Joint military exercise conducted on Falkland Islands

They have just got a new patrol vessel a 50meter long Damen Stan patrol 5009. Crew 28, range 10,000miles, endurance 30 days 60 days max..40 days cruising at 10knots) armed with 2 heavy machine guns.

My response would, to what threat???

There really isn’t any, good to keep their teeth sharp, but Argentina are absolutely no threat whatsoever and would currently struggle to shift enough manpower to occupy South Thule, never mind the Falklands….

Threats might well transform themselves with a few Chinese fishing vessels setting up camp on South Georgia – that would be more by concern…..usual Chinese tactics if start squatting in a very bellicose manner and then hoist a flag and build a base.

Could be used to start another pot boiling over to increase the number of distractions?

That’s a good point. We need to ensure China keep away from our Atlantic possessions.

A minimum force structure is needed to ensure this, with the ability to sent an armed party as far south as Southern Thule, if needed.

The Agentie threat is currently and for the foreseeable future, dead in the water.

The Argentine threat is dead as long as El Presidente is interested in fixing the economy by economics and that us the present incumbents approach.

If and when the population start to feel that any interest in anything else with be vastly reduced.

“Viva El Presidente” You can visualise the Generals uniform and mirrored sunglasses…

The Agentime AF’s are so degraded, it would take 10 years or rearmnment before they became anything approaching a threat…

The south Atlantic is an area that is extremely strategically important..the British south Atlantic territories and the British Antarctic territory are potentially really significant from a resource point of view…and as access to the BAT, at some point the Antarctic treat organisation is going to fail and a starting gun will go off for a new world to exploit and very little of the world recognises our claim…( the BAT is the very best bit of the Antarctic). It’s very likely there will be some form of conflict in the south Atlantic at some point and it will be a lot more international than Argentina.

I wonder how much israel influence will be placed on the Falkland islands if an Israeli company extracts oil. Im not convinced this is a good idea , bit of a longterm trojan horse. Israeli lobbying in parliament and general business interests may Influence uk to do a deal with Argentina . Didnt israel supply some useful kit to Argentina during the Falklands war ? . On the flip side having israel in falklands may strengthen uk hands in South Atlantic. Either way uk really needs to have south antarctic falklands area as a key part of defense review as its most likely a future flash point and uk will not be able to stop anyone just making claim to the land , such as China russia Argentina or other nation

I don’t agree. Do multinational O&G companies in the North Sea influence our Government on anything at all, including the conduct of foreign affairs?

British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell have considerable influence on HM Treasury and more capital than most banks..

Not sure I can think of any examples of multinational O&G companies influencing the Foreign Office to change their foreign policy.

Isn’t the middle east today largely a result of foreign policy to serve the interests of O&G companies while feeding tax to HM Treasury over the previous two centuries?

Using Royalty to align with ME rulers for UK banking and defense interests being the side effects enabled by big pots of black gold…

Granted, the FCO doesn’t send press releases about what they did for UK O&G interests, but they know what is the UK national interest and how important energy is economically. Quietly but effectively.

It seems to be a very American view that nearly everything that happens in the world is about oil. Some seem to think the UK-Argentine dispute over the Falklands was always ever about oil! I digress.

The map of the Middle East was drawn up with apportionment in the wake of WW1. At that point oil had only been discovered in Persia (the Abadan field was found in 1908 and commercially exploited by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) (renamed BP from 1954) from 1913.)

Oil during or soon after WW1 was not as available, useful or valuable a commodity as it later became, although a young Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty in the Oct 1911- Nov 1914 period was keen to have the Navy convert from coal to oil fired propulsion, and lobbied for HMG to buy a 51% share in APOC.

Oil cannot have been a highly key factor in the apportionment of regions to European colonialist powers, given that it was only known to have existed in Persia in the wake of WW1.
The next find in Bahrain was not until 1931, and all others after that date (Saudi Arabia discovery in 1938, the huge Dammam field).

Fascinating! Thanks for bringing the facts.

As I remember 1982, the right to self determination by the Falkland Islanders was the causus belli.

