Falklands War fought today?

[capitan r8]

Do the IA-63 Pampa's have the range to reach the islands with some combat payload + station time, and back to the continent?

 

[timmymagic]

But today, with the public embarrassment in trying to reinforce Cyprus against attacks (Cyprus is much closer to the British Isles than the Falklands), and reports of a secret deal whereby British taxpayers would pay Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off the UK's hands, and the news about Gibraltar, may indicate that at long last Argentina has an opening with this current UK government. Like everybody else, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Buenos Aires can read news reports. I would not be surprised if discreet inquiries have already been made to London.

Chagos deal is now stone cold dead...Labour have abandoned the bill, and realistically over the remaining Parliament they've missed their chance. The bill is also Starmer's pet project...and he's the most unpopular PM we've ever had...the May local elections may be the end of him....with Starmer gone, or seriously damaged (the May elections are projected to be a disaster for Labour) and Lord Hermer not being popular in the rest of the party the deal is dead for all time...unlikely that the Labour Party (and certainly anyone in it thats interested in a deal) will ever be in government alone again...

Gibraltar, SBA's and Falklands only come up with the Green Party who are small potatoes...who also cannibalise Labours vote...

 

[timmymagic]

Do the IA-63 Pampa's have the range to reach the islands with some combat payload + station time, and back to the continent?

Technically yes, but in practice no. It's 735km from Rio Gallegos to Mount Pleasant in a straight line. For an IA-63 with limited combat load it could do that...but would need to transit at medium altitude all the way there and back...loadout would be limited as well. Goes without saying it wouldn't be making a return trip...

 

[Owens Z]

...Progressively over the next 5 years a lot of the RN's current major issues disappear....F-35B fleet is delivered in full (with Tranche 2 on order), FSS in build, T26 arrives, T31 arrives, Sea Venom FOC, SSN availability increases, T45 all available/working and upgraded, NSM on more of the fleet.... but to be fair there are some issues that still need resolution or are still a cause for concern.... like RFA pay, retention and availability, MRSS order, F-35 Block IV, Type 23 hanging in there etc etc. They're not out of the woods yet, but right now might be the absolute low point. IF there was a window (and there isn't a credible one) for Argentinian action its rapidly closing day by day...

...In every scenario the RN carrier task force would cut off the islands, pound the Argentinian defenders and eventually retake relatively easily. Unless the RN sinks itself... which admittedly it almost has given how badly it's been mismanaged.

You may be right that today's degradation is the Royal Navy's nadir, and that better times can be seen coming. I hope so. An interesting video today by British commentator 'Warships & Warriors' about the nine years the lead ship of the Daring-class Type 45 destroyers has spent off her feet. The Daring class was designed with innovative integrated electric propulsion, with power-hungry weapons and sensors. It has been decided that the flawed intercoolers in the engine room won't be replaced. Instead three bigger diesels are replacing the current two, so that those can handle all expected electrical loads while fighting at 20 knots. (For full speed, the intercooled gas turbines must work, and those have trouble in warm seas. But a future failure will reduce the destroyer's speed by a third, rather than depower all sensors and fire control and internal lighting, like what happened at the most inopportune time to battleship USS South Dakota during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.)

The good news is that HMS Daring is crewed and has been making day trips out of Portsmouth these past few weeks, and might be fit to return to service later this year, or at worst in 2027. See:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkEouplH5wI

 

[Owens Z]

A Shahed-type drones could be launched from containers, and have enough range to strike Falklands from up to thousand kilometers range. They could be equipped with heavy enough warheads (dual, shaped charge & penetration), to represent at least reasonable threat to HAS'ed aircraft.

Shaheds could be launched from the Argentine mainland. However their major defect is that are slow and will likely be detected while still far out to sea, even in a sea skimming profile. That leaves too much time for aircraft to take off and for SAM defenses to be ready... likely 15-20 minutes warning.

Well, they are small, and could exploit gaps in radar coverage to close with the islands. Also, I doubt that garrison would be fast to react, especially if drones would approach from unexpected direction (say, from East). They would be heistant to start shooting, fearing some kind of mistake.

