible to all manner of electronic surveillance. As long as they never get anything equivalent to Meteor and AMRAAM while good is out ranged, out performed and the supplied F-16 sensors inferior so I doubt they would do more than even dream of trying it on.

          • Typhoon in falklands is tranche 1. No Meteor. ASRAAM and ASRAAM. Adequate but not Tranche 2 or 3

          • I would respectfully suggest that this will almost certainly be changing in the very short term future. šŸ˜‰

          • I’m writing for the Aurforce Technoligy article link to be approved by George et al. It describes very recent falklands defences etc.

          • Well, it’s not like they would be Royal Marines. RAF reg could probably handle it, at least they have recent operational experience.

          • My point is that although we have better aircraft and more highly skilled pilots we should not forget that the Argentinians have a numerical advantage.

            Also if two Typhoons go u/s we have lost half our ‘FI Air Force’. I am sure we would prevail, however.

            Good point to mention Sky Sabre as being part of our air defences.

          • May be it is possible to consider two issues: free access to les Ć®les malouines (šŸ˜‰), which Argentina may find impossible to contest, A400 or C17 will enter a protective bubble before being in the range of interception capabilities, given the range of F16 and the effectiveness of the defense posture with ground-sea missile batteries (it does exists and is affordable) and ground to air missiles (Camm, Aster). I have not done the computations, but I am sure many have done it to evaluate the seriousness of the threat. At first glance, it donā€™t think the threat is too high.

          • Math, as you are French of course you may call our lovely Falkland Islands ‘les Ć®les malouines’!

            I am sure that our A400Ms and C-17s will safely get in with reinforcements. Even outnumbered, our Typhoons will sort out the F-16s and our Sky Sabre will be effective too.

          • Reinforcement typhoons could be on route quickly. With 24 hours the numbers could be increased quickly.
            1982 was different as there was no A330 tankers that could get planes South quickly. Add in C17s and A400s that can land on short strips carrying 100s of people and a 100s of tons of equipment.
            Most large countries should have fighters to keep their airspace safe and this aircraft is probably the best solution. Imagine they had got 24 Chinese or Russian aircraft with all the strings attached.

          • In the past we have chartered Volga-Dnepr Airlines’ An-225 to deploy Tornados down to FI. I guess the Russians might not help us now! So reinforcing Typhoons would fly down with AAR, unless one or two could be carried (wings removed?) in a C-17?.

          • The ruskies destroyed the Ukrainian 225 in the botch attempt to seize the airport. Ukrainian 124s are still flying around.

          • Sadly back in the day the Rapier performed very poorly and thankfully lessons were learned from that.

          • Look there isnā€™t going to be an instant unexpected invasion is there, well unless we are tied down in another larger conflict in Europe anyway. Thankfully the first thing that has been organised is that reinforcements can be carried out pretty quickly.

          • I was always taught to expect the unexpected! Seriously, I doubt that Argentina could again mount an operation to invade the Falklands even with 24 F-16s.

          • Not really. To ‘fly rings around’ one must first have the aircraft already there and ready – not something we seem to take notice of.

        • You donā€™t think the two aircraft carriers and 74 5th generation jet fighters we are buying for them might have something to say about that šŸ˜€

          • Oh no doubt. But what Amphibious force are you going to be able to scrape together to send, land and support a Brigade + at least ground force. And are we going to have enough escorts to protect both an Amphibious and Carrier strike group? Not forgetting of course Argentina will have the entirety of the Islands population as hostages. Not to say Argentina could defiantly take the islands, or that we definitely couldn’t re take them. But id rather keep the odds of the first exceptionally slim, and the need for the second to be at nil.

          • Actually we have more amphibious capabilities than we had in 82..our escorts are exquisite our fixed wing naval aviation the most advanced on the planetā€¦

            The issue would be that the RN would not be able to do anything elseā€¦

            You need to remember the RN of 82 was not designed for expeditionary warfare the modern RN is essentially been redesigned to focus on expeditionary warfare.

            The escort fleet of 82 was to be frank utterly shite in air defenceā€¦the vast majority of the escorts were unable to defend themselves let alone anyone else.. there weā€™re essentially 3 frigates that could be described as have any form of reasonable air defence and these could only really engage either 1 or 2 targets before overwhelmā€¦the other 12 frigates were essentially nothing more than distraction ships and targets..protected by a few manually aimed local control AAW guns and the utter rubbish that was sea catā€¦as for the destroyers they had 2 county class..which had the completely useless sea slug and locally controlled AA guns..and 5 type 42s each of which could again only manage 2 targets each..out to a range of around 40mnā€¦( it had about an 11% success rate vs the T45 which is close to a 100% kill rate)

            essentially a refitted T23 is a far better AAW platform than the type 42s..one type 45 offers a greater air defence capability than all five of the T42sā€¦

            The fleet would also be covered by just about the most effective fighter on the planet..and have reasonable AEW cover something it did not have in 82.

            The RN also has a significant precision strike capabilityā€¦. tomahawks from SSN, NSM from frigates and the F35 itself , which would allow it to attack and destroy the Argentinian air bases in range of the island with impunity.

            I would say all in all the RN would actually be far more capable of replaying corporate now than in 82ā€¦it no longer has the expeditionary weaknesses it had in 82ā€¦the only weak link would replenishā€¦.

            the big issue would be to do it the RN would essentially have to abandon its NATO commitments for probably close to a yearā€¦.

          • Good commentary Jonathan. I did think Sea Wolf showed promise once the bugs were ironed out.

          • Hi klonkie..yes indeed but in the end it aways has a hard limit in that at was an automatic command line of sight missile and could only engage the number of targets equal to the number of fire control radars..which was 2 for the T22 and 23..so due to its short range they were only really ever able to manage an attack from 2 missiles or aircraft.

          • The poor state of our two missile systems were laid bare when HMS Coventry got sunk. You see HMS Broadsword get in the way of Coventryā€™s missile system just before it was able to engage the A-4ā€™s.

            The Royal Navyā€™s account of the action ā€œSea Dart could not lock on, and HMS Broadswordā€™s Sea Wolf system malfunctioned as the first Skyhawk run lined up on her. Riding the waves from 3ā€“5 meters, the two A-4s took heavy small arms and antiaircraft fire from the two ships. It is believed that HMS Broadswordā€™s Sea Wolf was confused in its attempt to lock onto the low-flying Skyhawks due to the massive amounts of 4.5-inch gunfire from HMS Coventry.  Three of the bombs missed, with one bomb ricocheting off the sea and into HMS Broadswordā€™s flight deck, destroying the Lynx helicopter. ā€œZeusā€ flight then turned into the attack at 355 degrees. Again, both shipā€™s missile defences failed to acquire the Skyhawks, and three out of the four bombs struck HMS Coventry. Nineteen men died, and only 30 minutes after being hit, HMS Coventry slipped into the seaā€.

          • To think these anti submarine frigates effectively had to defend the anti air destroyers was a painful lesson sadly, so compared to our missile load out of the time Sea Wolf was literally a life saver certainly when the blue screen of death didnā€™t participate in the equation.