Thanks. I don’t recall that as the causus belli. It seemed to be a combination of a junta in power in Argentina, their need to divert the attention of the population away from a shocking economic position, combined with the perception that the UK had lost some interest in firm sovereignty and had embarked on a programme to reduce key military assets (the sale of one or even two brand new carriers and the scrapping of the ice patrol ship.)

The islanders have always had the right to self-determination anyway. They elect their own government, the Falkland Islands Government – and are free to express their view on sovereignty at any time.

Surely business interests and trade abroad has always influenced foreign policy and government actions at home. This has been the case through out history. I am certain that if this Israeli oil company has issues in the Falklands, for example a war breaking out , they will be asking the Israeli government for some political backup. And on the flipside its an opportunity for the Israeli govt to use the Israeli company as some kind of leverage in the South Atlantic. What ever that leverage maybe for better or worse i have no idea. But the day the Israeli company starts extracting oil is the day Israel has an interest in the region.
After writing the above a quick check on google it seems no coincidence that the Navitas Petroleum Falklands deal has been announced after President Javier Milei came to power . The Argentine president is very pro USA and Israel. Navitis has one CEO who used to run the Israeli Govts Ministry of National Infrastructure. Navitas has offices in Houston Texas and Israel.
The USA is building a Southern Command Base in Patagonia.
Looks like the Falklands is also going to build a much bigger port which will help serve industry and provide UK with a bigger port to serve its own interest in the region.
So it looks like this Oil company brings in direct involvement of USA and Israel to the Falklands, whicho n the surface is all related to geopolitics ?

If this Israeli oil company has O&G assets in international waters off the Falklands and the Argentinians started a war again, the Israeli ship would swiftly sail into safer waters, rather than asking their Government for ‘political backup’ whatever that would amount to.

The UK has around 1500 military personnel on the island, with a large runway that would allow very quick reenforcement from the UK..the Uk has a very good amount of strategic airlift to move an air mobile brigade to the islands if needed..

But agree it’s an area that HMG need to plan to defend…but removing the UK from the Falklands would be very difficult.

So an opportunity for Royal Marines to demonstrate their expeditionary capabilities and arctic knowledge?
Deterrence by demonstration..

The BAT is only British as long as the Antarctic treaty is upheld, which means we can’t extract anything from it.

If the Antarctic treaty is ignored (which it will be) the UK is hardly in a position to protect the BAT.

Actually Louis the UK is in a very good place to protect the BAT. Exactly who would take it off the UK and how…of the major nations its got the best placed infrastructure and it has in a region a major military base, with a large runway..with the other south Atlantic territories it allows a continuous strategic airbridge from the UK to the BAT…infact no other major nation has that capability.

The only way to remove the UK from the BAT would be to remove the UK from the Falklands…and how does anyone do that..when the Uk could put an air mobile brigade on the islands before anyone looked at them funny.

The BAT is not ours…

Therefore if we extract anything we will receive worldwide condemnation and sanctions.

Currently the biggest issue will be offshore oil, the RN is not large enough and does not have the assets to protect it, and no commercial company would take that risk.

If China started drilling for oil in the BAT what would we do? Military action is absurd.

An airmobile brigade on the Falklands does not help defend the BAT, and the Paras are not trained or equipped to be fighting in Antarctica.

A few people on this thread seem to overestimate readiness. The 2 para and 1 Gurkha battalions in 16 AAB are on 5, 10 and 20 days readiness. Enough of the rest of the brigade could be deployed within 30 days. An Argentine operation in a future where they have rebuilt their armed forces to an extent, to secure the islands would be over well before that.

Yes the BAT is ours, within our legal governance framework it is legally a British overseas territory for which the UK has claimed sovereignty. Other nations have counter claims…the treaty simply suspends and holds in abeyance all claims and counter claims…but UK policy is very clear on the sovereignty of the territory. As for separation of land and sea there is not separation in the treaty as it covers all areas south of 60 degrees. if a nation starts drilling south of latitude 60 essentially the treaty will have collapsed and the UK would almost inevitably defend its claimed sovereignty…

I never suggested that the UK would be the first to breach the treaty..but I suspect others will..and once it breached it will be done..the treaty is up for review of the protocol in 2048 and if it’s not fallen apart by then I suspect it will at that point.

