South American Alliance invades Falklands.

[abc123]

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?

Well, if we take nominal capabilities of Argentinian military (current), is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where they could plausibly defeat current British forces there?

Come on, people, 3 Typhoons ( the fourth is reserve ), how many of them can be ready for action at any given time? 120 infantry soldiers, how many of them can be ready for action ( people do have to sleep, eat, have a rest... ) at any given time? Say 500 soldiers to guard the perimeter of Mt. Pleasant- how much of them is ready to do that ( remember these folks have other things to do there ) at any given time? How much soldiers do you need to guard the perimeter so that middle-range ( not even long-range ) ATGM can't be fired on hangars where Typhoons are? How many soldiers do you need to guard the perimeter of radar stations so that ATGM can't be fired on them? Etc.
About sending reinforcements from UK, you can forget about that... They needed 2-3 days to send 4 Typhoons there ( and they needed one Hercules and 2 tankers to do that ), with months of planning and preparation available, what would they need to send say a battalion of soldiers and squadron of Typhoons there?



One of such posts is the one pointing that British roulement infantry company is amongh best infantry forces in the world... A bullet or RPG doesn't ask you are you the best or the worst soldier in the world. As we can see trom recent French ( failed ) operation in Somalia, they were defeated, and you can be sure that any French commando was better than any average british infantry soldier and that any Somali terrorist is worse than average Argentinian soldier...

 

[AdA]

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.

Of course it isn't. That's a Venezuelan Air force Su30MK2 how anybody could presume that someone would mistake that for a mirage is baffling.

 

[AdA]

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 SU30MK2 would be by far the most set serious threat. But Chile has a large F16 force, with 12 Block52 (IIRC) and lots of ex Dutch MLUs. Not quite Rafales, of course, but there's strength in numbers and the might buy AMRAAMS...

 

[abc123]

The SU30MK2 would be by far the most set serious threat.

True. And Venezuela the most willing country to send them to help Argentinians...

 

[Peace_Monger]

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...

Were not saying that British cannot be defeated it just highly unlikely that South America could. It would take alot of South America's geopolitical will power, economic means, and citizenry willingness to take on the United Kingdom for little return. If you read my whole prior post (yes its a big one) I already stated the reasoning for why the South America's military are unable to fight a modern high-end conflict against a great power namely their military has not been date integrated (no effective C2, ISTAR, sat surveillance or communication).

Perfect example is the Brazilian carrier (I think its classified as a fleet carrier not sure) is used ex-french carrier the Foch; it is conventional powered and over thirty years old. It uses twelve ex-Kuwaitan A-4 Skyhawk have received only minor upgrades and are unable to use guided munitions and only can use sidewinder or similar munitions (no BVR assets) the carrier asw assets a bit better with modern Sikorsky S-70B Seahawk of which there are six ordered that likely will be divided amongst frigate assets as well. The carrier air assets have no airborne early warning and only now just order a few cargo planes. The carrier has no advance air-defence platforms (radar, weapons, and the alike), and the Brazilian fleet lack the proper area defence surface vessels to protect the carrier. This is a big problem because a Lynx with a Sea Skua missile or Type 23 frigates with harpoons can literally spam out wave after wave of BVR anti-ship missile system, the frigates only posses a Aspide similiar in mission capabilites to the AIM-7 Sparrow. While as a last ditch defence the São Paulo can use a crotale system with no reload capabilities. So in effect yes Brazil has a carrier but it has no effective combat air component, no airborne early warning, a moderate powerful asw heli asset, no close in defence system, and no outer protection screen from air attack or long range missile strike. So in effective Brazil has a budding carrier capability, and in effect has a carrier that is little better then training asset.

This is just but one detail example of how South American militaries on paper seem effect but in reality are not. This same example can be used on Peru, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, and to lesser degree Venezuela and Chile. This nations militaries have never fought within a modern conflict since the second world war (Falklands war aside, and that war between Ecuador and Peru). On the other hand for better or worse the UK military has been involved in practical ever major conflict since the Second World War. The UK current military while down sizing is still battle hardened with solid equipment, and bloody junior and field grade officers (a major bonus in any conflict). The UK armed forces have a very effective C2 system, and more importantly their ISTAR assets are integrated into all levels (tactical and strategic) and spectrum (air, land, maritime) of their military.

