Chavez vows revenge for Falklands war

tut tut Terapin hijacking another Falklands thread

It's quite hilarious how he/she twist history and ignores certain key facts; like the Island was originally French.

And denying the right of the people of the Island who wish to stay British too.

*clicks ignore*

Hmmm.

The current state of Venezuela's armed forces means that Chavez would have very little to offer his Argentinian counterparts.

Even if he had, the key to the Falklands is Air Power, and whilst the F-3's stationed at Stanley are fairly old hat, nothing that the Argentines or Venezuelans have in their inventory is likley to give them too much of a problem, as they have home field and fuel advantages. Within 24 hours (maybe less) an E-3, a Nimrod and a squadron of Typhoons could be on station and then its game over anyway for anything approaching the Islands.

And whilst the UK may not be able to project a Naval task force on the scale of what was needed to take the Falklands back in '82, it does now have the aerial advantage. You can stage GR.4's from Stanley to attack the mainland if need be, and don't forget those lovely submarines we have that are now capable of launching tomahawks.

If it came down to a Naval force, the lessons were learned about AEW (the carriers during the Falklands war didn't have any) and now the Navy uses Sea King AEW platforms. The GR7 and GR9 Harriers are significantly more powerful than the old Sea Harrier, so its unlikley that things would be as hairy as they got last time. It would be possible to deploy Illustrious and Ark Royal as well as Ocean with Harriers on board. I wager that, if need be Invincible could be bought back on stream fairly quickly.

So I'd call it hot air and bluster. Its not going to happen.

Originally posted by neformore
Hmmm.
The current state of Venezuela's armed forces means that Chavez would have very little to offer his Argentinean counterparts.

Chavez has at his disposal 30 Venezuelan pilots who were highly trained in Russia to fly a squadron of 24 Sukhoi SU-30 multi-role fighters comparable to USA's F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. These are very capable planes.

The Su-30MK is capable of accomplishing a wide variety of combat missions at significant distances from the home base, in any weather conditions and in severe jamming environment, both by day and by night. This multirole aircraft is adequately fitted for the entire spectrum of tactical and operational combat employment scenarios, varying from counter-air tasks (ie. gaining air superiority, air defense, air patrol and escort) to ground attack, suppression of enemy air defenses, air interdiction, close air support and maritime attack. Additionally, the Su-30MK can perform ECCM and early warning tasks, as well as exercise command-and-control over a group of aerial combat assets performing joint missions.
The integrated aerodynamic configuration, combined with the thrust vectoring control ability, results in unprecedented maneuverability and unique takeoff and landing characteristics. Equipped with a digital fly-by-wire system, the Su-30MK is able to perform some very advanced maneuvers. They include the well-known Pugachev's Cobra and the Bell. While performing a somersault maneuver the aircraft makes 360-degree turn in the pitch plane without any loss of altitude. In the Controlled Flat Spin maneuver the aircraft performs several full turns in the horizontal plane, with zero forward speed, virtually on the spot. - From Wikipedia

These are not toy planes by any means.

Chavez has also bought 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and negotiated to set up a Kalashnikov factory in Venezuela. He has reportedly ordered nine Russian diesel submarines, including the cruise missile-carrying 677E Amur-class vessel.

The submarines will have high submerged cruising range and endurance, combat efficiency and reliability, and low acoustic signature. The Amur is intended to be the most advanced export design to date, incorporating many of the signature-reduction technologies proven on the Project 636 Kilo, notably anechoic tile coatings and a skewed seven-bladed propeller. Their sonar equipment includes highly sensitive direct-listening transducers at the forward end and a towed transducer array. It will be outfitted with six torpedo tubes, and its 18 weapons will comprise a mix of torpedoes and torpedo-tube launched missiles. Measuring 67 metres in length and 7.2 metres wide, It will include an anechoic tile coating on the outer hull and a skewed 7-blade propeller. The vessel's surface speed will be 10 kt; submerged 21 kt. The submerged cruising range using economic speed is 500 nautical miles at 3 kt. The maximum diving depth is 250 m, with an endurance of 45 days with a crew of 34. -From the Federation of American Scientists. org

Add in the cruise missiles that they can carry and this is more than an insignificant challenge. In the former Falklands conflict, Argentina had no Submarines, no Cruise missiles, and a few planes of an older, outdated model. Experts in military matters, which I am not, have stated that his influence would be significant and with the British forces currently in a weakened state, he would have noticeable impact. In my opinion, any military action would be foolish by either side and Argentina has no plans of any kind other than diplomacy.