Meh. Argentinians buying or building hundreds of a drone design with the range to fly a serious weight of explosive from their own coast would inevitably be noticed by British intelligence, and everybody else, and their intended purpose would be obvious, whatever cover story the Ministerio de Defensa gives out. Allowing the UK plenty of time to counter, reinforcing RAF Mount Pleasant by leveraging allied Ukrainian and American counter-drone expertise. Not a good plan.

 

[Owens Z]

Owen, I watched an American political youtuber reaction to Felton's video, the second hand embarassment from seeing the brits getting clowned on still got me laughing today.
Pathetic that in the course of one, two decades the RN went from being a somewhat first class Navy to not much more than a second rate fleet with a kamikaze button. AFAIK, the current primary tool of wave-the-flag ops the RN use is the River class boats. Visually, for me, it looks barely bigger than the dredger my dad bought last month. And its primary armanent is a 30mm chain gun, god knows how much reload it has, with only optical directing too. A team of Russian/Pakistani advisors and a company of Somalian pirates, properly supplied and trained, could throw a pretty horrifying attack on a boat passing by.

Kicking a dog when it's down is unsatisfying to me. And if Brits are prompted to give as good as they get here, they would be in danger of a visit from their police.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well, for the sake of the scenario we could allow that UK government would heistate, the internal politics would took its place, and Cabinet would still be debating - wouldn't reinforcing Falklands be viewed as too provocative. Of course, it's just the assumptions. But deploying full squadron of RAF and moving RN warships into area would basically cancel any Argentinean attempts of invasion anyway.

Could the MOD change the destinations of assets already in motion without PM-etc permission?

Say, a ship planned to come home via Suez taking the long way round instead?

 

[EwenS]

Could the MOD change the destinations of assets already in motion without PM-etc permission?

Say, a ship planned to come home via Suez taking the long way round instead?

Given the politics involved, wwell nigh impossible. Foreign & Commonwealth Office would certainly have to be involved (as a starting point to liaise with foreign govts along the route). If tensions are running so high as to warrant sending a warship, then it would be worthy of discussion at Cabinet level.

 

[Owens Z]

Hm? I thought all RAF Typhoons were refitted to use LITENING pods & Paveway bombs?

Agreed. What the Tranche 1 Typhoon FGR.4 of 1435 Flight in the Falklands lack is the ability to use more modern weapons such as Storm Shadow, Brimstone and Meteor. Those capabilities only come with FGR.4 aircraft from Tranches 2 & 3.

Yes and No. Tranche 1, the type used in the Falklands, can carry Asraam Blk V and lower, Amraam (but not Meteor). In terms of A2G weaponry they can carry Enhanced Paveway II and Litening III. Some of the Tranche 1 (the ones upgraded to Block V's) can also use Paveway IV. The aircraft in the Falklands were rotated in in 2024. They are all late build Tranche 1's so are highly likely to have Paveway IV and Enhanced Paveway II capability (if we haven't retired all of the EPWII yet). They can also carry Litening V but have hardly ever been seen with it as its full capabilities can only be used with T2 and T3.
All this is, to a degree, moot though as in 15 months the Tranche 1 will all be retired and will be replaced by Tranche 2 or Tranche 3 Typhoon (I'm guessing they'll send Tranche 2). That will bring Meteor, Asraam Blk. VI, Litening V, Brimstone 2/3 and Storm Shadow capability (and obviously full Paveway IV capability). Personally I'd just leave the 4 T1's in the Falklands as a source of spares...and as decoys. Saves flying them home...

You could definitely drop PWIV on an Aspide armed ship well outside of its engagement envelope.

Yep. So essentially the four Typhoons are perfectly enough to kill any kind of direct invasion.

You seem to assume that because four Eurofighter Typhoons are present today in the Falklands, four Typhoons would fight a hypothetical second Argentine invasion. Well, maybe. Reports warn that the struggling Royal Air Force and British Army have as great a percentage of their vehicles immobilized as the Royal Navy does.