Will the UK win a conflict against South America (gain land, or economy assets) no, will the UK be able to hold the Falklands perhaps, will South America as a whole suffer heavily from such a conflict yes. Will South America be able to take the Falklands perhaps, will South America be able to keep such a location indefinitely unlikely. In terms of capabilities between the two combatants, the gaps are to large. South America military as a whole is ageing and has not really been modernized effectively beyond Chile and now Venezuela. While the UK has reduced their military capabilities, the United Kingdom has not forgone the need to modernized and purchase modern equipment.

No conflict is clear cut, but in all likelihood there is to much potential risk for South America to willing as a whole to go war against the UK over a few islands. Economical and geopolitical its suicide for most South America nations, for little gain. If you think that South America if they put all their eggs to together and try to take the Falklands and would maybe win I say yes your right. But then I would go on to say how unlikely to occur since the only nation benefiting is Argentina, and the rest of the continent could face significant financial or even physical damage due to such a conflict.

 

[AndyC]

Well, if we take nominal capabilities of Argentinian military (current), is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where they could plausibly defeat current British forces there?

Come on, people, 3 Typhoons ( the fourth is reserve ), how many of them can be ready for action at any given time?

Two on less than 5 minute readiness, the third on about one hour readiness. The fourth on two-hour readiness. (Probably. I am unsighted on current readiness levels and if I was sighted, wouldn't be able to say. Those, however, would be typical some years back).

120 infantry soldiers, how many of them can be ready for action ( people do have to sleep, eat, have a rest... ) at any given time?

Depends what readiness state you're looking at. When do they get notice of any attack? If it's a no-notice attack, you're limited to air-drops ... no, doesn't work. Radar picks up incoming aircraft; even on thirty minute readiness they'd be ready. Needs to be sub-infiltration, I guess, which really limits them (The three Argentinian subs don't have that much capacity for passengers). So how many can you get to an attack?
At any given time, assume one-third to one-half will be in full readiness, for the reasons you describe. That's for a no-notice assault. As soon as you tip your hand (eg by moving resources to attack positions on the mainland, or building up naval forces), expect increased readiness levels and increased forces all around.

Say 500 soldiers to guard the perimeter of Mt. Pleasant- how much of them is ready to do that ( remember these folks have other things to do there ) at any given time? How much soldiers do you need to guard the perimeter so that middle-range ( not even long-range ) ATGM can't be fired on hangars where Typhoons are?

Good luck with an ATGM vs a HAS ...

How many soldiers do you need to guard the perimeter of radar stations so that ATGM can't be fired on them?

You ain't creeping up on Mount Alice or Byron Heights without being spotted a long way off. And you need to take out all three radar bases before they can be reinforced. An you'd still get useful coverage from the airfield Watchman, unless you took that one out as well. Four simultaneous assaults? If they're not simultaneous, the other sites are fully warned.

As to how many to defend, say, Mt Alice radar station? Not to blow my own trumpet, but I pulled it off with ten technicians, three mechanics and twelve fighter controllers (no soldiers) plus one RAF Regiment sergeant (and myself as Ground Defence Commander) on an exercise in 1998
(To be fair, defence - especially of a place like Mt Alice with those clear lines of approach - is always far easier than attack. They're a total swine to work out any assault that doesn't involve the full-frontal suicide charge (and those non-suicidal attack plans are very limited in potential and can be out-thought by any intelligent Ground Defence Commander. I'd've hated to have to plan the attack.) But the attacking soldiers refused to come in for breakfast the following morning. Didn't like being beaten by an RAF Engineer )

Etc.
About sending reinforcements from UK, you can forget about that... They needed 2-3 days to send 4 Typhoons there ( and they needed one Hercules and 2 tankers to do that ), with months of planning and preparation available, what would they need to send say a battalion of soldiers and squadron of Typhoons there?