Chavez commented that if action was taken against his south American neighbors, such as in the case of the Falklands conflict, that he would step in on their side. He was not threatening any new action specifically against the UK in his televised statement.

Originally posted by infinite
tut tut Terapin hijacking another Falklands thread

It's quite hilarious how he/she twist history and ignores certain key facts; like the Island was originally French.

And denying the right of the people of the Island who wish to stay British too.

*clicks ignore*

Infinite, it is not hijacking a thread when one corrects erroneous assumptions that have been made. I am simply interested in pointing out the facts. For example, While the French were the first to establish a settlement on the islands, they left voluntarily and were compensated by Spain for their efforts. They have never made a claim of sovereignty of the islands, over another nation ever since then. If you had read the thread you would see that I covered this information all ready.

As for denying the rights of the current inhabitants, I have not done so. I did however, point out that under the UN regulations on decolonization, which the UK helped to write by the way, Self Determination only applies to an oppressed population and not to a transplanted population. This is not my opinion, but a statement of the current facts which you can verify yourself. Britain has indeed negotiated for the return of the islands and Margaret Thatcher herself left out any talk of self determination. My opinion means nothing as I am not involved in any negotiations. I am simply pointing out the specific facts.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Actually the settlement was destroyed by an American warship thereby removing the government, Britain stepped in and took the island back.....

There is also a lot you forget to mention, it was not a settlement, it was a penal colony....hardly natural inhabitants of the island. Still I dont see WHY argentina is making a fuss of it....its only two islands. Why are you so desperate to have it back?

Yes, the American frigate “Lexinton” did indeed sack the colony and destroy the cannons in violation of the Monroe doctrine, but they did not remove all inhabitants and Argentina had ships out there in short order, reestablishing it's governance of the islands. The British returned to the islands with two frigates, “Tyne” and “Clio” and found the Commander of an Argentine frigate, José María Pinedo, who had been sent there to restore order to the islands and defend them. Further, while there was indeed a penal colony on the islands and a garrison, there were also settlers involved in agriculture, fishing, sealing, local commerce, and trade with ships that would on occasion stop at the islands. The British forced them to leave at gunpoint. In addition, a band of gauchos (Argentine cowboys) headed by Antonio Rivero resisted the British occupation for some months but they were hunted down. Rivero was eventually taken prisoner by the British and sent to Montevideo. This is well documented and not difficult to find. This is why I urge people to look beyond Wikipedia and to read the actual documents as common errors keep cropping up.

As for why Argentina wants the islands back.. Ask them. I am neither Argentinean nor British and am only reporting on the factual history of the islands. Your statement that it is only two islands, what's the big deal, could also be asked of the British and why they continue to maintain a colony there. The same reasons why the British wish to keep the islands, are probably why Argentina wants them returned. Natural resources, strategic location, National pride, etc.

reply to post by Terapin


Thanks for all the information I already knew.

Theres a wealth of difference between having something, and being able to use it effectively, and in large numbers.

An Su-30 can hop, skip and jump all it wants in a clean condition, but its a different story with a full weapons load out. Besides, its no use at all if its been shot down by an aircraft 110 miles away firing an Aim-120 AMRAAM, is it?

As for diesel submarines that don't exist yet, they aren't a potent threat, are they?

But, as I said, the key to the Falklands is air power. Thats why the MOD built a longer and bigger runway at Stanley, and put some powerful radar there.

My Opinion

The Europeans are always taken things that are not theirs in the first place. Just

by planting a flag they will proclaim a piece of land to be theirs LOL.

Britan is a European nation and Argentina is a nation of Europeans Immigrants!!

So I take it they just both arbitrarily claim the island to be theirs LOL.

well thats just my opinion

Originally posted by neformore

An Su-30 can hop, skip and jump all it wants in a clean condition, but its a different story with a full weapons load out. Besides, its no use at all if its been shot down by an aircraft 110 miles away firing an Aim-120 AMRAAM, is it?

As for diesel submarines that don't exist yet, they aren't a potent threat, are they?