I would suggest that the UK would undertake military action if china breached our sovereignty…clearly HMG would start down an escalation train of first diplomatic, then law enforcement…but if China actually actively resisted UK law enforcement in one of our claimed EEZ, I would suggest military conflict would be a likely outcome…

And yes an air mobile brigade in the Falklands would help protect the BAT..as the Falklands is the fundamental key to the BAT….we would first need to ensure the Falklands was safe before anything else..as the Falklands is the fundamental logistics hub to allow the UK to maintain sovereignty of the BAT or defend it if necessary..infact the only way china as say the theoretical enemy could really dominate would be by removing the Falklands…if the UK has the Falklands it’s got a stronger logistics train than china would had and we would beat them via the tyranny of distance.

As for 30 days notice..there is very little chance any enemy could ever get such strategic surprise in that region.. also if there was a buildup and threat to the Falklands do you not think HMG would not respond before hand…just sit back and go…gosh china and Argentina are developing an invasion fleet..let’s not do anything at all after all the Uk knew the Falklands would be invaded the first time..but then they could not reenforce with things like a front line fighter squadron….and even if they could only put 2 battalions of air mobile troops there quickly…how many troops do you think an enemy could over the beach onto the Falklands quickly..

At present if there was a conflict between china and the UK in the south Atlantic..because of our sovereignty territories and extensive air bases, logistics and access to harbours the UK would win…

The BAT is only ours if the Antarctic treaty is upheld. Which means if you’re talking about extracting oil then the BAT is not ours.

As soon as the Antarctic treaty is broken then it is only British according to Britain.

Suggesting we go to war over China drilling for oil in an area that would no longer be ours is just weird.

The Falklands is not the key to Antarctica. An airmobile brigade on the Falklands is irrelevant. Why would China bother taking the Falklands if all they have to do is destroy Mount Pleasant?

4 CAMM launchers, a Giraffe radar, 3 RRH and 3 Typhoons is hardly an unstoppable force.

The Falklands location as a logistics hub would mean more if there was a naval base there. RAF Mount Pleasant is still very far from BAT, a carrier is more useful for the distances involved if there were to be some sort of a war down south.

An Argentine force centred around an airborne brigade and a few fighter squadrons could capture the airfield intact before reinforcements could get there, if their objective was to destroy the airfield that could be done relatively easily.

Argentina does not have to build up its forces considerably to achieve that.

No the BAT is ours because we say it is and we own the infrastructure to get there and if we are willing to defend it it will remain ours.

Sovereignty is always based on what a nation says it is..and to say we would simply give up on sovereignty in an area because of aggression by another state is simply not evidenced in any way we have ever done foreign policy…we may voluntarily hand over sovereignty for a swapped benefit..but not for any other reason…we went to war for our south Atlantic territorial claims before and it would be very likely we would do the same again.

To say we would not go to war to defend what we say is ours is completely against every action HMG has undertaken.

‘ the BAT is only ours while the treaty is in place” …no that’s completely backwards. The BAT is not formally ours while the Antarctic treaty is in place and is enforced…we have agreed as as every other signatory to suspend our sovereign claim…we have agreed to manage the BAT and enforce the treaty in the BAT as part of the treaty..but the UK has always been very very clear the moment the treaty ends..our claim to sovereignty is maintained and not changed…

exactly what forces are china going to use to destroy mount-pleasant……they have no military bases or presence in that area…how are they going to get there…the Falklands is a long long way from anywhere that china is and again if china was suddenly there and developing in force do you think the Uk government would just go…gosh look china has just based a strike force right next to the Falklands…or do you think maybe just maybe they would upgrade the defences….

as for an Argentinian airborne brigade..which one is that exactly and how’s it going to get anywhere with the 1-2 Hercules it would have available…and what few fighter squadrons is that…even if it gets a squadron of 16s up and running they would not have the legs to strike the Falklands without inflight Refueling and Argentina has very little capability…..