          • Good analysis, yes as the RN has recalibrated to a more potent strike and defence capability since 82, the Argentinian military has in that time degraded in all capabilities, so without some genius leftfield approach, they have no chance. A 2025 RN task group would be filled with ships that each play a working part of a devastating war phalanx, whereas in 82 it was more like Russian approach of motivated mass but with questionable kit. I do think that it we didnā€™t have any assets there and were weak in our posture, they would have a pop.

          • You are joking yes ? Every conflict there are losses of equipment,In 1982 the sheer number of ships was part of the reason of success on the naval side of things,this would not happen today,look at the submarines alongside long term,the reliability of some of the surface ships,the pathetically small number alone is a handicap. There is no room for losses,replacements would take months for he ships in deep refit to get better ready to sail and do a work up whilst steaming full speed ahead to make up the miles. Yes I get the weapons today are better than then but that’s only any good if you’ve still got a platform to fire from.i see you didn’t think much of seacat,well in san Carlos they were reasonably effective no radar clutter to contend with on the older variants GWS24 i think,I know as I was a gunner on Fearless.

          • Agree. Presentation better than cure. Don’t give them a sniff of a chance. Make sure that RAF Mount Pleasant has enough aircraft, troops and missiles defences to make any attack utterly futile.
            Land Ceptor, another infantry company and some radar guided guns would seem a sensible idea.

          • The presence of fighters, air defences, and infantry on the island, based out of a fortified airbase with plenty of supplies, already represents a greater force than Argentina could realistically hope to land on the island.

            Also consider the fact that Argentina now has an elected government, not a military dictatorship, and has focused purely on getting the islands diplomatically since the war.

            There have been plenty of articles covering this, some very recently; presently, increasing the garrison of the Falklands would be a waste of resources that are desperately needed elsewhere.

          • We would only need amphibious troops if the Argentines had landed in strength and seized a very large amount of key ground and taken out the runways at MPA and Stanley, thus preventing reinforcements from arriving by air.

            Their chances of them doing the above are very slim.

          • I think Argentina would be very hard pressed successfully attacking the Falklands, conquering them would be next to impossible.
            Even a spoiling action would lead to swift retribution in the form of crash deployed astute class subs and a QE battle group.
            Against that the Argentina armed forces have no answer.
            The UK would probably go on the offensive and downgrade Argentina’s ability to wage war by attacking C3 sites with Tomahawk and taking out air bases and key facilities with F35 Bs.
            The MOD and MI6 will need to keep a close eye on the situation and would probably be wise putting another infantry company and a further 4 typhoons there, once the F16s becomes operational. With 8 typhoons deployed, all ideally Meteor armed the Argentine air force would rapidly take such high attrition to make a conflict futile.
            Shame the F16s are going to Argentina rather than Ukraine where they are desperately needed.

          • Another point to bear in mind is that the F16 is quite short legged. Without proper tanker support (that uses a steerable boom), the F16s will suffer the same range issues that plagued the Mirage, Kfirs and Skyhawks back in ā€˜82. Therefore, using only large drop tanks, the weight to range margin, will mean they can only carry a light payload.

          • They’d be thrown off again and who’s to say we wouldn’t strike their mainland this time.

        • There are F 16
          ‘s all over the world and so are spares maintaining a couple of squadrons is doable even for the argies

        • The USA gave us a lot of help, most of it behind the scenes, even the French helped with DACT training with their Mirages vs our Harriers.

        • They were a little slow but they very much did in the end. They gave us intelligence and of course the then vital Latest spec sidewinders that allowed the Harriers to fire from almost any angle. Itā€™s why the Argentinians have been far more distant from them than the close allies they were beforehand. Taken a long time to remotely repair that and raproachment has been more due to their generally rightist westernised regimes, origins and culture than actual trust even now.

        • Well apart from many other things the US had planned to give us the USS Iwo Jima if Hermes or Invincible had been sunk. Caspar Weinberger said this publicly.

          • Wouldn’t have happened. The RN would have needed a while to learn how to operate them.

          • US had planned to provide ā€˜contractorsā€™ to help run the ship under British command. Plus the ship was already cleared for AV8 operation which would have helped.

      • Certainly better than the alternative of Chinese even Pakistani aircraft I guess. With South America in many cases cosying up to the axis of resistance itā€™s important to keep Argentina within western influence as far as possible.

    • More a case of not giving China or Russia back door entry to the Americas. F16s give America a bit more clout there.

      • Yes the last time the USA tried to keep someone out of Argentina it was the Russians and the USA sold them A4 Skyhawks. It is nice to see they are doing the same again with the Chines. All this about air sovereignty… who has violated Argentina while they had no airforce …. no one.

        I think Argentina is not very stable country historically and we could see this kit being used against us. Perhaps the UK should kick off like Argentina does every time we upgrade our kit. We should up the number of Typhoons.

          • We need another tranche of Typoons probably 36 and double up to 6 in Falklands. The rest are essential in Nato right now.

          • If they were needed during a period of rising tensions the UK would peel them off NATO duties and the others would have to pick up the slack. It would be our way of giving them an incentive to support the UK politically to resolve the issue as quickly as possible, preferably without fighting.

      • Very true a number of South American Countries have moved away from the US, Me I o is a reluctant ally in reality and Brazil once a staunch ally is now in hing towards China and flexing its own muscles which inevitably means showing independence from US influence to the World. Argentina is starting to look a vital link for America. This is why I state that the US needs Europe or it will find itself running out of the support it has long taken for granted in the World. The powerful can become complacent and itā€™s usually why Empires degrade.

        • Indeed the western world really needs to start working harder to consolidate its interests..at present we are losing out to Russia and chinaā€¦they are playing political warfare in a way the west has given up onā€¦mainly because of the idiotic post Cold War end of history paradigm in which the west decided it had won and the rest of the world would all fall over and offer themselves up to the wonder that is liberal democracyā€¦.trouble was a lot of the rest of the world tends to think the whole liberal democracy thing is a load of shiteā€¦.

      • I try not to think about Trump. He was robust with China yet far too cosy with Russia which gave them the wrong signals concerning Ukraine. He was completely out of his depth over Covid and so far as the storming of the capital building was concerned the whole incident would have been dealt with quickly with heads on spikes for the guilty if the US had any memory of how the British dealt with aledged crimes gainst the people. One day the US will move to change their constitution to prevent politics getting in the way of right and wrong (hopefully).

        On the plus side Trump did have some good points on business – if a little old fashioned. Personally I thought the republicans should have moved forward with someone like Nikki Haley because Biden & Trump are really relics of a bygone age.

          • Like I said his priorities make no sense and he is beyond the age where his actions can be relied upon to make any sense. He doesn’t seek reliable advice so I would say it may well happen on his watch.