On a war footing, you bypass or disregard a lot of processes and procedures that are set up to increase safety. Bear in mind that the planning and preparation is already done. It's kind of the entire point of having staff officers. You write the contingencies and procedures for given circumstances - and you'd best believe that this particular circumstance is one that has been carefully considered (that's hardly classified information!).
One squadron of Typhoons? Within 24 hours. A single battalion of soldiers? Within 16-20 hours.

One of such posts is the one pointing that British roulement infantry company is amongh best infantry forces in the world... A bullet or RPG doesn't ask you are you the best or the worst soldier in the world. As we can see trom recent French ( failed ) operation in Somalia, they were defeated, and you can be sure that any French commando was better than any average british infantry soldier and that any Somali terrorist is worse than average Argentinian soldier...

Not exactly "supermen", though. They are very well trained, and defence is always easier than assault. And being a good soldier makes you less likely to be in the same place as any given bullet or RPG.

 

[sparky42]

Well, if we take nominal capabilities of Argentinian military (current), is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where they could plausibly defeat current British forces there?

Come on, people, 3 Typhoons ( the fourth is reserve ), how many of them can be ready for action at any given time? 120 infantry soldiers, how many of them can be ready for action ( people do have to sleep, eat, have a rest... ) at any given time? Say 500 soldiers to guard the perimeter of Mt. Pleasant- how much of them is ready to do that ( remember these folks have other things to do there ) at any given time? How much soldiers do you need to guard the perimeter so that middle-range ( not even long-range ) ATGM can't be fired on hangars where Typhoons are? How many soldiers do you need to guard the perimeter of radar stations so that ATGM can't be fired on them? Etc.
About sending reinforcements from UK, you can forget about that... They needed 2-3 days to send 4 Typhoons there ( and they needed one Hercules and 2 tankers to do that ), with months of planning and preparation available, what would they need to send say a battalion of soldiers and squadron of Typhoons there?

A point you might consider is that the deployment you are talking about is a peace time deployment, I would imagine that a imminent war footing would change the response plan fairly quickly.

I would think that the C 17's and the new Airbus tankers would help the air route a good bit.

 

[amphibulous]

Well, if we take nominal capabilities of Argentinian military (current), is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where they could plausibly defeat current British forces there?

Come on, people, 3 Typhoons ( the fourth is reserve ), how many of them can be ready for action at any given time?

The reason there are only four Typhoons is that no possible opponent has tankers, and without tankers, flying against a real fighter like a Typhoon, a jet fighter operating at that range might as well be a Tiger Moth.

best infantry forces in the world... A bullet or RPG doesn't ask you are you the best or the worst soldier in the world. As we can see trom recent French ( failed ) operation in Somalia, they were defeated, and you can be sure that any French commando was better than any average british infantry soldier and that any Somali terrorist is worse than average Argentinian soldier...

Again, just as with fuel state, you don't understand the importance of tactical conditions. The French were the raider - a tiny, badly outnumbered force. Which is what Argentinians would be; landing off a submarine and getting to a guarded airbase might be easy in your imagination, but practice is another thing. Where do you land without being seen? How do you get from a safe spot on the coast with while carrying wire guided missiles? How do get within range of the hangers? That terrain offers lousy cover, and you can't belly crawl several clicks with a TOW unless you are a Terminator. How do you survive the machine gun fire that will answer a TOW? And what's the bloody point??? The shaped charge on a TOW will make a hole in a hanger, but's unlikely to kill all the aircraft inside - military hangers are designed to resist this sort of thing reasonably well.

What you are arguing is that because a small elite military force didn't manage to carry out an extremely difficult mission, then it should be assumed that a much lower quality force will perform an even harder one... No, really - this is not anything like logic.

And the point about good vs bad soldiers is not the degree to which they are bulletproof, but their skills in hitting the other guy while avoiding being hit! Skill does count; so do numbers; so does fighting on prepared and known ground. When all are against you, you're better off not bothering.

 

[amphibulous]

(To be fair, defence - especially of a place like Mt Alice with those clear lines of approach - is always far easier than attack. They're a total swine to work out any assault that doesn't involve the full-frontal suicide charge

It's pretty obvious that whatisname didn't bother to google for an image of Mt Pleasant before planning his mini-Sea Lion. Or even to think "If was defending a pair of giant, almost entirely empty islands, where would I put the airbase? Oh yes - somewhere where it would be easy to massacre any attackers!"