But, after your confirmation that older Tranche 1 Typhoons are indeed equipped and trained to drop 500lb Paveway IV guided bombs on moving ships, I concur that even two flyable jets would make short work of a bargain-basement invasion like I would guess achievable with current or near-term Argentine capability—cram four thousand conscripts with small arms, AT4s, and 81mm mortars into requisitioned merchant vessels, sail at best speed to the Falklands accompanied by what Argentine Navy warships remain functional, and unload the men quayside in Stanley and Mare Harbour in unopposed landings. With a plainclothes fifth column ("pilgrims to Argentine Military Cemetery", "here to film a documentary about penguins", "Chilean tourists", or whatever) already ashore at key points. Grab food and trucks/SUVs at gunpoint as needed. Done at very short notice, yet (unlike in 1982) thought out, planned, wargamed, and prepared for long beforehand, mindful of all lessons learned from the campaign (except the lesson Don't Invade the Falklands).

That Paveways promise a slaughter like 1943's Battle of the Bismarck Sea is all the more reason for Argentina to cripple all runways via an unconventional surprise attack immediately prior to hostilities.

Like you, I don't believe Argentina's armed forces would be fit for an opposed amphibious landing without a lengthy, sustained rebuilding effort that would take us beyond the chronology considered in this thread.

 

[Owens Z]

Chagos deal is now stone cold dead...Labour have abandoned the bill, and realistically over the remaining Parliament they've missed their chance. The bill is also Starmer's pet project...and he's the most unpopular PM we've ever had...the May local elections may be the end of him....with Starmer gone, or seriously damaged (the May elections are projected to be a disaster for Labour) and Lord Hermer not being popular in the rest of the party the deal is dead for all time...unlikely that the Labour Party (and certainly anyone in it thats interested in a deal) will ever be in government alone again...
Gibraltar, SBA's and Falklands only come up with the Green Party who are small potatoes...who also cannibalise Labours vote...

That's good to hear. For decades after the 1982 surrender I considered Falkland Islands sovereignty to have been permanently resolved, however loud Argentine domestic opinion got. But after tidings of the state of British armed forces and of Britain in general; the Chagos and Gibraltar shenanigans; the Cyprus embarrassment; and Javier Milei's address for the 44th anniversary of the war, I began to doubt. Hence this speculative thread. To be clear, I still don't believe a second Argentine invasion of the Falklands is likely in the coming years, absent a breakdown of civil order in Britain.

 

[Dilandu]

Like you, I don't believe Argentina's armed forces would be fit for an opposed amphibious landing without a lengthy, sustained rebuilding effort that would take us beyond the chronology considered in this thread.

Essentially yes. To be anything like realistic, such invasion would require a MASSIVE rebuild of Argentinean military - Navy and Air Force first - and considering the current state of Argentinean economy, such rebuild would took quite a lot of time. They simply can't increase their defense spending to the level, that would allow them to boost their military capabilities fast.

 

[zen]

Politically Argentinian threat is literally gold dust to sitting PMs in the UK.
A chance to relive the Falklands boost and entrench one's party domestically.

 

[EWPT2]

Is this seriously a debate lol, what exactly can they do vs QEC's air wing even limited as it is, and how can they realistically threaten even the rather degraded CSG we could put together today?

even if they somehow took the islands, they would be eaten alive by what comes after

 

[Dilandu]

Is this seriously a debate lol, what exactly can they do vs QEC's air wing even limited as it is, and how can they realistically threaten even the rather degraded CSG we could put together today?

even if they somehow took the islands, they would be eaten alive by what comes after

The only realistic situation is, if Argentinean claims would be (for some reason) supported by some other major South American power - Brazil or Chile. Not sure why they might be interested in doing this. But well, modern geopolitical situation is so unpredictable, that it's not impossible to suggest that some South American leader would decide to support Argentina for some reason.

 

[Owens Z]

An interesting 2015 article by the noted Norman Friedman about the air and naval campaigns of the 1982 Falklands War and the war's global context may be read at < https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-falklands-30-years-later/ >.