          • Mark you need to focus not on what Trump says but on what he does.At his age he looks a lot better than Biden ^.^

          • Ok. Let’s look at what Trump is doing. Firstly, let’s look at defence, he is actively pushing Republicans to withhold defence equipment from Ukraine. This could puts the lives of tens of millions of Ukrainians at risk and instigate mass exodus from Eastern European countries. He has also suggested the US will default on it’s comittment to it’s allies making article 5 not worth the paper it is written on. During Covid he could not comprehend the basics of the disease and it’s prevention and failed to listen to or act properly on the advice of his experts. Also he cannot understand when he has been beaten in a fair democratic contest and fails to calm his disappointed supporters but instead it looks very much although he incited them to riot. He was fired under the American system but was not man enough to accept it.

      • Yes but Germany did not state a continual claim to neighbouring territories after 1945, Argentina still does.

        • That is the Key difference.
          If Argentina said we donā€™t want the islands until the islanders demand it and we want to have good relations with the U.K. and the falklands then all parties could work together peacefully.
          That would be the best situation for all.

          • If the Argentinians built excellent relations with the islanders eventually sovereignty would have moved to the FI Government and we would have moved on. Argentina have no serious use for the Falklands.

          • Their main use would be an inroad to Antarctica. Which as we all know has untapped mineral, oil and gas resources. Not forgetting the areas around the Falklands themselves, even if the resources are down deep under the sea.

          • I can see the UK passing sovereignty to the islanders if they should want it (as is normal) however I would not be surprised if the UK were offered the ability to base military assets on the islands in exchange for military assistence in the event of attack. A southern hemisphere NATO would also be a strong possibility in the coming years. Not sure Argentina are ever likely to get their hands on the sovereignty of those islands. Also I would perhaps suggest that the future of fossil fuels as a valuable asset is going to be time limited.

          • Yes MS, I said pretty much the same on another recent UKDJ article saying ā€˜accept it and all would be well with relationsā€™ and an Argentinian called Carlos jumped all over me saying I cannot ā€˜tell him how to thinkā€™ and I was a ā€˜keyboard warriorā€™ and one day it will indeed be theirs. Of course he can visit me in Barnsley and discover that I am more than a keyboard warrior, but aside that, that is the problem, I get the sense that a narrative to the FI is part of their schooling curriculum, as I see similar comments all the time from people who were not alive during the conflict. Whilst that narrative runs through the fabric of that country, we can never relax our military stance because one day a populist may rise and decide to do something rash.

        • Sadly the claim is now part of their constitution. Each incumbent President has to recite the sentence part of the Presidential ceremony.

      • Too short a time, IMO. If the Maratha states could be dominated by us for 150 years, then post N zi Germany could. Empire was of its time and the industries of the Ruhr would have been very useful for our post-war recovery.

  3. I was under the impression that with Martin Baker Ejector seats f16 couldn’t be sold to Argentina? Now great. Time for our already overstretched Air Force, to get more overstretched.

    • It would take a lot more than 24 F16s to give Argentina a viable chance to take the Falklands – a navy, for example.

      • Well they’ve just signed a contract for two LST, and I believe their trying to purchase a LPD of the USN. That’s more then enough to land a force strong enough to take and hold the island. Let alone all the commercial ships they could utilize. Unfortunately we don’t have a warship in the area anymore and I seriously doubt we have any subs. Although even now I doubt they will try an invasion or even want to. But their is no doubt that they will use these jets to probe and harass the Islands which will put a great strain on the Air Forces there, and will drastically increase operational cost.

        • Given Argentina’s history I am sure we keep a good eye on them. Also without aiti-air naval platforms they would be easy pickings for the RAF. Also they have no answer to our SSNs we could close the South Atlantic to them. Then there is the ability to strike with SSMs. Also there is the air-bridge to the UK with the RAF base. Also the airport has Sky Sabre SAMs.

          • I’m sure we certainly do. However, BFSAI have 4 Typhoons, with 1 in extended reediness. meaning realistically only 2 will be held at QRA at one time. If the Argentine air force get the jump on them with a force of say 12 F16 even with the best pilots at the control of the Typhoons it would still be poor odds. If those two aircraft are destroyed quickly enough, I.e. within 1 & 1/2 hours, then all the Argentines would have to deal with is the SAM System. And medium range, fixed air defences with limited C&C is not that difficult to contest. It would be costly but if the Argentine Air Force was willing to lose a substantial number of aircraft. Up to 80% of the force, perhaps in the one effort. Then they can gain air supremacy at which point they will basically have the islands. Their navy could sail unopposed and the Air Bridge would be meaningless if it flies directly into contested air space. The SSN would be a few days sailing away at which point they would have the entire Islands population as hostages. I doubt Argentina has the will power to conduct an invasion and even if they did and 1 Typhoon went up to meet them, it would be deadly. But it has been their lack of Air Power that has really kept Argentina so benign till now. And these 24 F16 open up possibilities to them, which we must be prepared to counter.

          • They would still have to undertake an apposed landing against a reasonable number of military personnelā€¦.the F16 does donā€™t actually have the legs to do air supremacy and close air supportā€¦with 4 1000Ib bombs itā€™s got a combat range of around 330miles and the closes airbase to the Falklands is 430milesā€¦basically the Argentinian airforce is not providing air superiority over the islands with 24 f16sā€¦.and it could not overwhelm the air defencesā€¦itā€™s got 2 kC130 air to air Refuelersā€¦which with the legs of the F16 means any attack is going to be limited by the tyranny of distance.

          • Worth noting that the 2 x KC-130 that they have are the same KC-130 that were used in the Falklands War in 1982….they’re almost 50 years old and have had a hard life with poor maintenance and limited hours in recent years…

          • Indeedā€¦itā€™s very likely they do not have the ability or expertise to undertake any meaningful combat missions as far out as the Falklands and their sortie rate and time over target for providing and air support would be dire.

          • Typhoons on falklands are Tranche 1. No Meteor. ASRAAM and AMRAAM.l only

            would be so much better with Tranche 2 providing meteor paveway IV and brimstone.

            Also 4 x Tranche 1 being retained post 2025 when balance of type are being withdrawn…presumably for the falklands flight.

        • There is a permanent naval presence, though not a major unit. The army presence is quite substantial, about 1,300 to 1.700 personnel. Add to that 4 typhoons and both a tanker and transport aircraft. I think that these would be rapidly increased if it seemed likely that Argentina was about to invade.

          • The last time I looked, the total manpower down there in FI is about 1,200 from all 3 services, in all roles including aircraft technicians, chefs, clerks, air traffic control staff etc etc.

            Very few of those personnel are manning offensive or defensive combat platforms or equipment.

            The army’s Combat Arm presence is a single infantry company of 110 men. Other army soldiers are in CS/CSS roles – the Sky Sabre AD Det, the Joint Comms unit, Joint Log unit etc.

          • Yes but in reality all they have to do is hold mount pleasantā€¦.and the Argentinian army would have to come a long way to get themā€¦the fact is as soon as it looked like Argentina was up to something they would start dumping the high readiness elements of 16 brigade into mount pleasant and within a very short space of time there would be a lot of troops in the islandsā€¦in 82 there was no way to re-enforce the islands by airā€¦Mount pleasant, the A400 and C17 completely change the geostrategic outlookā€¦as they can go from the Uk to ascension to Falklands without air to air refuelling.