But, as I said, the key to the Falklands is air power. Thats why the MOD built a longer and bigger runway at Stanley, and put some powerful radar there.  

  The Su-30 is highly capable with a full weapons load out, contrary to your comment, and should not be dismissed so lightly. The Su-30 is comparable to USA's F-14 Tomcat and F-15E Strike Eagle which have a well proven record. It's weapons load out is also quite impressive. Given the anti missile capabilities, and ground attack capabilities, there is no guarantee that it would be that easy to shoot down out of the sky.

In addition to the equipment Chavez bought from Russia he has also purchased maritime patrol aircraft and vessels from Spain. The Venezuelan forces also have  CF-5s, two older F-16 squadrons, (although only about 10 F-16's are flight ready), the French Mirage 50 and older-model Mirage IIIs and Mirage Vs, retrofitted to meet the more advanced performance standards of the Mirage 50s.  In June 1990, the air force also let a contract with Singapore Aerospace Industries to upgrade its older, American-made CF-5A and CF-5B fighter aircraft.  They have 58 Mi-17B5 Hip H, Mi-35M Hind and Mi-26T Havoc attack helicopters. They are training with BrahMos missiles which are supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from submarines, ships, aircraft or land. They have significant range and warhead capabilities and could eliminate any anti aircraft/ Radar systems based on the Falklands.
According to the RAF web page, The Falklands, at Mount Pleasant airbase, have only 4 older model Tornado F3s for air combat aircraft, and a few older ground attack helicopters, none of which are in hardened bunkers.

But this is not about whether sticks or stones are a better weapon. It is about the military potential and what it means. I am not a military expert, and based on your casual dismissal of the Su-30's my guess is that you are not either. What do the experts have to say about Venezuela's upgraded capabilities???
US State Department official Matthew Reynolds has publicly expressed its concern over Venezuela's multi-billion-dollar program to purchase arms and military equipment due to the significant potential they have.

Military analysts say Venezuela’s lengthening military reach might seriously impede any British attempt to dispatch a new task force (to the Falklands). -Timesonline.co.uk

(Venezuela's) operational capacity is truly surprising.- Global Security.org

According to military analysts, despite the fact that the submarines are not of the latest generation, they "constitute a potential threat to any naval or amphibious operation," as shown by the Falkland War, when a single, old Argentine submarine created enormous difficulties for the British forces. -Worldpress.org

According to Donald Rumsfeld, Venezuela's Weapons are a "Concern" given their potential and modern capabilities.

Gen. Bantz Craddock, former commander of U.S. Southern Command, said he finds Venezuela's weapon extravaganza worrisome because of their capacity.

In any case the "potential threat" means little as there is no indication that any military action in the Falklands is imminent. Argentina has no military plans for the Falklands and it is unlikely Britain will suddenly start something without provocation. Chavez likes to spout off and my favorite quote on the subject comes from Austin Bay,

Chavez will shadow box because it pays in cash. His bombastic threats spike oil prices, which benefits his regime. -strategypage.com

Originally posted by Terapin
I am not a military expert, and based on your casual dismissal of the Su-30's my guess is that you are not either. What do the experts have to say about Venezuela's upgraded capabilities???

I don't make statements on military issues without understanding the whole concept of dispersal, deployment and projection. It wasn't a casual dismissal.

Military analysts say Venezuela’s lengthening military reach might seriously impede any British attempt to dispatch a new task force (to the Falklands). -Timesonline.co.uk

(Venezuela's) operational capacity is truly surprising.- Global Security.org

According to military analysts, despite the fact that the submarines are not of the latest generation, they "constitute a potential threat to any naval or amphibious operation," as shown by the Falkland War, when a single, old Argentine submarine created enormous difficulties for the British forces. -Worldpress.org

According to Donald Rumsfeld, Venezuela's Weapons are a "Concern" given their potential and modern capabilities.

Gen. Bantz Craddock, former commander of U.S. Southern Command, said he finds Venezuela's weapon extravaganza worrisome because of their capacity.

Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMD's were in Iraq. He's in the business of scaremongering. The US "projection" of the last Falklands war was that the UK would be humiliated - they were so concerned that they offered to loan a nuclear powered CVN and its attack wings to the Royal Navy.

