South American Alliance invades Falklands.
- Thread starter Alan
- Start date
How does the Junta achieve this alliance? What does Brazil have to gain from Argentina conquering the Falklands?
The permanent forces present, amongst others 4 Typhoons, would be very hard to take out for a South American coalition of forces. The disposition of the British forces also pretty much excludes any suprise attack on the ground.
One of the things Britain has perfected, is quick reinforcement of the forces already present. So even if say Venezuela or Brazil decides to send a substantial portion of it's airforce to Argentina, the British would probably be able to reinforce quicker. The difference in quality and training between the British and South American (air)forces wouldn't help either.
If relating to the OTL invasion, this would change things a lot, as I imagine it would be incredibly hard for this to be hidden
Despite the ASB nature of the basic premisse, I wouldn't be so contemptous of the Brasilian and Chilean Air Forces capabilities. The Brasilian Mirage 2000 in particular would pose a serious threat. That said, both countries would be more likely to side with Britain than with Argentina on this one...
And this guys might cause a lot of trouble too...
amphibulous
Banned
If you mean the 80's war:
- If you put more ground forces there, you have a bigger supply problem.
- If you put more surface naval forces there, then you run out of ships before the British subs run out of torpedoes - it's doubtful that even a NATO force could have survived against RN or USN hunter killers.
If you mean now:
- The Argentinians are almost completely military impotent
- I don't see why anyone would fight for them
- The Typhoons could eat anything up anything short of F22s, and even the 22s would need tankers, and more could easily be added
AndyC
Donor
You've got the problem that any assault on the Falklands these days needs to take or destroy Mount Pleasant Airfield within 12-24 hours. That strip of concrete is crucial.
If you don't, then reinforcements flood in from Brize Norton within the day. Fighter jets, troop transports and heavy lift. If it seems necessary, a new task force is assembled , but this time one steaming to a Falkland Islands with a full protective air umbrella. You will swiftly be at war with the full military capability of the UK and, crucially, will not secure a presence on the Islands until you have defeated that full capability. This is not usually seen as worthwhile for this small patch of land.
So - any sane strategy has to be focussed on that. You have to get past the four Typhoons first, which are far in advance of whatever the Argentine Air Force has got. If a South American ally sends more advanced jets (assuming they have them) to an Argentine base within range of the Falklands, then you've tipped your hand and the Brits will be alerted - and it'll be more than just four Typhoons you'll face ... so you've got to do it with whatever's there.
And you can't. Pretty much. Basically some kind of covert terrorist op is essentially what you'd need - sneaking some kind of destructive force on to the runway at MPA. In sufficient quantity to ensure that the runway can't be rebuilt before you can get enough force to bear (keeping in mind that beforehand you haven't built up any forces because it would tip your hand and reinforcement to some extent would happen beforehand). Given that MPA is a military base with decent security - and that the Brits know that this would be the only chance for the Argentinians - that would take a seriously impressive op coupled with an awful lot of luck.
If you don't, then reinforcements flood in from Brize Norton within the day. Fighter jets, troop transports and heavy lift. If it seems necessary, a new task force is assembled , but this time one steaming to a Falkland Islands with a full protective air umbrella. You will swiftly be at war with the full military capability of the UK and, crucially, will not secure a presence on the Islands until you have defeated that full capability. This is not usually seen as worthwhile for this small patch of land.
So - any sane strategy has to be focussed on that. You have to get past the four Typhoons first, which are far in advance of whatever the Argentine Air Force has got. If a South American ally sends more advanced jets (assuming they have them) to an Argentine base within range of the Falklands, then you've tipped your hand and the Brits will be alerted - and it'll be more than just four Typhoons you'll face ... so you've got to do it with whatever's there.