          • I recall we have 2 aircraft carriers with F35s… as soon as only one turns up Argentina has lost air superiority. Any Argentinians on the islands would no get resupplied. Argentina would not attack now as with the CSG they know that even if they capture the islands they could not hold them. Also the know that politically the UK would have to take them back.

          • better to not have to take them backā€¦itā€™s easier just to deter any aggression with a quick reenforcement by air. But yes the RN is far more focused on expeditionary power projection than it was in the 1980s.

          • I was just correcting the arithmetic. Others also seem to think we have over 1,000 soldiers there.

            The Roulemont Infantry Coy (RIC) would no doubt be assigned to defend MPA and ‘the seat of Government’, although it would make sense for the HE The Governor to move that seat to MPA if invasion was likely. The FIDF would also deploy.

            You are right that we can now (unlike in 1982) rapidly reinforce the Falklands garrison – my main job as SO2 J5/J7 on my 6-month posting in 1999/2000 was to develop and improve the reinforcement plan with PJHQ, and periodically to exercise elements of it. One example being flying TA gunners down for their 2-week annual camp to bring the Light Guns out of local storage and to conduct some live firing.

          • I trust that the UK would not repeat previous intelligence issues and be aware of any Argentinian considerations of an invasion hopefully before Argentina firms up any plans let alone starts invasion preparations. Plenty of time hopefully.

          • I agree. I hope that next time the Foreign Office does actually act on the first reports coming back from our DA and Ambassador in Buenos Aires.

          • I think a correct response would be to monitor Argentina closely, up the typhoon numbers on the islands to 8 and deploy a second infantry company with a few boxer armoured vehicles for mount pleasant defensive duties. Also get some radar guided guns down there.
            Phalanx or Gepard type weapons would be useful.
            Makes the folly of scrapping typhoon tranche 1s look really stupid when other nations are threatening us with older less capable aircraft.
            Time for a tranche 4 typhoon order.

          • To be honest Mr Bell I think a tranche four typhoon order is required anyway..it will give us more new airframes that will ensure we have the correct number of typhoons until the 6 gen offer is ready at squadron level to take over ( which will probably be over the 2040s-2050s..it will not be quick to transfer all the squadrons to a new jet even if itā€™s operational by 2040)ā€¦I also think we need to secure 8 front line typhoon squadrons.( the RAF should never have dropped below 12 fast jet front line squadrons) .which will mean a full replacement buy for the tranche 1s + the airframes needed for 1 further squadron.

            As for further deployment in the Falklandsā€¦I think HMG need to closely monitor the threat and if Argentina gets saucyā€¦dump a couple of the air mobile companies down there in a quick response exercise…as a deterrence..

            To be honest my preferred option around the Falklands is sitting down between the Falklands islands government, the UK government and Argentinaā€¦looking at the EEZ and agreeing a joint strategy for exploiting the hell out of all the resources in the EEZ of both the Falklands and any bits of the British south Atlantic territoriesā€¦the reality is if we can bring Argentina in as a partner and a place to base the needed ports and infrastructure the UK, itā€™s oversees territories and Argentina as a partner could make and utter killing and exploit/ control vast resourcesā€¦these would get us ready for when ( not if ) the Antarctic becomes a free for allā€¦because guess who owns the best bit of the Antarctic..we doā€¦and the south Atlantic will become some of the hottest ( in a very cold way) property on the planetā€¦and good old Blighty already planted its flag.

          • Agreed T4 Typhoons badly needed but can’t see it happening regardless which government is in power šŸ˜ž

          • We should replace our tranche 1 with 4. We do not need the radar guns Sky Sabre with enough lancers is more than capable of protecting the airfield. Yes deterrent is better then recapture but having a Cartier Strike Group is not just for recapturing the islands, it is a deterrent in its own right. As long as we have a CSG Argentina knows that they will ultimately loos. Also the UK capabilities are cutting edge, Argentina has less capability then they had in 1982. Even-the F16 dates back to the 70’s. I did not think the A/B model even had a BVR capable radar I thought that came in with the C model. However what ever AMRAAM the US sells them it will not outperform Meteor. QRA Typhoons can carry 6 Meteors and 2 ASRAAM. Thus 4 Typhoons could deal with 24 F16. If you swapped the ASRAAMs for Meteor you would only need 3 Typhoons. Not to mention the RAF knows all about AMRAAM as we use them too. The Argentinians do not know the capabilities of our kit. If things start looking hot down south we can send down some F35s to aid the Typhoons and hit surface targets….

          • Iā€™m sure I saw on a update about Ukrainian f16s that the whole danish fleet was upgraded to block30 avionics, weaponry and sensors. Pretty sure they donā€™t have the GE engine though, so small mouths.

          • Donā€™t even need to do the massive jump from Ascension now. There is a runway on St Helena which is a mere very large jump to the FIā€™s.

          • True, of course. REME, RLC, AGC etc would all defend their working locations if attacked, but they would probably not go down to Yorke Bay to meet the Argentine invading forces!

          • Noooooo Sir.

            Just let REME know they each have a slab of St Ella on the Quay and they’d be in front of the infantry, even if they were PARA or ROYAL, in the fight.

          • If push was to come to shove all of our forces personnel are trained to handle weapons so they would be a force multiplier for the garrison.

          • Certainly all army personnel are trained to handle and fire a weapon and should do an annual refresher – all ranks have a weapon in the armoury on a Falklands tour. Not sure about RN and RAF personnel.

            In time of tension such weapons would be issued. Non-teeth arms would defend their working locations if attacked, but they would be most unlikely to deploy outside the wire to meet the enemy in the field.

          • All service personnel have weapons in the FI. From memory the RAF Reg did an “all arms course” for all non-Army personnel.

          • Thanks. Are there still any RAF Regt guys down there in FI since they handed over SAM duties to the RA many moons ago?

          • The other 1090 men should be combat trained, if not why not? That’s the trouble with modern forces too few infantry.
            Nobody is mentioning drones in this situation. I find that strange.

          • All soldiers irrespective of cap badge do the Common Military Syllabus for Recruits as their Phase 1 training, which includes combat skills, such as fieldcraft, skill at arms/shooting, physical fitness etc.

            Such skills are honed on exercises. All CS/CSS soldiers deploy on field training exercises being armed and tactical, and defend their positions as required.

            I may be out of date but all soldiers irrespective of capbadge are to do a refresher every year (some every 6 months) in certain soldierly (not trade) skills, which were known once as ATDs (Army Training Directives) but were later titled MATTS (Military or Manadatory Annual Training Tests). There are or were 9 MATTs: Personal Weapon Trg; Physical Fitness; Battlefield Casualty Drills; CBRN; Navigation; Values & Standards; Operational Law; Survive, Evade, Resist & Extract; C-IED.

