Gripen Fighters Won’t Save the Argentine Air Force

Modern German subs? Those are 3-decade old designs. The British subs don’t need to be anywhere near the Islands. 400 miles is enough ocean for subs to play around till their food runs out.

The Brits have a detachment of about 1,000+ troops in addition to aerial and naval assets on the Islands so its not going to be a cakewalk for Argentine troops trying to steal ashore. They are far better equipped for logistical support with C-17s than the Argentines are. The Argentines struggled to keep their units supplied in 82; they will struggle even more now.

Argentina is economically too sick to contemplate any action on the Falklands and expect the whole of South America to jump on its side. Brazil, Chile and the rest all have their own independent world views and local rivalries are not exactly absent in that part of the world.

The UK, despite its decline as a welfare State, still has the determination to keep its flag on the Falklands and they (and most of the British public) wouldn’t hesitate to fight for it. Call it colonial pride if you may.

Bottomline, as the article says, Argentina is just too weak economically to become capable of having the military assets to take the Falklands for the foreseeable future.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2077493/It-simply-inconceivable-Argentina-Falklands.html

TLAMs can take an airfield out for a few hours, maybe even a few days, but that would be the extent of it. A few TLAMS per airfield won’t shut them down for long. The issue is that the RAF now has constant presence on the Falklands with aircraft which are far superior to the Argies, who still don’t have the capability to spend more than a few minutes over the Falklands, due to range/fuel.

You undervalue targeteering and the accuracy of the TLAM. Take down the fuel farm, magazines, and hangers and the base is down for more than a few days. Bomblets over the area only make it worse. Take out the associated switching station and it gets even longer. One does not simple punch holes in runways these days unless they are using runway busters ((Durandal etc)

In the US you would be correct, not so much Argentina.

They have few airfields capable of handling military aircraft, their roads are not build to do it. Quality jet fuel is not stockpiled and could not be rapidly trucked in. They do not have a large number of tanker trucks either. The hangars have the specialized tooling required to maintain the aircraft between sorties and the spare parts. Hitting the regional airbase alone will serious hurt them.

If this was the Black Sheep in WWII I would agree with you. Instead it is the Argentine air force which relies heavily on contractor support and has minimal logistics and infrastructure. I go back to my original post in this thread...targeteering is key. Know the enemy, find their weak spots, and hit them there.

A sneak attack similar to the initial landing of Argentine troops during the Falklands campaign would neutralize the Typhoons and the lone destroyer. Argentina's modern German subs and P-3 Orions could be tasked to hunt the British sub prowling the island's waters. While the Falklands are 400 miles away from Argentina, they are thousands of miles from the UK. Reinforcement and resupply are expensive and complicated. The last engagement stretched the limits of Thatcher's political capital. The next one may end up with the islands renamed the Malvinas.

As to escalation, if Britain levels Buenos Aires, it will face a trade embargo from Latin America. And much of South America would jump in on Argentina's side, including Brazil. Would the EU even stand behind the UK during the ensuing economic hostilities? My view is that the Brits need to station more assets on the Falklands. Because if the Argentines grab it, they won't have the political capital necessary to marshal the immense resources necessary to take it back.

Going to disagree with your analysis here. Argentina would have to land a sizeable force undetected and the destroyer would have to be in port. It would have to take out the SAMs as well. While the US might be able to do it, not clear Argentina could pull it off. Leaks during training etc would make OPSEC very hard. The UK has its ears on these days.

As for the UK attacking the mainland, I could see that happening, but I would not expect a conventional attack against a BA or other large city. Instead I would expect attacks against key infrastructure like transportation,power and POL, maybe even ports. It would force the Kirchner regime to focus on domestic matters. Its hard to wage war when your population is starving in the dark. Sort of a price tag attack

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.