 

[RedLegion]

The only realistic situation is, if Argentinean claims would be (for some reason) supported by some other major South American power - Brazil or Chile. Not sure why they might be interested in doing this. But well, modern geopolitical situation is so unpredictable, that it's not impossible to suggest that some South American leader would decide to support Argentina for some reason.

Even if we assume that the United States would not be interested in the region for a moment, the formation of a coalition for the "liberation" of the Falklands would quickly lead to a coalition aimed at protecting the current status quo. No one would know if someone else in the region might suddenly get the idea to "liberate," for example, Guyana or the Dutch Antilles.

 

[Owens Z]

Is this seriously a debate lol, what exactly can they do vs QEC's air wing even limited as it is, and how can they realistically threaten even the rather degraded CSG we could put together today?

You must have missed it, EWPT2: specific options on the cheap for a hypothetical second invasion are just what is being discussed in this new thread. For you to engage critically with those here would be welcome.

even if they somehow took the islands, they would be eaten alive by what comes after

Many in the UK believe their armed forces, especially the Royal Navy, are unfit to face a second Falklands war, and have been loudly saying so these past two months. Take a look.

 

[RedLegion]

Only in the event of an internal collapse of the UK or an external threat greater than Argentina do the "cheap options" for 2026 run out. In any other case, Argentina would have to commit to planning a full-scale invasion. This would inevitably trigger alarms—if not within British intelligence, then within one of their allied nations—which would kick even the most sluggish Westminster bureaucrats into gear. Furthermore, Argentina's economic situation is well-known, and there is no sign of improvement on the horizon.
We can simulate the potential Argentine requirements needed to defeat the existing garrison and withstand a possible second wave arriving to retake the islands.

 

[Owens Z]

Even if we assume that the United States would not be interested in the region for a moment, the formation of a coalition for the "liberation" of the Falklands would quickly lead to a coalition aimed at protecting the current status quo. No one would know if someone else in the region might suddenly get the idea to "liberate," for example, Guyana or the Dutch Antilles.

Only in the event of an internal collapse of the UK or an external threat greater than Argentina do the "cheap options" for 2026 run out. In any other case, Argentina would have to commit to planning a full-scale invasion. This would inevitably trigger alarms—if not within British intelligence, then within one of their allied nations—which would kick even the most sluggish Westminster bureaucrats into gear. Furthermore, Argentina's economic situation is well-known, and there is no sign of improvement on the horizon.
We can simulate the potential Argentine requirements needed to defeat the existing garrison and withstand a possible second wave arriving to retake the islands.

The snap invasion of the Falklands in 1982 was not rational, and I've heard that, at least about those islands, "el sueño de la razón" remains in Argentina. Thus a future impulsive action is hardly impossible. And Argentina's legal claim to the Falklands is not prima facie absurd. As far as I could tell from far away and not speaking Spanish, Javier Milei paid less attention to the Falklands issue than most of his countrymen, and in fact openly praised Margaret Thatcher. Thus President Milei's recent promise (cheered enthusiastically by his audience) to invest in rebuilding Argentina's long-neglected army, navy, and air force was noteworthy to me and others.

In fairness, Milei's speech did emphasize that he wants his nation to prosper so much, regaining its wealthy place among the very top countries in the world (as it had been circa 1910), that Falkland islanders will voluntarily change their minds and ask to become part of such happy success. This is perhaps a future possibility—after the particular islanders who had Argentine Army rifles pointed at their and their children's faces, who were forced to be human shields around artillery positions, who had soldiers' excrement smeared on walls and floors of their homes, who had their property mined and booby-trapped, have died off.

A pertinent video "Is Argentina Quietly Eyeing Up the Falklands?" from British outlet TLDR News was posted yesterday. (Note that, to my knowledge, their statement that Argentina has agreed to pay for three Scorpène-class attack submarines to be built in France is false.) See:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9We83-A2H8

 

[Dilandu]

The snap invasion of the Falklands in 1982 was not rational, and I've heard that, at least about those islands, "el sueño de la razón" remains in Argentina. Thus a future impulsive action is hardly impossible.