(and those non-suicidal attack plans are very limited in potential and can be out-thought by any intelligent Ground Defence Commander. I'd've hated to have to plan the attack.) But the attacking soldiers refused to come in for breakfast the following morning. Didn't like being beaten by an RAF Engineer )

They probably didn't like sour grapes for breakfast...

Not exactly "supermen", though. They are very well trained, and defence is always easier than assault.

Especially when you have heavy weapons and the attackers, who had to squeeze out of sub hatches and into dingies, then hike for who knows how many klicks, don't!

 

[Sior]

Well, if we take nominal capabilities of Argentinian military (current), is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where they could plausibly defeat current British forces there?

Come on, people, 3 Typhoons ( the fourth is reserve ), how many of them can be ready for action at any given time? 120 infantry soldiers, how many of them can be ready for action ( people do have to sleep, eat, have a rest... ) at any given time? Say 500 soldiers to guard the perimeter of Mt. Pleasant- how much of them is ready to do that ( remember these folks have other things to do there ) at any given time? How much soldiers do you need to guard the perimeter so that middle-range ( not even long-range ) ATGM can't be fired on hangars where Typhoons are? How many soldiers do you need to guard the perimeter of radar stations so that ATGM can't be fired on them? Etc.
About sending reinforcements from UK, you can forget about that... They needed 2-3 days to send 4 Typhoons there ( and they needed one Hercules and 2 tankers to do that ), with months of planning and preparation available, what would they need to send say a battalion of soldiers and squadron of Typhoons there?



One of such posts is the one pointing that British roulement infantry company is amongh best infantry forces in the world... A bullet or RPG doesn't ask you are you the best or the worst soldier in the world. As we can see trom recent French ( failed ) operation in Somalia, they were defeated, and you can be sure that any French commando was better than any average british infantry soldier and that any Somali terrorist is worse than average Argentinian soldier...

Spoken by someone who has never put the boots on or faced the bullet!

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

The only warfare that most Latin American armies knew at that time was in fighting lightly armed rural and urban guerrillas, so it is doubtful they could have prevailed in ground battles against well equipped and highly trained British troops. Brazilian troops had fought against the Germans in Italy in 1944-45 (e.g., Battle of Monte Castello) and Colombian troops had fought with extraordinary heroism in the Korean War (Battle of Old Baldy, where they were hampered by poor U.S. leadership at the divisional level). But at the time of the Falklands War, the only Latin American country with recent experience in fighting a modern army were the Cubans who had engaged repeatedly the South Africans (SADF) in the Angolan War (the Cubans were outgunned in these engagements but won strategically in that the South Africans decided they were overextended and, lacking international support, pulled out). The Cubans did offer to help Argentina but it would have been unthinkable for the Argentine Army to accept help from Fidel Castro (who probably only made the offer for public relations reasons, knowing full well it would be rejected and that there was no practical way to get any Cuban troops, much less their aging Soviet tanks, onto the islands once the Brits set up the exclusion zone).

 

[abc123]

Spoken by someone who has never put the boots on or faced the bullet!

Yes, you certainly know did I or didn't do that...

 

[abc123]

I would think that the C 17's and the new Airbus tankers would help the air route a good bit.

Considering that British C-17 can't be refueled and that you would need pretty big logistical perparations if you want to try something with your Super Hercules force, you can forget about any counter-attack during next several days...

 

[abc123]

And, since I don't want to answer at all your replies, just one small advice. Ask yourself, how would I done something like that if I'm on Argentinean side? And what's the worst option ( for British ) I could think of?

And than tell me, are you so confident as before?

OFC, if your attitude is that Argentineans are stupid and incompetent, they can't do anything right and you are British and no cockups can't happen to you, then I presume that your confidence will remain strong...

You have to be aware that you would have to have the luck evrey time, while Argentineans do not need that, they just neeed enough luck to destroy few radar stations or 2 Typhoons...
Each your missile must hit, they only need two hits. You need that allmost all their bombs miss the runway and that evrey your Rapier missile hit the target. Etc.

