… Hypothetically.

Technology has moved on since ’82. Better protection again air to sea missiles for a start.

Typhoon fighters but only the islands runway to fly them from. Our 2 carries are still with Yodel.

Our subs would keep most enemy ships at bay I would think?

New guided missile destroyers.

That and many other new factors, political as much as anything. On both sides.

Would our depleted armed forces be able to take the islands back this time?

What do you think?

I think the Argentine armed forces are even more depleted and knackered than our own. We would probably end up having to rescue their invasion fleet…

May would be up for it. After all, it worked for Maggie.

TBH I doubt there would be the political will today. A negotiated settlement would be much more likely.

Probably true but I do wonder if we could put such a complex task into action now?

I think on man power and hardware we would really struggle if they had a good foot hold on the island, took over the landing field etc.?

In some dark room in the MOD, this must be dusted off and war-gamed on occasion?

https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom
(though you can mark the uk’s available manpower down by 1, I’m fighting for no butchers apron! 😆 think that might just tip the balance!)

v

https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=argentina

If we’re doing hypothetical war games, whilst we might be missing a carrier or three, most of the Argentine technology hasn’t changed much since last time, thus most of it is a lot older and outmoded. Theoretically at least, the Typhoons and T45 parked down there should be able to engage and significantly damage anything the Argentinians have long before it could engage the British assets. Finally, our submarines have have a slightly more intermediate weapon than either sink a single ship or nuke an entire city – sub-launched cruise missiles bring a credible tactical threat to mainland assets that we could not project in the 1980s.

So, if the kit we do have does what it should, even without carriers it should be more in our favour than it was last time. It’s quite an “if”, though…

It’s,a big “if” for sure but we live in strange times these days. 🙁

The Cruise missiles did come to mind but didn’t know if our subs carried them.

Do our new destroyers? I think at the moment they don’t??

Destroyers carry SAMs mainly. And the new ones don’t really work. Apparently a lot of their engineers have been getting MBE/OBE/nervous breakdowns as they are so bad…
I doubt we could fight another falklands. Maggie was so proud of our armed forces keeping her in power, and sorting those pesky Iranian terrorists out, that she started a process of decimation that continues today…

The difference is collateral, or rather, isn’t.

Back in the early 1980’s any strike on mainland Argentina would have been out of the question, because the resource to make that strike and the likely collateral damage would have been un-acceptable.

Today, a couple of subs / destroyers 100miles away outside of territorial waters, could post a couple of missiles straight through the letter box on the front door of the War Ministry in Buenos Aires. I’d imagine that after a few of those, the political will to occupy a valueless, windswept island way off their shores would be minimal…..

thanks to google, it’s not something easy to hide:

HitMe

I don’t think it would be too much of a challenge, our armed forces might be depleted somewhat but so are most other countries except the few at the top.

negotiated settlement would be much more likely.

Only if there was a zero tariff trade deal.

337 transport aircraft ??

Where are they getting their figures ?

Actually, I’ll go beyond the “if” and say it doesn’t matter. This is their currently active airforce. Look out for those damned Cessnas…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_aircraft_of_the_Argentine_Air_Force

we still have one of the largest military in the world.. although you have to ask what they do….

We lost them last time as there was nobody guarding them, that situation is a bit better now. Probably don’t need the urgent capability to take them back if they don’t get lost in the first place.

You’re assuming we have those parked down there – if the original attack hadn’t happened I doubt we’d have any military assets there now.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that an attack launched now would be repelled – the question is what the situation would be if the original attack hadn’t happened and they attacked now.

A couple of rocks in the middle of an ocean, they’re welcome to them.. quite why the UK hangs onto them is purely out of guilt rather than need.

the question is what the situation would be if the original attack hadn’t happened and they attacked now.

Well, no, that’s not the question asked by the OP.

But to play it out, unless Wikipedia is very very inaccurate, they seem to have four active destroyers and a few corvettes, none of which appear to have reliably active weapons, or have much in the way of operational readiness due to lack of parts. One of their T42s sank in harbour and the other can barely move given our understandable reticence about supplying parts. Discounting the loss of the belgrano I doubt it would still be sailing now, and even if it was it would be hopelessly obsolete. Their carrier was scrapped years ago.

So, to follow your scenario, it appears that they could indeed get troops there, but would have almost no means of defending them should we decide we want the islands back. Their pucaras would make things unpleasant for any of our troops out of range of naval SAM support, but apart from that all I can see it being is a numbers game about how many troops we’d want to send down there to take them back, backed up with SAMs from the destroyers, choppers for close support, and sub-launched cruise missiles for tactical strikes.

Apparently they are trying to buy some Chinese jets though, which would change the situation, assuming the T45 doesn’t live up to its billing.

quite why the UK hangs onto them is purely out of guilt rather than need.

Potential for oil…

Potential only, nothings been done about it though.. so potential for extraction is very costly and no one wants to take up the risk.

Hand them back in exchange for free Beef for 150years.