Well, the problem is, in 1982 Argentina actually have military capable of doing it. The force disrepancy between Argentinean Navy & Royal Navy was big, of course, but not overwhelming, especially considering that Argentinean could bring their land-based planes into action. The current situation is much worse for Argentinean; they have neither Navy nor Air Force anymore.

 

[Owens Z]

The primary threat to the British on the Falkland Islands has been Argentina. But not the sole threat. The Battle of the Falkland Islands was fought 8 December 1914 against German cruisers about to shell Port Stanley. In 1915-17, Imperial Japanese Navy ships patrolled the eastern Pacific for more Germans, to just off Chile (although they missed raider SMS Seeadler). To my knowledge no Japanese warship made it as far during World War II, but during the heady unstoppable rampage that the Japanese themselves retrospectively called 'victory disease', London feared that after overrunning Fiji and Samoa (Operation FS) and Tahiti, Japanese forces could emerge into the South Atlantic and seize the Falklands for a base, linking with now-allied German raiders and U-boats. According to the 2014 book Operation Tabarin: Britain's Secret Wartime Expedition to Antarctica 1944-46 (p21) Winston Churchill had minuted on 1 April 1942 "It would be a very serious thing to lose the Falkland Islands to the Japanese... The Falkland Islands are very well known, and their loss would be a shock to the whole Empire. They would certainly have to be retaken." Accordingly, the islands' defenders, 330 local volunteers with few weapons, were supplemented by a British Army garrison for the duration. According to the book, Operation Tabarin itself, whose participants hitched a ride on a troopship from Britain to the Falklands, and which after WW2 evolved into the British Antarctic Survey, was mostly intended to reinforce the UK's territorial claims in the region against rival claims of Argentina (hustling while combatants were preoccupied), rather than to fight the Axis.

It's conceivable that another expansive Pacific naval power might someday come to covet the Falklands, especially a power that needs crude oil reserves, and wants to clear the surrounding seas of fish.

 

[Dilandu]

It's conceivable that another expansive Pacific naval power might someday come to covet the Falklands, especially a power that needs crude oil reserves, and wants to clear the surrounding seas of fish.

That's kinda not Chinese modus operandi. The probability that China would support Argentine claim on island looks... well, not impossible, but would require a major change in Chinese politics.

 

[Desertfox]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/exclusive-pentagon-email-floats-suspending-050311406.html

 

[DWG]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/exclusive-pentagon-email-floats-suspending-050311406.html

The first report I saw on this pointed out there is no mechanism for 'suspending' a NATO member, especially unilaterally. I'd initially assumed it was so detached from reality they must have assigned the job to the office intern, but if this is coming direct from Colby it really raises questions over his fitness for his position.

"The memo, reported on by Reuters, argues that the US could review a policy of endorsing European claims to longstanding “imperial possessions”, and highlighted sovereignty over the Falklands,"

Apparently it didn't occur to him that Diego Garcia falls under the same category....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/24/uk-position-falklands-unchanged-leaked-pentagon-memo
Another Guardian piece points out that this'll go nowhere because the King is visiting Washington next week and Trump is utterly enamoured with the Royal Family.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-withdraw-us-support-uk-sovereignty-falklands

 

[Arjen]

'I reject your reality and substitute my own'

 

[Owens Z]

...Apparently it didn't occur to him that Diego Garcia falls under the same category....
Another Guardian piece points out that this'll go nowhere because the King is visiting Washington next week and Trump is utterly enamoured with the Royal Family.

Leftist British subjects comment freely here, secure in the knowledge that their words won't prompt a visit from local police, unlike the non-left. This could result in a skewed image of UK domestic opinion. For balance, see today's YouTube video "Will Starmer Lose the Falklands?" by former Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, in which he opines about the current UK-USA relationship. "I think the visit of the King [to the USA] will be a success... I don't see Argentina under Milei invading in the near future anyway..."