            So, as far as just the army is concerned it is not just the 110 men in the RIC that have combat skills. However the Infantry clearly develop those soldierly combat skills way beyond the basic level – and it is they rather than the REME, RLC, AGC, RSIGS etc who should face the enemy on the beaches and beyond the wire etc, as REME, RLC, AGC, RSIGS etc will be at their work-place and defending their local position – they will provide a second inner layer of defence to the defence of the Base – that is their role if the enemy attack in the direction of MPA. In ‘silent hours’ of course there will be a different set-up as people will not generally be at work. Those in their living accomodation will move to pre-selected stand-to positions but would have to collect their weapon first. In some PJOBs non-Infantry soldiers are assigned to watch towers, gate duty, QRA duty for a periodic designated shift – that was the case at Camp Bastion.

            As far as I can remember we have only ever had a company of infantry in the Falklands – we do not have the manpower to deploy a battalion down there. The level of real threat day to day is well met by a company in largely a deterrent role. There is also the FIDF, who are under command of HE The Governor, but they could be chopped to Comd British Forces South Atlantic Islands. As has been said, reinforcement by soldiers arriving in wide-bodied jets would quickly happen in times of rising threat level.

            I can’t speak for the RAF or RN in terms of what ‘combat trained’ skills they have or even if they have personal weapons readily available. Hopefully a SME will answer up for them.

            Drones – something of a current obsession. I am not aware of Argentina’s drone capability. PJHQ may have conducted a study of the drone threat to FI and developed a counter-measures plan – this would not be Open Source.

        • Given the state of their air and sea-going fleets currently, how long do you think that headline number of 24 F-16s will remain flyable. They’ll be stripping half of them for parts to keep the other ones flying within 3 years. Same with the vessels- the state of their navy is atrocious.
          I know that they are still being difficult about the Falklands, I take your point on that. But as you say, they don’t have the capacity for an invasion. Harassment with the F-16s may happen on public holidays and suchlike, especially at first, but I think the wear on their airframes will be a greater burden than on ours. I also think that a bit more interest for the Falklands flight would probably be welcomed by our pilots!
          I also wonder if the tit for tat with Argentina is more political and media than anything else; I have no barometer for that, but I feel that we are in a similar position with the French. We like to slag each other off, but our militaries actually work together very effectively. I realise that we don’t work with the Argentine military as such, certainly not to the extent we do with the French. But we were very quick to support the search for their missing sub a few years back and suchlike. There’s possibly more respect and good feeling towards us from their military than we may suppose?

    • I thought the USAF kit had ACES seats and tge navy had MB. I suppose these are export planes and would have a custom fit.

    • F-16 uses the US made Collins Aerospace ACES II Ejection Seat.

      Basically the usual rule for the US is…

      If its a USAF aircraft it has ACES, ACES II or ACES V

      If its USN or USMC it uses Martin Baker exclusively.

      F-16 are obviously a USAF aircraft so use ACES II.

      This has now changed with the F-35 though. All F-35 variants, including the USAF flown F-35A, use the Martin Baker seat…its thought that the USN and RAF insisted on MB seats for F-35 and were not going to negotiate on the matter….

      Collins is trying to fight back with the ACES V seat, which is going in new build F-15, F-16, T-7 Red Hawk and (probably) the B-21 Raider. But generally unless an aircraft is built for the USAF in the US any aircraft built in the West gets MB seats…however….some later production F-16 customers have insisted on Martin Bakers US18 seat in preference…the UAE with their ultra high end F-16 Block 70/72 have chosen MB…

    • These F16s will probably be equipped with American Aces II ejector seats instead of MB ones to bypass any uk arms embargo.

  4. One of the best ways to protect the Falklands is to make sure the Argentinians have too much to lose by invading them.

    Bringing them into the international food like this may help

      • Harry have they not been punished enough. 42 years isolation. I suspect the Americans have attached strings offically or not.

        • I said nothing about punishment, and they haven’t been isolated. We just haven’t allowed them to use British made products to threaten British citizens and interest’s. The complete breakdown of their military is a result of their own economic fallings. Also if they “had been punished enough” then they wouldn’t keep acting like dam children over it and keep stocking the fires. Also I doubt America would given how little they care about us.

          • A little Brit bashing in the press of countries like Argentina, Spain etc. is entirely normal especially around elections. It gets votes. We Brits ignore it for the most part taking precautions only as necessary. From a military perspective it is not in the interests of the US to have the British fleet in the South Atlantic with the American needing to fill the gap.

    • Their neighbors to the north (Brazil) have started building a massive tactical jet Air Force with gripen NG. They do view this as a power balance problem, the F-16 buy isn’t about the Falklands.

    • Yes, time for less argy-bargy and a bit more rapprochement and maybe develop šŸ‡¬šŸ‡§ šŸ‡¦šŸ‡· economic trade ties a bit more, after all we play šŸ‰ against them. Help them to develop themselves and of course keep an eye on any possible adventurism towards the Falklands. I’d also like to see two patrol boats down there so no chance of sneaking in while the other is on the other side of the island.. Lol šŸ˜.

    • There are lots of reasons to buy more Typhoons but this isnā€™t one of them. Firstly the UK already has more F35s in active service than Argentina will have F16s. Secondly it will take Argentina along time to rebuild its fast jets skills and even when they do they will not compare to UK pilots who train with NATO regularly and actively deploy on missions.
      Thirdly Argentina doesnā€™t appear to be getting any ground attack weapons nor do they have the tanker fleet to allow them to get to the Falklands and back with any meaningful combat time. Falklands is 400NM from the mainland. A trip from an air base will be about 900NM.
      The UK even its run down state has 4 Typhoons, a Sky Sabre battery and can easily send more Typhoons, a Type 45 and a whole CSG with 24 jets that would be in permanent range of the islands.

      • Or just replace the Typhoons based there with them. It would help get the F-35s their QRA legs whilst instantly improving the Falklands defense without straining the Typhoon fleet.

        Obviously it’s more complicated than that but, having some lightnings spend time down there so pilots can get used to the area and train in the very much unique environment would be very beneficial and show we still take defense of the region seriously against evolving threats. Only when numbers allow that is.

    • Agree. Tranche 1 scrapping is looking like utter stupidity when out potential enemies are threatening us with older less capable aircraft.

  6. So an ‘old’ F16 v a Typhoon or F35. Personally I do not see a credible threat to the Falklands. This could be part of the expected ‘land/sea grab’, for mineral deposits, oil, gas etc etc?

  7. Difference now is that Sub launched TLAM could flatten these and the associated infrastructure on the runway between sorties if needed… Should they decide to get a little giddy.

    Storm Shadow is also plentiful.

    As much as I wouldn’t mind giving the Argies a kick now and again, this really does change very little, and it probably is time to try and re-integrate them into the rules based order that the West operates on. This is a good step in doing that. Carrot method does work.

    These are effectively our Typhoon T1 equivalents that we use for QRA interceptions. They certainly won’t be launching AShM any time soon.

    THAT would be the point at which the UK may need to widen our eyes to them, should it every come to fruition.