 

[AndyC]

And, since I don't want to answer at all your replies, just one small advice. Ask yourself, how would I done something like that if I'm on Argentinean side? And what's the worst option ( for British ) I could think of?

And than tell me, are you so confident as before?

OFC, if your attitude is that Argentineans are stupid and incompetent, they can't do anything right and you are British and no cockups can't happen to you, then I presume that your confidence will remain strong...

You have to be aware that you would have to have the luck evrey time, while Argentineans do not need that, they just neeed enough luck to destroy few radar stations or 2 Typhoons...
Each your missile must hit, they only need two hits. You need that allmost all their bombs miss the runway and that evrey your Rapier missile hit the target. Etc.

I've already presented the best-case Argentinean option - a sub-force carried commando squad to bomb the runway at MPA under cover of night. But that would be a huge challenge and risky - and they'd have to ensure that no intel leaks out.

Air attacks - the build up of forces would be registered and reinforcement action taken. If they go with what they have right now, then the Typhons will be facing aircraft of at least one to two generations before them at extreme fuel range. The Argentinean pilots are brave, but courage doesn't close that kind of gap.

As for assaults - I did ask myself how I'd do that if I were Argentinean - which is why I managed to defeat a superior number of highly trained soldiers with a small bunch of technicians, mechanics and fighter controllers. And my way of doing so was recorded and taken account of by the exercise staff (bear in mind that the military forces in the Falklands carry out frequent exercises to cover as many options as possible).

Defending those sites gives the defender a huge advantage. Given that knowledge, my answer to what I'd do if I were Argentinean and directed to plan such an attack is simple. Resign. There comes a point were there are too many constraints for a solution to be possible (alternatively, terrorist-style attacks may be possible, but I'd refuse to carry such out - it would open a huge can of worms. Bear in mind that even a Cessna would be (and was) escorted by the fighters if detected).

Another big problem for the Argentineans is that one key lesson learned from 1982 was to take into account what the Argentineans are doing. The current force mix is in place to reflect the current threat level. Should Argentina's capabilities increase, either through purchase, alliance or even just logistically shifting things around will trigger a trip wire at MoD to re-evaluate what reinforcements will be required. The idea of "South American Alliance" meeting the existing force mix is unrealistic - unless the alliance occurred with no diplomatic or military intelligence warning very suddenly - this Alliance springing up very suddenly to the point of these other countries being willing to sacrifice lives, diplomatic negotiating positions and expensive hardware in order to try to secure the Falklands for Argentina.

The ground, the comparative force mixes and the reinforcement potential just don't permit an Argentinean success unless the vigilance level drops hugely and the force mix is heavily depleted on the British side or heavily augmented (and somehow without any comparable response by the Brits) on the Argentinean side.

 

[amphibulous]

Of course it isn't. That's a Venezuelan Air force Su30MK2 how anybody could presume that someone would mistake that for a mirage is baffling.

If you're baffled why someone should think "This guy thinks an SU30 is an M2000" when the picture of the SU30 is next to a short text that only mentions the M2000 and shows the writer doesn't know terribly much modern air warfare"... then I really can't help you.

 

[amphibulous]

And, since I don't want to answer at all your replies, just one small advice. Ask yourself, how would I done something like that if I'm on Argentinean side? And what's the worst option ( for British ) I could think of?

Wow. No one has ever thought of that before! You are a military genius!

And than tell me, are you so confident as before?

Yes. Because that was what I did. It's what everyone did - because what you perceive as a revelation is tediously and tritely obvious.

OFC, if your attitude is that Argentineans are stupid and incompetent, they can't do anything right and you are British and no cockups can't happen to you, then I presume that your confidence will remain strong...

Attacking a heavily armoured shelter surrounded by heavily armed professional soldiers using the few troops you can sneak in on a submarine, in some of the worst terrain possible, is HARD. You seem to have no appreciation of force ratios or the effects of terrain - your ideas seem to come from Chuck Norris movies, where any base Chuck has to assault will have been built with excellent cover around it and hangers made of petroleum soaked tissue paper.

You have to be aware that you would have to have the luck evrey time, while Argentineans do not need that, they just neeed enough luck to destroy few radar stations or 2 Typhoons...