In fairness (as Sir Jacob himself has acknowledged), the severe decline in British armed forces capability over the past thirty years to today's sad state is as much a result of Tory government actions as of Labour government actions.

See:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJT3LYjUO6Y

 

[Owens Z]

I no longer recall the source, but I remember reading that in the immediate aftermath of the 1982 Port Stanley capitulation, British delegates at the United Nations here in New York were surprised to find themselves surreptitiously approached by delegates of many unfriendly and neutral nations, people who would never be seen with them otherwise, to offer their personal congratulations on the victory. On reflection, the British ascribed this to the adage that everybody loves a winner, and scorns a loser.

 

[Owens Z]

IIUC nobody in power seriously thought of invading the Falklands, until Admiral Anaya made it a condition of the Navy's support for Galtieri's power grab. Surprisingly enough there doesn't seem to even be any tabletop or map exercises for the Falklands done by the Argentines, even if only for officer training. No wonder they lost.

The whole affair leaves an impression that the Argentinean side had no shade of a plan in case there is a real attempt by Britain to retake the islands and everything they did was down to knee-jerk reactions. Almost as if they put all their chips into diplomatic pressure. Which didn't work.

...Nine consecutive battles were fought and the Argentinian army lost every one. In most cases, within a night. They had all the strategic and numerical advantages, fighting from heavily fortified positions. The British infantry had to clear them by attacking up the mountains, facing heavy machine guns, ground radar, mortars, landmines and dug in rifle pits. They’ll make excuses that the British were better equipped but that’s not entirely true. In some cases, the Argentinian equipment was better, despite the apologist excuses coming from Argentinian keyboards.

War is narrative, thus people accept narratives according to their political views, from History I already expressed my point and I know you will not be flexible nor open to other Ideas, and here they do not want go in back in History, I will put it simple, I do not need to repeat my ideas, and you will be not open thus let us leave here you will not change my mind nor me, yours.

The histories do tell us that Argentina's 2 April 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands surprised the British armed forces—and the Argentine armed forces. The Army did poorly on short notice. Yes, overwhelming force cowed civilians. "If a Kelper resists, shoot him". But most formations didn't maneuver or fight effectively. The British counted 11,313 POWs after the surrender, according to Mark Felton, which is more men than the British had landed to that point. (Argentine accounts stress that their best army units, and all tanks, had been retained near the Andes, facing Chile.)

The Navy, whose Admiral Anaya was the chief architect of invasion and whose death squads were feared as the most cruel of the time, retreated to port after cruiser General Belgrano was torpedoed and sunk, which didn't help relations with the Army. Only naval pilots and submarine San Luis continued the fight thereafter.

By all accounts it was Air Force pilots and ground crews that stayed motivated and courageous to the end, successfully improvising to keep planes in the air and to press attacks home. Had their bomb fuzes been better set (a change made only toward the end of the war), the pilots would have sunk even more British ships.

The current Argentine order of battle is much less formidable than it was in 1982. But a hypothetical second invasion of the Falklands would at least benefit from years of careful planning and from decades of reflection on the war's lessons, including reading British accounts.

Time to prepare does go both ways. Neglected before 1982, today secret movements in the South Atlantic are unlikely to be missed by British intelligence. And the British garrison at RAF Mount Pleasant has had forty years to prepare for every contingency.

 

[Michel Van]

i ask my self that question
Military Argentina is not able to Invade, Britain could retaliate first with Attack Subs, later Royal Navy Aircraft carrier
However Little Britain is occupied with Iran crisis, internal political scandals and serious social and economic problems.

I would not be surprised if the successor of Keir Stramer, (he will fall after May 7 local elections)
just accept a Mielei offer and sell the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to Argentina...

 

[Rule of cool]

. The Army did poorly on short notice. Yes, overwhelming force cowed civilians. "If a Kelper resists, shoot him". But most formations didn't maneuver or fight effectively.