And you can't. Pretty much. Basically some kind of covert terrorist op is essentially what you'd need - sneaking some kind of destructive force on to the runway at MPA. In sufficient quantity to ensure that the runway can't be rebuilt before you can get enough force to bear (keeping in mind that beforehand you haven't built up any forces because it would tip your hand and reinforcement to some extent would happen beforehand). Given that MPA is a military base with decent security - and that the Brits know that this would be the only chance for the Argentinians - that would take a seriously impressive op coupled with an awful lot of luck.
amphibulous
Banned
The Mirage 2000
1. Isn't the aircraft you attached a picture of!
2. Would need tankers to stand a chance against Typhoons over the Falkands - it has the theoretical combat range to reach them, but would run out of fuel almost at once if it tried combat manoeuvring, making it an easy target for missiles. Even if the Brazilians did use tankers - they don't have any at the moment - it would be hard to protect them against Typhoons
3. Is about 20-30 years behind the Typhoon technologically - and I really doubt that Brazilian pilots are as good as the RAF's (who normally rank well above even the NATO average.)
...Trying to take on Typhoons with F2000s without tankers would just be throwing aircraft away. The Typhoon can carry 6 AAMs and it shouldn't have a problem getting 4 hits against aircraft that don't have the fuel state to evade. It won't even have to risk being hit by the 2000s, because it will have the fuel to go supersonic before launching and the 2000s won't. The speed boost increases the missiles' range, and then the Typhoon will just make a vertical turn and reverse course, still travelling faster than the 2000s can. Then the Typhoons can repeat the operation - they can even land when your raid is over, re-fuel and re-arm, and shoot down the fleeing survivors. Because they can afford to go supersonic longer they'll have no problems catching and killing the survivors.
Trying to take on better aircraft with a better fuel state - and almost certainly better pilots, plus the advantages of support from ground-base radar and missiles - is asking for early Soviet-vs-Nazi kill ratios. You'd have to be insane to do it. You'd send 30 F2000s on a raid and get only half of them back
Finally, in the future when the Brazilians may have tankers, the Typhoons are likely to have Meteor ramjet missiles - these things should be able to kill even fighters with excellent fuel state from over the horizon... so there really isn't a way of defending tankers against them. In a lot of ways the Brazilians would be better trying to fight F22s than Typhoons with Meteors (if the weapon works up to spec!)
This isn't a Britwank - it's mostly the nature of modern fighter combat: fuel state is of huge importance. And partly the nature of combat when one aircraft can engage several with a high hit probability (if they lack fuel to evade) thanks to the latest generation of missiles. If the British were insane enough to attack the Argentinians, then the logic would operate in reverse.
Last edited:
Garrison
Donor
Thing is Brazil might be willing to indulge in some political posturing in the name of American solidarity but it has zero incentive to attack the territory of a country that's a NATO and EU member.
Now Venezuela I could see actually committing some military units but that would probably provoke a response from the US.
Now Venezuela I could see actually committing some military units but that would probably provoke a response from the US.
James G
Gone Fishin'
On the miltary aviation side, it all looks very promising with combat aircraft - on paper. Argentina only has A-4 and Mirage-3's (what they had in 1982), so joined with allied aircraft they could provide a credible threat to the Typhoon's on the Falklands.
Peru and Brazil both have Mirage-2000's and Venezula could add their F-16's and Sukhoi-30's.
However:
1) Distances. Many tankers would be needed and conformity with refuelling procedures would need to be worked out.
2) Politics. Though many South American nations appear to be allied, they are not a uniformed military alliance. They would also face immense diplomatic difficulties worldwide following any military action against the UK.
3) Ultimate goals. What would Brasil, Venezula, Peru or any other nation gain from a fight? What would Argentina really gain? Nation states don't go to war for nothing.
Peru and Brazil both have Mirage-2000's and Venezula could add their F-16's and Sukhoi-30's.
However:
1) Distances. Many tankers would be needed and conformity with refuelling procedures would need to be worked out.
2) Politics. Though many South American nations appear to be allied, they are not a uniformed military alliance. They would also face immense diplomatic difficulties worldwide following any military action against the UK.
3) Ultimate goals. What would Brasil, Venezula, Peru or any other nation gain from a fight? What would Argentina really gain? Nation states don't go to war for nothing.
How is it contemptous to state the fact that a British flown Typhoon is way ahead of anything flying in S-America by either training, support or equipment and most likely all three of those?
Only thing not enormously behind aircraft-wise would be those Venezuelan Su-30's, I'll give you that.