Your basically missing the point that at present in that region the risk is almost nonexistent and if it did increase the UK can simply upgrade its own defences…and your never invaded an island many hundreds of miles from any of your own military infrastructure without huge effort…Argentinian and china at present have nothing in the region threatened the Falklands and they would need a massive build up to threaten it….

BAT has no civilian population. In winter there are less than 4 dozen research personnel. When Argentina took Southern Thule in 1976 the UK did nothing.

The UK is not going to war over China drilling for oil in Antarctica, why would you even want that it’s just weird?

What commercial company is going to extract oil in Antarctica from a licence granted by the British government? None would be that stupid.

The PLAN wants 6 aircraft carriers by 2035. 2-3 carrier groups would wreck whatever we could deploy at mount pleasant. The idea we would go to war over it without the US is insane anyway.

I never claimed Argentina currently had the capability to invade the Falklands currently. Could it be done with several dozen F16s, a dozen C130s, half a dozen KC130s and 2 airborne battlegroups? Yes. Is that a particularly hard force to build up to? No.

When did I say I wanted the UK to go to war with china, I’m giving my opinion that I believe the UK would not simply allow another nation to use aggression to take British sovereignty territory…I’m not making a statement of wrong or right.

As for china….it’s not going to have 6 carrier battle groups to send to the south Atlantic in 2035..I keep abreast of china and consider them a significant threat, but they are not going to get that many carrier battle groups in place in a decade…their primary concern and develop is fight the USN to a stalemate in the china sea, using a massive buildup of attrition units as well as developing the ability to project a carrier battlegroup and other surface action groups into the western Indian Ocean and eastern Pacific regions.

..but one place that they are no able to project the power to overwhelm the RN would be the north and south Atlantic…the tyranny of distance will vastly impact the PLAN more than the RN…and anyway I suspect the U.S. would happily join in if can have sovereignty over areas of the BAT and use the Falklands as a logistics hub.

But china will be a minor player around the British area of the Antarctic…it’s more interested in the same bits as Australia…look up Qinling station as this supports its wider Pacific ambitions.

In 2011 the PLAN had 0 carriers in service. Now they have 2, by 2026 it’ll be 3. Just 15 years difference.

The Antarctic treaty doesn’t have an expiration date but it can’t be modified until 2048. At some point it’ll be broken.

The key to the BAT is not the Falklands, but Argentina. If China and Argentina ally then you could triple the forces at Mount Pleasant and it wouldn’t make a difference.

Argentina is going to want the oil so it’ll have to pick either the West or China at some point.

Oil in the Falklands has now become irrelevant. The North Falklands basin only has 300m barrels so was always irrelevant. If the East and South Falklands basins have the 5 billion barrels that there potentially are, previously it would set Argentina off in a frenzy if we extracted it. The over half a trillion barrels in the BAT have made that all irrelevant, which is good in the short to medium term for the UK.

The RFA currently has 3 Tides of which 1 is in refit, and a massive recruiting and retention issue. The RFA is no longer what it used to be. China easily has the upper hand there.

There are 0 SSNs, 0 carriers, only 1 destroyer and 1 frigate at sea.

In the last month only 1 SSN, 2 destroyers and 3 frigates have been at sea, there is only 1 F35B squadron, they deploy on a QE only once a year and only with 8 aircraft. A major carrier deployment is planned for only once every 4 years, the next 2 deployments likely won’t have a British solid support ship with them.

Now the biggest reason as to why the UK won’t go to war over oil, and that’s because the government wants to push net zero. Of the 5 major non regional parties, 3 are against new oil and gas licenses, 1 is on the fence but will eventually be against, so unless you believe Reform will be in power for a significant portion of whenever the Antarctic treaty starts to be ignored, then the UK will not be extracting anymore oil and gas.

Ultimately the UK will likely be dragged into a war with China, I just think the government is far too spineless to actually start that war.

The way to deal with any “squatting” by China on any UK teritory would be to arrest/engage & evict them forcefully before they start the criminal colonialism as per SCS. Sitting back allowing them to get away with it only encourages & enables them.

The problem is that their squatters will come with a bunch of coastguard ships that all have plenty of guns on them and are quite happy to ram other ships.