  8. The F35 can only carry 4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM don’t think any are based in the Falklands. UK Carriers are out of action and most of the T45 are in deep refit

    • afaik PoW is at sea with embarked air wing. QE is in Rosyth for repairs but I believe could sail in extremis. I believe that T45 is 3 available & 3 in various stages of PIP.

      • POW is back at Portsmouth resurrecting it’s maintenance period that was interrupted due to the fate of QE, she has been back for a few weeks now.

    • No they are notā€¦POW is presently on exersiseā€¦and what has that got to do with anything..you donā€™t think Argentinian is going to suddenly get the air and sea capabilities generated this year to invade the Falklands do you ????

      • I was in the Falklands in 1982 it never creases to amaze me how much utter rubbish regarding the conflict that some people post on. Here.from borrowed American aircraft carrier and sabotaging french factories producing arms for the. Argues somebody even alleged that the Spanish threatened to blockade the water around Gibraltar. I think the people in here should stick to the truth and not be taken in by all the utter fabrication and Walter mitt fantasys

    • To be fair, it’s not about how the state of affairs with the F35B here and now, but how it will be when Argentina actually has these aircraft ready to deploy operationally, which wont be for years. By that time, the issues with the carriers should be resolved and the F35Bs capable of using Meteors and Spear 3.

  9. On the one hand, good as some Argies are distant Welsh cousins and this help keeps them out of China’s claw. On the downside I don’t trust the Americans (or the French!) over the Falklands. I just hope the UK sees the need to reinforce the Falklands to counter this.

    As current world events have proven with Ukraine and Israel, the UK AND the Falklands needs a proper layered air defence system that has a far reach. i.e. greater than 1,000 miles, as well as medium and close range coverage. If possible this should be a UK system and not rely on others like Germany etc.

    Similarly our attack systems need a range of well beyond 1,000 miles.

  12. “that today are at the level of the best aircraft that fly in the skies of the South American region” probably arguable, yeah.
    “and the world” …uh…say what?

    • Iā€™m pretty sure the the best aircraft flying in South America are the RAFs typhoonsā€¦.but I suspect that would be a bit embarrassingā€¦..we have the second best aircraft flying in South America..only bettered by the ā€œespumoso Britanico tifonesā€ā€¦

      • Chile operates F-16C….

        Brazil is standing up Gripen E….

        Peru has MiG-29SMT and Mirage 2000…

        Venezuela has F-16 and SU-30…

        Columbia will also be replacing its Kfir with something tastier in the near future…

  13. Only 24 4th gen aircraft, and how many of them are they going to be able to service and operate at a time!

    I donā€™t think the Typhoonā€™s down south should be overly worried.

    • Quite correct Mate. I’m confident some of these 24 will end up as spare hacks. I did have a chuckle at the Argie comment that this is the mist significant investment in heir air force since 1983!

    • Brazil has started a small arms race in South America. They have invested hugely in tactical jets and have started a nuclear submarine project. Argentina rightly sees this as a misbalance of power. They don’t have dreams of fighting the UK with 24 used F-16’s.

      • Chris please go and look at what Argentina’s arch enemy, Chile, have been flying for the last couple of decades….

        No-one has beef with Brazil…

        • EVERYONE in S.America has suspcisions of Brazil’s intent! Look at their presidents recently, they have a nuclear submarine program. It’s not a relaxed situation for their neighbors.

          • Nope, just 1 in construction to be commissioned in the 2030s assuming things stay on schedule. Itā€™s based of the Scorpene class version they bought. They have two of those SSKs launched and another two under construction but only one SSN.

          • Yes it is. Brazil has 2 minor territorial disputes with neighbours, Uruguay and Bolivia, both over tiny areas on river borders. Brazil has peaceful relations with all of its neighbours and those disputes are long-standing with no real economic impact or cause for concern.

          • The only conflict that could turn serious in south America is the Chile Argentina dispute over the beagle channel.

  14. Just sensible for Arg to restore basic air interception capability. I won’t be worried for the Falklands unlkes there’s a massive recapitalising of the Artgentine armed forces & a Chinese alliance. Mount pleasant air base could be reinforced within a few days if ever necessay..

    • We’ll have better intelligence if Argentina looks like it is building up for another round of shooting fish in a barrel they’re in a utter Shamble no money,no technology, no training, and supporting population, no clear leadership anyway so I think we can take anything to do with the argies with a pinch of salt

    • China is a big bad wolf hiding in the background. U wouldn’t put it past them to export the kit and expertise to anyone.

  17. Best way to protect the FI is to treat the Argies with respect, certainly respect their military and its people and head sheds and make them aware we can be mates not enemies! Aside from the political class in Argentina who love to whip up that classic South American emotion, most people are more concerned with their dire economic situation than another fight!

    The delivery of 24 F16s, while in maybe 3-5 years could be considered a threat to the Falklands, the average Argie Air Force pilot is probably more concerned and looking forward to jumping in the cockpit and thrashing it about, in a crazy, reckless balls of steel manner, at about 7 feet off the ground, with a Cheshire cat grin under his massive gringo tash! And fair play to them.

    But, on a more operational note, the Argies even with 24 F16s, a new LPD and other possible new acquisitions, would struggle to carry out a successful opposed landing, within the 24-48 hours before UK reinforcements arrived! Plus the days are long gone when a shed load of scrap metal merchants arrive, bluff their case and a night time invasion starts! Intelligence assets are so much more capable that those intentions would be clocked long before the LPD was loaded! No what will happen is the crazy speed loving gringo tashed Argie lads will play the cat and mouse game with the RAF slightly chubby speed loving clean shaven, a little more sensible RAF lads and lasses, and they will break off for tea, medals, tall tale stories and lots of footage to show each other on the crew room!!!!!! šŸ‘

    • Ah, at last someone with experience mentions the intelligence angle.
      JSSU (FI) says hi. And there are other assets on Ascension.
      I think the element of surprise is zero for an op to retake the islands. For a classic cockershell heros type raid not so sure.
      I’m more concerned with who we would have in government at the time and their political balls, or lack of.
      If we hold MPA, we win.

    • Good points. I remember some years ago (in the 90s?) we handed over aviation ops in UNFICYP to Argentina. All very amicable and mutual respect for professionalism. As per Basil Fawlty’s advice, I don’t think anyone mentioned the war!

  18. The defence plan for the Falklands is MPA.
    It was built where it is because it’s hard to get to.
    Typhoons would fly CAP killing everything that comes near allowing MPA to remain open.
    Typhoons outrange AMRAAM with Meteor.
    ASRAAM outranges Sidewinder.
    A Sky Sabre Battery would deal with leakers that get past CAP.
    They would need to keep the airspace secure for maybe 24-48 hrs.
    Reinforcements from UK would fly down and land at a secure MPA. That would be more Typhoons (and now F35s) along with Strategic Air Transport carrying troops.
    Any amphibious forces and resupply boats would be interdicted by RN subs that would be on station within 10 days. Air resupply would be a nonstarter because of Typhoons and MPA owning the skies.
    Yes, you could land troops, but you could not resupply them and likewise you could not withdraw them either. The troops and ships would be sitting ducks for Typhoons, F35 and by then Apache’s arriving in C17s at MPA.