TBH, Argentina don’t need to invade, just threaten to screw the WTO option and the UK will come to an agreement.

although you have to ask what they do

Most lately
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hurricane-irma-uk-military-provides-relief-to-the-caribbean

Flippin’ waste of space an d money eh?

I think the modern addition of our Apaches would significantly change the conventional ground war. Our battlefield comms are light years ahead of 1982 too and I suggest the current Argentine kit as most if our kit/units are. Our military may be small but the units pack a lot of surgical punch nowadays.

I don’t understand why we don’t sell the islands. They seem massively important to Argentina, we should sell them at a price that reflects the oil value. I mean a massively inflated price.
And a huge chunk of that should go to veterans in the forces, both those who defended them and those out doing stuff recently.

I don’t understand why we don’t sell the islands.

1. The islanders don’t want to be sold.
2. There are war-dead down there.
3. Due to the above, the government that did it would definately lose the next election – it would not play well in the tabloid press.

If the Argentinian government had sense, they would stop teaching all the nonsence in their schools (at least they used to) and stop using the islands as a convienent distraction. Then reach out on friendly terms and be patient. After a few generations (and probably after all those who remember 1982 have passed) a deal might happen.

The islands cost this country a lot to defend and don’t really have strategic purpose. The oil looks to be non-viable, and even if it was, working in partnership with Argentina would still boost theirs & the islands economies. The whole thing could and should be managed on a win-win basis but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

[video]https://youtu.be/VKkcTpCur7g[/video]

Why would the islanders be “sold” ?
And what would a human cost these days?

Plenty of war dead from Nations all over the World, scattered all over the World… not many brought “home” to thier member state.

Not sure those are good enough reasons.

Why would the islanders be “sold” ?
And what would a human cost these days?

Maybe you could ask the 97% of the Falkland population who voted to stay a British community.
Seems like an overwhelming majority to me.

Plenty of war dead from Nations all over the World, scattered all over the World… not many brought “home” to thier member state.

Not sure those are good enough reasons.
“There is a corner of some foreign field…” etc.
The Falklands were never, ever Argentinian, but a Spanish colony; the only colony they had there was a penal one, and that was when the islands were still officially British, until we kicked them off again.
You might raise the same question about Gibraltar and Spain, while asking Spain about the North African colonies they hold, and show little inclination to hand back…

Thankfully, it will never come to war again, but were it to, we could defeat Argentina just by catapulting our under-employed admirals, rear admirals, commodores and captains at the enemy.

Which would actually solve a problem for the Royal Navy, cutting costs and allowing them to be far more dynamic and efficient.

we still have one of the largest military in the world.. although you have to ask what they do….

They post some good result at northern road and CX races.

If you can’t be bothered watching the whole of that cartoon, at least watch the last minute – the subtitles get really whacky 😆

It’s worth watching the whole thing. Puts the end in context, sort of.

“We must comport ourselves with valour,
and we must resist the climate,
Who the **** decided to have a war in April?”

The current plan is to not lose them in the first place! Air is the key, and Argentina don’t have any! If you think of the consequences of failure, given the current Argentine inventory, it’s hard to think of a plan that has a good enough chance of success. This chap analyses it nicely:
Recapturing the FI A lot of people don’t realise that the FI are over 300 miles off the Argentine Coast, we’re not talking about the Isle of Wight here, Argentina has no more claim on them than anyone else.

Yup, not convinced that all of those subtitles are a 100% faithful translation!! 😆

Bit of misunderstanding about the roles of SSN vs SSBN above. Hunter-killer boats vs bombers. The hunter-killers (in old money) attack ships and other submarines, or fire cruise missiles, the bombers don’t participate except in the doomsday scenario. It’s very hard to imagine a FI conflict going nuclear.

So, you are saying UK citizens would be sold then?

Please clarify.

CountZero – Member

Maybe you could ask the 97% of the Falkland population who voted to stay a British community.
Seems like an overwhelming majority to me.

Don’t worry about that, we can just borrow some spanish stormtroopers, get them to smash all the islanders heads in, then say it’s an internal matter and the islanders are reckless.

As part of the money (I am thinking trillions) that Argentina (or other bidder) would pay, I would force the islanders to relocate, or take their chances under the new regime. If it’s the choice of annoying them or war, it’s pretty clear to me.

I would like to see of that trillions, billions go to the surviving veterans & families of the 1982 conflict.

As for who would win the conflict now, have we learnt nothing?

I would force the islanders to relocate,

What, at gunpoint & stuff.

You sir are a Divvy & I claim my £5.

🙂

I was thinking of a huge, unrefusable wad of Argentine cash 🙂

I don’t know – what have you learnt?

I suggested above – clearly incorrectly – that the original question was whether the islands could be retaken by current UK forces after an attack by current Argentine forces against the ’82 Falkland defences. Because the idea of current Argentine forces successfully taking the islands with current defences is ludicrous, they wouldn’t have a hope. They wouldn’t even have a hope with ’82 Argentine forces against current defences. So “war” isn’t actually really an option, any attempted invasion would be repelled with minimal losses on our side to no advantage for Argentina – and they know this.