The problem with this whole premise is you fail to understand how geopolitical or "state" like the various nations of South America act on daily basis. Although the news shows Ecuador and Peru becoming buddy or Chile and Argentina doing the same; at the same time those same nation would throw each other under the bus if they could get away with it. In essence there are still deep rooted and nationalistic elements to these nations, were ever nation has a issue with a least one of their neighbors. Venezuela for example has been accused of supporting the FARC in Colombia (I'm not saying they are, it just being reported). That is like the United States supporting the FLQ in Canada, or Canada supporting neo-nazis in the United States. Hell Venezuela and Ecuador were posturing war some few years ago against Colombia due to a airstrike against the FARC slightly within Ecuadorian territory by Colombia. Really friendly neighbors tend not to support or be willing to go into conflict with a allied/ friendly nation.
Bolivia and Peru both have serious bones to pick with Chile still. There is reason why the majority of Chilean military assets are up north in the arid regions, and its not because of the beautiful open spaces for training.... Peru and Ecuador both went to war only some twenty years ago over a border dispute, although it got resolved its debatable if both sides will ever be "friendly or courtesy" amongst each other. The list goes on and on, the short answer is the South America in the 21st century is general speaking extremely peaceful between states; numerous South America nations have have simmering issues that go back hundreds of years (i.e. the Argentina claim on the Falklands, Bolivia coast ext...). However while it is true that all nations of South America are becoming closer and closer together, (new S.America reserve bank, opening of borders, free-trade); this area due to demographic issues, corruption, a weak but promising democratic tradition, and disparity of wealth between the rich and power still have a long way to go.
In reference to your point about Brazil, you have to take into consideration what gain would a emerging power like Brazil get from supporting a war against a great power and permanent member of the UNSC; the short answer is nothing. Brazil is general speaking friendly amongst all nations, why would they ever "shoot themselves in the foot" by supporting a attack against the Falklands with material support. Any and all good will with Europe, Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), and likely North America (US and Canada a least) would totally evaporate over night. There military has no capability beyond South America and their littoral area, they're navy would be sunk as soon as they sortied by British Astute-class submarines. Which the Brazilian Navy currently has no similar ASW platform to engage such a threat (although they're developing assets). Furthermore how will all these South American nations insure the protection of critical overseas trade, and keep the sea lines of communication open against a nuclear armed power with serious overseas reach. There air force still flies upgraded but aging F-5s and their government is unwilling to invest in a ongoing program to get a proper 4.5 generation aircraft. There air to air refueling is based on 4 old Boeing C-137 Stratoliner, and two even older KC-130H Hercules. They're old slightly modern air-assets is twelve ex French Mirage 2000, that were meant only as a stop gap for a two years that have now served on for over eight years. The bulk of their ongoing operations are conduct by a very effective COIN aircraft the turboprop Super Tuncao, and forty three modernized sub-sonic AMX International AMX. While the AMX is capable of aerial refueling, it is very debatable if this aircraft have the necessary hardware/software/ pilot training to engage in over the horizon anti ship warfare, because bomb runs would be literally suicide against a Type 45 destroyer with its Sampson radar which can detect a golf ball five miles out. There most modern maritime patrol asset are five modernized P-3 Orion, which while a decent ASW platform would be hard pressed to find let alone destroy a Astute-class in ocean as large as the Atlantic. In conclusion Brazil Air Force and Navy is decent for their defence needs, but have virtual no blue-water or over the horizon engagement capabilities. And Brazil is likely socioeconomically and demographically the best able to funded a proper "blue-water" military within South America. Chile and Venezuela both have more highly developed militaries (modern F-16s, Leo 2, NASAMS for Chile, and Su-30, Hinds, T-80 for Venezuela) but are limited by their logistical assets, and economics to support larger militaries or decent operations on the other side of South America. In short the majority of militaries of South America are paper tigers none more so than Argentina. They (all of South America) lack effective C2 (command and control) ISTAR or data linked militaries, they don't have dedicated sat surveillance or communication, their fire-control systems on all their (land, maritime, air) systems lack the modern "smart" needs for guided needs all of which the UK has in mature platforms. Modern conflict are not about having a carrier (Brazil) or hundred of tanks (Chile and Peru) but how you can integrate your various assets into a "joint" hardened but flexible decentralized command scene. In many ways ISTAR capabilities in Afstan or Iraq are more important then when assets you can deploy against your enemy. Because if you know were your enemy is going, what his intentions are, and what he can bring into a engagement half the guessing of the enemy intent and capabilities for a in-field commander are gone, as a result the commander can deploy his force accordingly.