    Amphibiosity isn’t the thing that is important for the Falklands.
    MPA is.

    • Brilliant summary GB. I wrote my comment before just reading yours now so we are both on the same pageļ»æšŸ˜Žļ»æ

    • Just to add….everyone seems to have missed a rather important point…

      F-16 could not threaten the Falklands without AAR…

      Argentina has 2 x KC-130. These aircraft are the same ones that were used in the Falklands War 42 years ago….they’re ancient and have had little practice or maintenance over the years. They’re knackered.

      KC-130’s use drogues for refuelling….the receiving aircraft needs a probe….

      F-16 do not have probes…they’re boom only…

      No AAR means no real air threat….

      The distance from MPA to Rio Grande, the nearest Argentinian runway (not an airbase) is 410 miles. From MPA to Rio Gallegos, the nearest ‘proper’ air force base (by Argentinian standards, by Western standards it barely even qualifies as a satellite airfield) its 460 miles in a straight line.

      An unrefuelled F-16 does have the radius of action to cover that distance. But only with a high level transit to the area, with 2 x AIM-9 and 2 x2,000lb bombs….plus 2 enormous 1040 gallon external tanks. Those tanks are usually only used for ferry flights as you cannot manoeuvre in any appreciable way with them. If you use the more common 600 or 370 gallon external tanks you don’t have the fuel to reach MPA and return….the super large tanks do give you enough range, and freedom to not go in a straight line from base to target, but even then with the knowledge of where they were flying from its not enough for a fully evasive flight to enable an approach from an unexpected direction. There’s no way for them not to be picked up on radar from the RRH or Typhoon hundreds of km out…and after that they would be picked off with ease…

  20. I’m pretty sure this was a case of “better the devil you know…”. By not opposing the purchase of some fairly old F-16 A/Bs, the UK comes across as acting mature and reasonable, and Typhoon pilots have been up against them numerous times in training exercises. This also limits the chances of countries such as China offering them much more modern platforms for the bargain basement price of the use of some land to build a South Atlantic base.
    Argentina doesn’t have the money or expertise to mount a serious threat for at least the next decade without Russian or Chinese investment

  21. not like Ukraine needs them /rolleyes
    this wont help morale in Ukr, esp after allies helped Israel without batting an eye

    • That is a good point, we donā€™t have any form of alliance with Israel but we helped protect it from attack ( and it was the correct thing to do)ā€¦but poor Ukraine does not seem to get that same level of response.

      its probably now a critical time in the Ukraine war and the west should really have built up Ukraines war stocks to a very high level ready for the end of the mud season.

      • not saying helping defend Israel vs Iran’s drone/missile attack was wrong, but I think Ukraine should be ths priority which it is not in the US Congress. Afterall Ukraine was invaded and did not bomb a Russian embassy.

        • If I was being cynical I would say the very big difference between the two is that Iran is a regional power that is not an immediate existential threat to the major western powers, just troublesome ,were as Russia still has a nuclear deterrent that could end human civilisation..in the end a meaningful nuclear deterrent is one of the most significant foreign policy tools any nation has.

  22. The best aircraft in South America? I think a Brazilian gripen E would like a quiet word.
    One concern is does this leave enough for Ukraine? Perhaps some can be sourced from else where. There will be losses and new pilots need aircraft to fly. The soviet aircraft are a dead end so it has to be a western type.
    Maybe Europe has a whip round for newer gripens when required.

  23. Very old design now but nevertheless still a formidable platform especially in. The hands of a good pilot. But it does serve as a reminder to the HMG that the Argentines still have military ambitions and maybe a few no aircraft should be based in mount pleasant in the Falklands

  24. This goes beyond balance of hardware. Even if it did, 24 very old jets doesnā€™t even tip the air war anywhere. 1982 was a miscalculation on behalf of both parties. The UK never thought that Argentina would actually invade, or we would have more than the token Marine presence. ( Although Iā€™ve got to admire these guysā€¦balls as big as footballsā€¦they stood their ground against an overwhelming invasion force!). Argentine saw Britain as retreating from the world and certainly wouldnā€™t try and retake them. We all know how that series of miscalculations worked out for both sides. Even if Argentina could muster overwhelming force, at a local level, they know through bitter experience what our reaction would be. There will be no miscalculation again. Iā€™d much rather have a half friendly Argentine Air Force flying western jets, participating internationally, than a Chinese or Russian hostile puppet government, furnishing their air force with massive numbers of jets, flown by ā€œadvisors ā€œ

  25. The real issue here is that the USA, a NATO Ally (?), has ‘facilitated’/instructed the transfer of the F16’s, plus a full training and support package, from another NATO Ally, Denmark, to a foreign state that is still, technically, a belligerent. A scenario in which one could envisage a USA transferred F.16 trying to take out a Typhoon and the possible death of a British pilot. One has to query whether the USA has put its No.1 NATO Ally second to their usual meddling, self interest, in South America. No prizes for guessing which one ‘Isolation’** USA has gone for.
    ** (Before anyone misinterprets that word, it is stated in its historic, standard, Geo-Political context)

    • How dare the Americans put their strategic interests first! The UK would never do that! Don’t the Americans know that their purpose in the world is to bear the burden of defending a Europe a that is perfectly capable of defending itself but has refused to do so for decades? Any diversion from that to defend its interests in a neighboring continent is just unacceptable. Damn cheeky Americans.

  27. The other question to ask is about Argentina’s relationship with Chile, Brazil and Uruguay which adds to the bigger picture. The Falklands is an issue, most certainly, but so are all these other neighbouring nations. Argentina opposes Chinese investment in South America, Brazil and Uruguay encourage it. Keeping Argentina out of the Chinese orbit may seem the most important thing right now.

    • Something I have been trying to bring up, but it seems the residents of the UK can’t understand the S.American geopolitical landscape beyond “FALKLANDS!”

      Brazil has a nuclear submarine program, is buddying with China, Russia and India (BRICS anyone!?). Argentina might become one of the most (pro-western) countries down there. It’s getting warmer.

      • There’s a lot of nostalgia on this site! Fair enough from the vets, but the real worry is the great lack of situational awareness which is deadly. Too many people worrying about the obvious but missing what’s hidden in the cloud.The assumption often seems to be that the UK should be able to fight Russia on its own and not as part of Nato. We are still underfunded and under equipped but we are not doing anything on our own. Then there’s BRICS building something antithetical to the West and so what can be done? Argentina makes sense in that way… and the Falklands are a complication, whether we like it or not. Chile is the other player (they have 46 F15s already as it happens) and Chile’s relationship with Argentina is an interesting one too.