IIUC the Army units deployed to the Falklands in April were those that were identified in planning for the invasion that was supposed to take place in the southern summer of 1982-83. By then these units would be a year or more through the 2 year conscription cycle, which pretty much mirrors the British in the 50s and Australia in the Vietnam era; after a year a conscript battalion was ready to deploy to combat. However the war cut that cycle from 12 months to 3-4, hence the Army units were not fully trained and therefore not combat effective.

 

[TerraFirma]

Did you know that oil and gas pipelines are able to be used as extremely accurate acoustic sensors? Yup. It is the same reason that all of the data from Alaskan pipelines (Overland) is highly classified: You cannot get that raw data unless you are solidly embedded within a project that needs to know.

So with that said? You could if you were so minded to? Create a very unique and accurate early warning system that could tell you immediately when a vessel is approaching / has passed overhead. Works in Norway, UK, North Sea... So I cannot see why it wouldn't work in the Falklands waters. All those oil rig raids by Comacchio and Coastal raiders were not for the economic impact. That data is worth sending SOF over.

Just a thought.

 

[DWG]

Leftist British subjects comment freely here, secure in the knowledge that their words won't prompt a visit from local police, unlike the non-left.

I know US news reporting is crap, and filled with false news about the UK sponsored by the likes of the Heritage Foundation, but there's only been one group facing mass arrests for political expression recently, and they've been on the left*.

What the Heritage Foundation etc don't make clear is you cannot be arrested in the UK for expressing a political opinion alone, only for breaking the law in other ways while doing it, such as inciting violence or supporting a proscribed terror group.

Here's British-resident US youtuber Evan Edinger explaining it:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3WVygAM8I&t=314s

This could result in a skewed image of UK domestic opinion. For balance, see today's YouTube video "Will Starmer Lose the Falklands?" by former Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg,

The Moggster, aka the Right Honourable Member for the 17th Century, is a source of derision for the Tories. There's a reason he's an ex-MP. I'm fairly certain he won't have drawn attention to the fact that the Tory government he was a part of spent a dozen years in power systematically running down the RN.

Coincidentally, just as the Tories were trying to do when they gave the Argentinian junta the idea of invading the Falklands back in 1982.

This is basic history, surely I shouldn't need to repeat it to anyone with an interest in the Falklands?

* For expressing support for the proscribed Palestine Action.

 

[Dilandu]

Okay, let's think about a bit different scenario. Let's assume, that China decided to support Argeninean claims on Falkland, at least indirectly.

What exactly equipment and how much time for training Argentina might need to have a realistic chance of another Falkland attempt?

 

[RedLegion]

Okay, let's think about a bit different scenario. Let's assume, that China decided to support Argeninean claims on Falkland, at least indirectly.

What exactly equipment and how much time for training Argentina might need to have a realistic chance of another Falkland attempt?

Assuming a scenario where the UK receives no external support and there is direct equipment sales (meaning a lead time of no more than 2–3 years), we are looking at a minimum of 6–8 years.
The priority should be the air force, specifically replacing the fleet with a mix of J-10s and J-11s. Some JH-7s would also be useful as dedicated anti-ship strike platforms. Y-8s and Y-20s will certainly be needed for transport. However, a problem arises: wouldn't the UK deploy its ships earlier upon being alerted to Argentina's buildup?
It’s a lot to take i

 

[Dilandu]

The priority should be the air force, specifically replacing the fleet with a mix of J-10s and J-11s. Some JH-7s would also be useful as dedicated anti-ship strike platforms

Hm. Most realisically, I think, would be a JF-17 fleet - those export fighters are available, and have enough range to reach Falklands. They are also capable of carrying anti-ship missiles, which is quite important advantage.

What could be really advantageous for Argentinean to obtain, is a pair of AEW planes. A KJ-200 seems to be export-able (they were offered to Pakistan).

Also, a naval question matters. A purely aerial assault on Falklands would be... highly problematic, even not considering RN relief attempts. So a naval force must be recreated. A pair of Type 054A frigates (for aerial defense) supported by 4-6 older Type 053H3 units (those are being replaced now, and PLAN rather eagerly sells decommissioned warships for export) would likely be sufficient - anything else would be too costly.