To more they can do their ‘fishing’ wherever they fancy.

Their fishing base then rapidly grows an airstrip with AAW and AShM. Backed by a large flotilla of construction ships and equipment that just happen to be in the area.

That is what has to be thought about.

The Chinese stalk a lot about not interfering in other countries but the reality is they simply don’t care and will bully their way wherever it suits them totally brazenly.

Indeed SB. That’s exactly why we need to meet them head on & be prepared to use whatever force necessary to defeat/destroy/deter them IF they ever try it. Otherwise we all learn to speak Chinese & keep our thoughts to ourselves. Likely many of us would not survive a Chinese take over having already crossed red lines speaking freely.

Chinese double speak is centuries old. No more credible than Putin’s lies. We watch what they do rather than what they say.

I hope they go straight in and evict them. The thing that worries me is Labour have stopped North Sea oil & gas exploration will they do the same in the Falklands. Enough damage has been done by stopping us being more self reliant.

Never underestimate your possible enemy. We did that before thinking an invisible SSN would scare them off. As usual the FCO was trying to negotiate a sell out so they didn’t react to the scrap dealers till too late. If we’d shipped a flight of Harriers down south things might never have happened.
Now we can reinforce very quickly and have a good chance of nixing a threat for 5 years.
We need more P8’s so we can send a couple out there every so often. We need at least another 8.

An “Invisible SSN” did scare off an Argentinian invasion in 1977. Similarly after Belgrano the entire Argentinian navy returned to port, had an SSN been dispatched in time in 1982 it would have been alot more effective than a flight of Harriers

Never underestimate the enemy. If the CCP open the naval/air base that was talked about quite recently, things could change quickly. The ChiComs have already expressed support for the Argie claim on the islands and want access to South American resources. The potential is there for striking a deal.

They said that in the early 70s now look

You mean as in pre positioned equipment?

Well, that would be a flight of Typhoons, a light Infantry Coy on rotation and a River B2.

The FIDF is under command of HE The Governor who tasks them – they would typically defend the seat of power (Government House) and certain other KPs (eg telephone exchange, radio station, power station).

A few guys deploy frequently on fisheries protection/patrol, manning the weapon on the single FIG Fisheries Patrol Vessel (always used to be a 20mm Oerlikon) and acting as boarding party.

They often train with our forces and often act as enemy forces to the UK Roulement Inf Coy, who of course have a different role.

I think they are L85A3 users now mate….

Ah, ok.

Do you know why they got the Steyr then?
As opposed to getting the SLR from the start?

BOT’s have always had different procurement streams from the main Army, eg the Bermuda Regiment used to use Ruger Mini-14’s for ages. It’s because, minus Gib Reg, none of the BOT Regiments are actually part of the army so they can kind of do whatever the F they like.

Realistically I’ve felt for a long time that we should amalgamate them all into the army, and make them a Regiment/Division (depending on manning) within the Infantry.

Thanks.
I recall your ORBAT with that in mind.

Excellent idea.

They had wood L1A1’s, they were ‘donated’ to Argentina in the Invasion.

Post Conflict, the reconstituted FIDF was issued with a batch of overhauled plastic furniture L1A1’s, L2A3’s and L9’s from store.

They kept the L1’s and L3’s until 93, when they decided on a private purchase of Steyer Augs, who could blame them….!

They again standardised with the Army a few years back now.

Incidentally, the ex FIDF L1A1’s went into the private sector and were deactivated, each one with a certificate stipulating it’s s/n.

I had a few of them over the years for onward trade sale.

Thanks for that mate.

A2’s.

Quite right Dern, I believe a few A3’s too, as of late….

I’d hope not! Even Regulars aren’t all equipped with the A3 yet (my one is apparently due to be handed off to a CS battalion I think), so if they’re going to the FIDF that’s a bit shocking!

They had Steyr AUGs for years. They got a good deal from the Austrians. They are not part of the British Army – they are independent and have a different role and chain of command – they procure what they like.

They have now got L85s (A2 or A3, not sure which).
I am fairly sure all their key equipment now (certainly weapons) is British.