  28. Good Morning from Durban.

    Some random thoughts-the F 16 designed and built along with a clump of others( F14, F15)in the late 60’s early 70’s from memory, still is one of the best looking fighter jets ever built-a mechanical work of art. The fact that it remains in service with Air forces worldwide is a testament to its capabilities and American skills in design and marketing. The latter in particular is something we Brits sadly failed to learn in those earlier years.
    The setup in the FI is very different from back in 1982 when we had literally a token handful of Royal Marines and a 100 FIDF part timers to defend the island!
    The key to the defence of the FI is of course the MPA which critically enables reinforcements to arrive in hours as opposed to weeks, so the most important single factor in the defence of the FI is to ensure the base is properly protected particularly against a serious raid by Argie Special Forces able to seize or disable the access to quickly bring in the Calvary. I would think that would be the only way Argentina would have any chance of success in a repeat invasion plus they are probably at least a decade away from developing and rebuilding the entire infrastructure that would be needed to mount such an operation.

    • A big part of the F16’s success has been it’s ability to evolve in hardware and software. The F16v is a totally different aircraft to the original batch of F16a.

      • Good Morning Glyn. 100%! Similar reasons for the longevity of others such as the B52, DC3, F15 etc.. Pity that such longevity could not be achieved in for example the Typhoon.

  29. There is no chance of Argentina invading the Falklands again. That was madness led by a military dictatorship, they sought a war with any country, they even tried it against Chile in 1978. Today the generations have changed, there are young and intelligent people in charge of the Argentine Armed Forces, they want to be accepted in the international market and show their potential. Do not forget that Javier Milei is an admirer of Margaret Thatcher, as he himself said, and aligned with Israel and the US.

  30. This is good news. The key I for to take away from this is that Argentina are getting F16s and not a Chinese aircraft, such as the JF17.

    Up until Feb this year there were lots of rumours that China was going to bake out some of Argentinaā€™s debt. This was on the back of China and Argentina signing a trade agreement. Where China buys food stuffs but also gets fishing permits.

    There was a serious worry that as part of the deal Argentina would be given Chinese arms and materiel. Including Chinese advisors setting up shop. The US were particularly worried that a Chinese Naval/Airbase would then drip feed into the deal. Which ā€œcouldā€ put a carrier in danger. As the Patagonian passage is one of the main transit routes for the carriers. Being they are too big for the Panama Canal.

    This deal for the F16s is as much as keeping China out of South America, as it is giving some capability back to Argentina.

    On a side note these Danish F16s although have had the mid life update. They did not get the updated radar that the Dutch and Belgium ones did. This means they are at a severe disadvantage to Typhoon, even with the Captor-M.

    This is very important when conducting BVRAAM engagements using AMRAAM. As the Typhoon will get a solid lock on the F16, before itā€™s radar can do the same against a Typhoon.

  31. Serious consideration should be given to the prospect of increasing Typhoon numbers in FI. It would be irresponsible not to given the capabilities of our “opponent” has dramatically increased.

    I’d suggest that at least 6 Typhoon, and one more Sky Sabre Launcher / sensor for contingency would be an absolute minimum.

    • Argentina isn’t invading the Falklands. You might have to deal with the PLAN and Chinese navy down there soon though. Brazil is getting quite close with China and Russia through BRICS.

      • I didn’t suggest they were invading. My suggestion is a rather modest one in the face of our ‘neighbours’ rearmament.

  32. Hi from Denmark. As I have understood it, these fighter aircraft can only be exported to a third party with the permission of the US. So I must assume that the US is very eager to start a relation with the Argentine Airforce. Seen from a Danish perspective it is a good idea to get rid of these planes, as we are introducing the F35, which is so complex that it alone requires all our attention. It also starts a positive relation with Argentina, like our donation of 19 F16 fighters to Ukraine has done.

    I don’t see how these planes can pose a threat to the Falklands. After all, there is a reason why they are being phased out. Though in excellent condition and somewhat modernized, they are still behind the curve compared to the best in the world. The Argentine airforce has been starved for ressources for decades, so these 24 fighter aircraft can best be described as the bare minimum – probably not even that, if you think about how huge Argentina is. To seriously consider an invasion, Argentina would need to have overwhelming air, sea and land power and it is nowhere near that.

    Lastly, democracies don’t go to war against eachother. At least, that’s a rule of thumb. There is no junta in Argentina these days, but all politicians in that country talk about the Malvinas, as they call the islands. It’s a easy way to gain popularity.

  33. Inflation in Argentina is eye watering. A flypast of all 24 aircraft would bankrupt the country.
    Whatever. China does not have a toe hold in the country. Yet.

  35. Our main focus now is to be able to recover lost capabilities, this goes from economic policies, education,infraestructure to defense.
    We already bought the F16s and P3 Orions. But those purchases are intended to start training new pilots, mechanics and solving logistics. Next in the priorities are good submarine naval assets. Small and hard to detect submarines like Saabs or german ones. Its clear that after solving logistics and personnel issues, we would be able to purchases some more F16s and with better upgrades. We have a lot of sea and airspace to protect, we need a good airforce and naval assets for that. But dont cheat yourself, this will take years… at least 5 for the F16s. Our people has a strong feeling for recovering the islands but we are not willing for blood. And this has nothing to do with recovering our military capabilties, its part of any country sovereignty to be able to defend. But if you want to spend more money on the islands, that makes keeping the islands for UK less attractive, so be my guest and carry on that way.
    From our argentinean point of view, you have to understand that what you call “war” for us is just one more battle against english occupation. Please dont forget that before invading our islands, you invaded twice our continental territories and your flag was raised in our capital city for a short period of time. So we see Malvinas as another chapter of english occupation. And I praise the following chapters to be of working together and understanding, in order to recover our territories by peaceful terms. Like UK did with China about HK. More than 6000 argentinean souls perish until now fighting english ocuppation from 1806 until Malvinas. A lot of english blood also. Malvinas battle should never have happened, we should have regained the islands by peaceful terms and that is the only way to solve an on going 218 years old conflict that you started when you put an army on our shores.
    And as fast as technology goes, your F35s and carriers would be as old as our F16s in less time. Nowadays if we were willing to reduce the islands capabilities prior and invasion, cheap self made sea and air drones would be the way to go. You will end up with no air defenses, electricity and fuel supply.. or even damaged aircrafts. So… we can play wargames all day, but this is not the way to go and finish a 218 year old conflict.
    Have a good day gentlemen!

  36. It’s interesting that UK decided to withdraw its initial objections made to the USA and Denmark over the sale. Clearly the Foreign Office is hoping that the new Argentine President, Milei, will adopt a less aggressive attitude towards the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, which in turn will allow the MOD to continue chipping away at the size and capabilities of the garrison and RN regional presence. E.g. There is pressure to deploy HMS Protector increasingly to the Artic rather than the Antarctic. Whilst the summer seasons fortuitously differ – the amount of time she spent in the Antarctic region decreased dramatically from 5 months to 4 months to 2 months in the last three seasons due to other demands – she is possibly the hardest worked commissioned ship in the fleet, competing for that title with Scott and Lancaster. The RN basically needs a second Ice Patrol Ship.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here