Final South America economy, military, and industrial sectors are not hardened against kinetic or non-kinetic strike, neither is the UK but their assets are a half a world away from the engagement area(s).
With all this said the UK is not doing the greatest either, demographic are taking their toll, they're economy is shrinking, and their military is the smallest since the Crimean War. Yet their nations producing trillions of dollars yearly, they're military has some of the most highly developed weapon systems in the world, and one of the only seven known nuclear powers. All in all you have to understand why South America nations while general supportive diplomatically to Argentina's claims to the Falklands, there are in no way or even close to supporting Argentina in a physical sense nor are their militaries.
Last edited:
So a group of like minded nationalistic South American nations club together and invade the Falkands?
If we go with the assumption of nowadays, the lack of a carrier and aircraft hampers the British. If the South Americans can knock out the airbase (perhaps a commando raid from a sub?), then get enough boots on the ground, including SAMs and secure the airbase for their use, it makes it tricky for the Brits.
BUT.... Such an alliance and invasion might be enough pretext for a US or NATO involvement....?
If we go with the assumption of nowadays, the lack of a carrier and aircraft hampers the British. If the South Americans can knock out the airbase (perhaps a commando raid from a sub?), then get enough boots on the ground, including SAMs and secure the airbase for their use, it makes it tricky for the Brits.
BUT.... Such an alliance and invasion might be enough pretext for a US or NATO involvement....?
amphibulous
Banned
A few commandos from militaries with no real combat experience are unlikely to be a problem. That's not to say that the South American militaries should be assumed to be bad... but its unlikely they have anyone in the same league as the Spetsnatz, who are the traditional threat assumed in British airfield defense plans. They'd be hugely outnumbered, equipped only with the lightest of weapons, and facing some of the best infantry in NATO, operating on familiar terrain.
And "knocking" out airbases isn't something a small raiding force can do - blow up planes, yes. But cratering a runway takes thousands of pounds of explosives - and even then it the runway while probably be repaired in a few hours. The British had the taskforce underway in a week; how long will it take to get new Typhoons out there?
Plus there's always a modern warship in the area, and sometimes - you never know when - a hunter killer submarine. I wouldn't want to go near the place.
amphibulous
Banned
Intresting to see that many in Britain are even more confident in strength of Falklands defence than their compatriots were sure in strength of Singapore in 1941.
And we all know how THAT ended, don't we?
Ah. "They laughed at Columbus - and he was a genius! So I must be a genius too" - said Bozo the Clown.
But, no, logic doesn't work that way. Whether the Falklands are adequately defended or not has nothing to with the confidence of posters here, but with ***decision factors.*** Of course actually understanding these requires intelligent thought, which is usually found to be in inverse proportion to the proclivity to use smilies...
(Ok: If there are two things I hate they are Mountbatten, MacArthur and smilies - well, that's two if you accept my theory that Mountbatten and MacArthur were both three dimensional manifestations of the same asinine hyperbeing...)
Last edited:
DTanza
Banned
Intresting to see that many in Britain are even more confident in strength of Falklands defence than their compatriots were sure in strength of Singapore in 1941.
And we all know how THAT ended, don't we?
FEAR THE MIGHTY SOUTH AMERICAN AQUATIC BICYCLE FLEET.
AndyC
Donor
As expected, now there goes British fury on poor me for stating the obvious only because I said that British actually can be defeated and that British soldiers aren't supermens as some here obviously think...
Go for it. Suggest a plausible route for Argentina (and/or a South American Alliance, although the latter is going to take more resourcefulness to explain) to take the Falkland Islands, starting from where we are now.
By the way, I must have missed the "British soldiers are superman" post(s); could you point them out?