If memory serves the FIDF visited our Australian cousins to assess their Steyr rifles before deciding. I think the FIDF initially made the better choice over the L85.

Nothing wrong with the Steyr AUG. It is chambered for standard NATO 5.56; is easily adapted for lefties in minutes by changing the bolt; has no jagged edges that catch on webbing etc is rugged and reliable. I’ve fired them while in the US but never taken one out in the field. Although I imagine it’s very easy to live with.

Thanks George. The Steyr AUG always looked a funny sort of weapon but its the performance that matters. I converted onto L85A1 in ’91 or ’92 – I did not like the ergonomics of the ‘new’ weapon, the handling drills (and that was before the ‘forward assist’ was a thing), its weight (for its size) and could never properly master fitting and unfitting the sling! But then I did not handle it frequently enough to develop the skill-set.

However I was happy to have one in Camp Bastion in 2008/9 rather than a pistol!

It’s was certainly unconventional when introduced, even space age looking. I think there is still a YouTube video of the original sales data/film from the manufacturer. They place an AUG on grass along with several loaded transparent magazines and drive a 4×4 over them. Hitting the plastic stock housing the working parts. Pick up the weapon and proceed to fire all magazines down range. Try that with a L85.

In 1990 I snapped the plastic forward handguard off a LSW while performing “rifle strengthening exercises” on the conversion course. It needed to be modified from day one. I’m told it’s almost perfect now, just heavy.

On the subject of bullpup or pistol carry while in a potentially hostile base. My two pennies worth answer is both! Never had the pleasure of Bastion it was after my time but I would have slept with a pistol and considered a “throw down” too. if you follow.

You have a great day Bro.

Yes, a distinct need for them to get around the islands. They have quadbikes and LRs with pintle mounted MGs (HMGs and GPMGs).
Not sure how they get rifle sections around. Think they had 4-tonners when I was there some 25 years ago. I saw an article once which said they had ‘armoured vehicles’, but no details – it must mean they have some PM vehs? Not sure.

Me neither. Some old BVs seem ideal?

JSEOD unit, FI used to cut about in BV206, when I was down there. That unit may have gone now. Wonder if they left their BVs there for FIDF??

Don’t think so, I recall there is still a Joint Services EOD set up. As you will know, most of the supporting elements are joint.

Yes. It is very much a Joint Operating Base with very many joint units.

Joint Operations Centre.
Falkland Islands Support Unit.
Falkland Islands Joint Logistic Unit.
JCU Falkland Islands.
Joint Services Provost & Security Unit.
Joint Services EOD Unit.
JSSU Falkland Islands.

Not aware of any others?

My time there was in 1999/2000. There were just about to merge the Engineering unit and the Log unit – both were Joint units.

I think you have the lot on your list! Of course the HQ is not a unit but is joint – was HQ BFFI in my day, and now HQ BFSAI.

Up to a point George.

I was in for 34 years (1975-2009), and you probably know you get posted as an officer roughly every 2 years, once you are through initial training which for me took 4 years including the degree course.

I had 4 postings to Germany (one being after unification), postings to Cyprus (6-months), Canada, the Falklands (6 months), a deployment to Afghanistan (6 months) – and the rest were GB postings.

I had short working visits to NI, Jordan, France.

I was disappointed only to have had two ‘op tours’ in that time – UNFICYP and Afghan. FI (post ’82!) did not count as an op tour.

I see where your coming from Graham, quite rightly, you have to consider all eventualities from a defence perspective.

But the reality Argentina has effectively disarmed, from the perspective of expeditionary operations of any significant ability.

Attacking the Falklands would serve absolutely no purpose and even if Argentina started to rearm today, it would be a decade before they had any capacity to threaten our SA interests.

Thank God, some common sense seems to have broken out in Argentina.

We have an opportunity to return to friendly relations under their current government.

John, I remember when evaluating scenarios, they would range from Worst Case to Best Case. We then had to ascertain the Most Likely Case which would lie between the 2 extremes. All good stuff. Worst Case (for UK) scenario always has to be painted, which is the one I roughly outlined.

Argentine forces have weakend considerably since 1982, but some rearmament there is in the offing, so we should not be completely complacent.