 

[Martes]

would at least benefit from years of careful planning

Terribly sorry to sound like a broken record, but I still think this is exactly the weakest point of the scenario, and one I find very difficult to believe that it can be really fixed.
They didn't have any campaign planning then, and I haven't seen any indications they have it now.

Let's assume, that China decided to support Argeninean claim

Concurrent support from China and the US, as it seems possible at the moment, would indeed be very funny, but even this may not be enough

 

[Owens Z]

...UK planning for defence of the Falklands has hinged on holding Mount Pleasant since 1985. Whoever holds the airfield can control the air and sea around the islands.

...But even with no warning at all, the garrison doesn't need to hold out indefinitely. It just needs to hold out long enough for the RAF and Army reinforcements to arrive. Conversely, Argentina needs to take Mount Pleasant before that happens. Which is absolutely doable, given the right resources, training, and leadership, but is also not trivial.

Do the IA-63 Pampa's have the range to reach the islands with some combat payload + station time, and back to the continent?

Technically yes, but in practice no. It's 735km from Rio Gallegos to Mount Pleasant in a straight line. For an IA-63 with limited combat load it could do that...but would need to transit at medium altitude all the way there and back...loadout would be limited as well. Goes without saying it wouldn't be making a return trip...

...As for "operating from Mt Pleasant", I was personally thinking of the Argentinian Air Force as a whole. By focussing on Mt Pleasant is a limiting strategy which has to be recognised by Argentina from the get-go in the overall strategic context of such a war. If you're strategy hinged on having to rely on Mt Pleasant's capture and its continued operability, I'd be seriously questioning the validity of the whole invasion - period...

Fighter pilot Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward, in his 1992 book Sea Harrier Over the Falklands: A Maverick at War, called the postwar RAF Mount Pleasant base "a white elephant. It cannot be defended from a serious assault by Argentine forces". Ward wrote that a wiser course would have been for some Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers to operate from Stanley and dispersed clearings: "most important all, the runway at Stanley would never have been extended. This would deny the Argentine the possibility of ever operating fighters from the islands, and would inevitably dissuade any further attempts by them to take the Falklands by force." (pp282-283)

 

[Owens Z]

Terribly sorry to sound like a broken record, but I still think this is exactly the weakest point of the scenario, and one I find very difficult to believe that it can be really fixed. They didn't have any campaign planning then, and I haven't seen any indications they have it now.

Well, maybe. But you and I are presumably well down the list of persons who would first see indications of Argentine armed forces' secret planning.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Fighter pilot Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward, in his 1992 book Sea Harrier Over the Falklands: A Maverick at War, called the postwar RAF Mount Pleasant base "a white elephant. It cannot be defended from a serious assault by Argentine forces". Ward wrote that a wiser course would have been for some Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers to operate from Stanley and dispersed clearings: "most important all, the runway at Stanley would never have been extended. This would deny the Argentine the possibility of ever operating fighters from the islands, and would inevitably dissuade any further attempts by them to take the Falklands by force." (pp282-283)

If the RAF said the sun was rising, Ward would have insisted that the darkness on the western sky proved they were lying.

 

[Rule of cool]

Fighter pilot Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward, in his 1992 book Sea Harrier Over the Falklands: A Maverick at War, called the postwar RAF Mount Pleasant base "a white elephant. It cannot be defended from a serious assault by Argentine forces". Ward wrote that a wiser course would have been for some Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers to operate from Stanley and dispersed clearings: "most important all, the runway at Stanley would never have been extended. This would deny the Argentine the possibility of ever operating fighters from the islands, and would inevitably dissuade any further attempts by them to take the Falklands by force." (pp282-283)

There is some merit to what Sharkey said, but what happens when the Sea Harriers are retired 20 years ago and RAF Harriers 16 years ago? What it doesn't do is allow a rapid reinforcement in a crisis, when a single 747 can bring hundreds of troops in a single flight.

What Mt Pleasant did/does is raise the level of effort required to capture the island that the preparations wold be noticed and a reaction enacted.