Completely wrong. The first time the Argentines try and fail, the islands are massively reinforced. The Argentines have to be able to absolutely knock the Typhoons, then the guard frigate, then hope a sub isn't in the area while getting an invasion force across - which they have to do in 24 hours, tops.

Each your missile must hit, they only need two hits. You need that allmost all their bombs miss the runway and that evrey your Rapier missile hit the target. Etc.

The radars are redundant - there are more than one, plus the guard ships's! And putting runways out of action is hard - the RAF didn't manage to put runways out of action for more than a few hours at a time in Iraq and they have specialized bombers and anti-runway weapons the Argentines don't. Runways are easy to repair - you shove some rubble in any crater, put sheet steel over the top, and you're done. And with unbelievable cunning, the people at military airfields are actually trained and equipped to do this!

Question: why do waste people's time? You obviously don't know how much a TOW weighs, don't look at maps or photos of sites where you plan your Norrisesque commando actions, don't know that military hangers are armoured, or that fighters have their own radar. Why post opinions when you know absolutely nothing?

 

[Dumanios]

So, what would Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, or anyone else gain from teaming with Argentina for the Falkland Malvinas?

Assuming that Argentina gets her allies (somehow), there are still nations that'd be against the alliance in South America. Chile is a notable one, Colombia is not friends with Venezuela, and several of the smaller countries like Uruguay wouldn't join the alliance.

Now that we managed to get the Alliance to Restore Argentine Malvinas, we have the next problem: taking the Falklands themselves. The British are not pushovers, and their forces are top of the line guys using top of the line equipment. You've got Mirage2000s, Su-30s, Mirage 5s, and some other stuff, but most of it couldn't reach the Falklands unless they're launching from Argentina. A multi-national air group grouping in Argentina would probably set off some alarms in the UK, who'd probably reinforce the islands.

If, somehow, the Alliance takes over the Falklands, then other NATO and EU members would see this as an attack on their ally, which would cause things to go to shit for the Alliance. The USA, UK, Germany, France, and Chile vs. Argentina, Brazil, Peru, and Venezuela. Now how would that go...

 

[amphibulous]

terrorist-style attacks may be possible, but I'd refuse to carry such out - it would open a huge can of worms.

You'd be on the rogue nation list and the British will stop playing nicely. A sub full of cruise missiles will turn up and you'll lose aircraft on the ground, naval ships in harbours, and wherever the British think your president is. Repeat until you cry.

The idea of "South American Alliance" meeting the existing force mix is unrealistic - unless the alliance occurred with no diplomatic or military intelligence warning very suddenly - this Alliance springing up very suddenly to the point of these other countries being willing to sacrifice lives, diplomatic negotiating positions and expensive hardware in order to try to secure the Falklands for Argentina.

An effective attack would need a willingness to sacrifice the best fighter aircraft in South America in considerable numbers and a lot of tanker support. Plus some cruise missiles, ideally, and radar killing missiles, ecm, and the skill to orchestrate these. Very little of this exists!

I did think about a cruise missile attack alone, but the Typhoons will take off and avoid the attack, reinforcements will quickly arrive - and you'd almost certainly kill enough people to give the British a license to start killing wholesale. There go the navies of whoever is involved - unless they have massively increased their ASW capabilities at least.. You'd want long range patrol planes, state of the art frigates - ideally helicopter carriers with prime ASW helos. Nuclear submarines would be nice too.

..This is an awful lot of billions of dollars to spend for a penguin sanctuary!

 

[amphibulous]

So, what would Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, or anyone else gain from teaming with Argentina for the Falkland Malvinas?

Commemorative plates?

Now that we managed to get the Alliance to Restore Argentine Malvinas, we have the next problem: taking the Falklands themselves. The British are not pushovers, and their forces are top of the line guys using top of the line equipment. You've got Mirage2000s, Su-30s, Mirage 5s, and some other stuff, but most of it couldn't reach the Falklands unless they're launching from Argentina. A multi-national air group grouping in Argentina would probably set off some alarms in the UK, who'd probably reinforce the islands.

Even from Argentina they need tankers if they are to fight - or even evade effectively.