It is interesting to know about the friendly relations pre’82 – some surprises there.

All true, i just want to see our forces with the kit they want and need.
Rather than what Whitehall thinks will be politically correct.

I think you, and I, will be waiting some time.

Exactly, a single SSN alone has the ability to bring the economy of a trading nation like Argentina to its knees very quickly.

The future (next 50 years) potental threat to our South Atlantic possessions is China.

Argentina don’t need any of that. They are 600km from the Falklands, and the waters around the islands are quite shallow, SSKs are perfectly suitable.

They don’t need to dominate the sea, they need to stop reinforcements arriving.

In practice that means taking out Mount Pleasant within 3 days which is when immediate reinforcements would arrive, having enough troops on the island by 2 weeks which is when the SSNs arrive, and full or near full control of the islands by a month which is when an RN task force would arrive.

The first task is the hardest and most important. Ideally they want to capture Mount Pleasant relatively intact so they can operate their air force from it.

It essentially comes down to 3 radar sites, a CAMM battery and 3 T1 Typhoons vs whatever Argentina can throw at it.

By no means is that an insurmountable force.

They’d need the element of surprise so airborne forces would have to capture the airfield. FIDF wouldn’t be able to mobilise in time so it comes down to the 1,000 personnel at RAF mount pleasant, of which there’s only 1 infantry company with no artillery, air support or armoured vehicles.

Again, not an insurmountable force.

Argentina doesn’t need landing ships or SSKs for this. Landing ships does make the operation easier as reinforcement of the islands becomes easier.

With 2 battlegroups of reasonably well trained paratroopers, a dozen C130 or equivalents, some air to air tankers and a few dozen fighter jets and you could make it work.

Totally agree, but hoping more typhoons are stationed at mount pleasant rather than 4, which usually means 2 operational.

Gary, you can hope as much as you like for more Typhoons but we have 4 Tranche 1 Typhoons in FI (1435 Flt RAF). That is Open Source info of course.

It’s been reported that the UK is to dispose of up to 30 branch 1 Typhoons next year. There are also a dozen spare storage sheds at Mount Pleasant so some could be stored there. At least enough to ensure that there are four available aircraft available at all times. I don’t know how many extra maintenance crew would be required to achieve that but I would guess only a relatively small number if the tempo of actual flying does not increase.

Sorry put available in twice. Only need to read one of them

I thought the key reason for tranche 1 to go was the cost of sustainment with many obsolete parts in short supply. Adding a huge distance makes that worse. How many ground crew would want to be on an obsolete aircraft at the other end of the world…

I’m not an aircraft engineer but I doubt you could satisfactorily store the 4 soon-to-be-retired Tranche 1 Falklands Typhoons in a random shed at MPA and expect them to stay in good condition even with a good number of maintainers. Different matter if some CHE could be installed in the shed, perhaps.

It’s a general rule that complex kit needs to be exercised proactively to keep all systems up and running – and ideally, periodically flown.

Aircraft tend to have very large maintenance teams, but I am sure it would be a somewhat smaller team to look after stored aircraft.

But I think all the Tranche 1 aircraft will be disposed of by sale, gifting or stripping for spares – rather than any being stored. We don’t keep equipment once it has formally been declared Obsolete.

The T1s on the Falklands are staying put. God knows for how long but they aren’t retiring next year like the rest of the T1s are.

RAF Shawbury can store aircraft, 10 of the 30 T1s have been there for a few years.

Interesting Louis. Thanks. The T1s on the Falklands will clearly be replaced by T2 or T3 at some stage.

The stored T1 aircraft at Shawbury will be disposed of (by sale, gifting, breaking for spares or scrapping) when T1 is formally declared Obsolete. We do not keep Obsolete equipment in storage for later use, much as some people think we should.

I think Shawbury is mainly used for damaged airframes.

Hopefully the T1s will be sold rather than stripped for parts and scrapped.

Are we confident that CCP, having failed to supply aircraft, won’t be keen to supply missile or electronic warfare surprises?
Is F-16 integration impossible due to US controls on F-16 avionics?