But.....you are focusing on amphibious issues still, and like I said its about air power. Are the Venezuelan's capable of setting up a CAP over Ascension to stop the transfer of UK Air Assests to the Falklands?

No.

E.3, Nimrod, Typhoon/Tornado F.3. Case closed. Not going to happen. Not a casual dismissal, not a comprehension exercise of various wikipedia articles, but an actual practical analysis.

I did not focus on anphibian issues. Neither did the Experts. The experts indicate that if Chavez were to add his forces the impact would be significant. In the Falklinda conflict, Argentina, with a rag tag force of outdated equipment, whos planes had about a two minute window before they had to return for fuel, managed to sink several British war ships and seriouely damage eighteen more.

Today, with more modern equipment do you seriously think that Britain would have things easier? It would not be a cake walk by any means. The UK would come out on top in the end because it can pull in more forces over time, but it would not be a clean and easy police action.

Again, As there is little threat of this ever comming to pass, Chavez is just ranting off in the hopes of greater attention.

As Terapin correctly restates; for various reasons as previously noted, this will not happen in the foreseable future.

However, if Chavez ever did join in on some sort of joint South American venture against the UK regarding The Falklands, I think the UK would still win.

I do think that iut would be much more difficult than proved in the past, merely because of the continued running down of British Armed Forces.

nefermore, you are obviously a lot more informed and qualified than I am in military matters so I am interested in your opinion in how we could cope with a joint South American invasion of The Falklands and your opinion on current UK military capability.

I have quite a few current and ex servicemen / women friends, most of who are of the opinion that we could not conduct a similar excercise today that we did in 1982 due to lack of equipment and continued under funding.
Perhaps this would be best discussed in another thread?

Originally posted by Terapin
Again, As there is little threat of this ever comming to pass, Chavez is just ranting off in the hopes of greater attention.

Again, again;

I don't think Chavez was even ranting off.
I think western media made it seem that way by taking a couple comments out of context and making mountains out of molehills.

I believe his comments were basically that if South America had been united, the war would have gone much differently. Also, a unified South America would be much better equipped to handle any future conflicts that might arise.

He's right.

Thing is, American Corporate interests can't allow that!
There's too much profit to be made raping the isolated and defenseless states of south America.
So....
Spin the man's speeches. Make him sound like a mad man. Make it acceptable to the public that he might need to be dealt with so they can continue with covert operations and not have to worry about as much blowback.

Originally posted by Freeborn
nefermore, you are obviously a lot more informed and qualified than I am in military matters so I am interested in your opinion in how we could cope with a joint South American invasion of The Falklands and your opinion on current UK military capability.

I have quite a few current and ex servicemen / women friends, most of who are of the opinion that we could not conduct a similar excercise today that we did in 1982 due to lack of equipment and continued under funding.
Perhaps this would be best discussed in another thread?

I'd agree with them, but then, as I keep trying to point out, we wouldn't necessesarily have to carry out a sustained Naval campaign

In a rare and particularly unusual piece of insight, the British Government and the MOD actually learned a few lessons from the Falklands War - and subsequent conflicts.

The first was that, given the current state of the Navy, carrying out sustained operations overseas was particularly difficult, so they looked at Stanley and built an air base at Mount Pleasant capable of recieving the largest transports they could get their hands on, as well as housing and supporting a fleet of fighter/ground attack and maritime patrol aircraft. What this meant was that the islands could be reinforced and re-supplied by air fairly quickly.

The second measure, was to equip the Invincible class "carriers" with AEW in the form of Sea Kings carrying radar which, whilst not being as effective as the US version using Hawkeyes, gave the fleet an over-the-horizon system capable of warning against incoming threats.

The MOD also fitted Phalanx missile defence systems to its Type 42 Destroyers, something which may well have saved Sheffield and Coventry, and also enhanced the radar systems on the ships so they could counter more close in threats with the Sea Dart missile.

Following on from the immediate aftermath, another lesson learned was that of more flexible airpower, hence the setting up of the Joint Harrier force, which was set up to give a wider pool of pilots, available equipment and experience should the carriers need to be deployed in combat operations again.

In another move to aid the faster deployment of forces HMS Ocean was commissioned as a troop carrying helicopter landing platform - something that was sorely missing back in 1982

Completing the lessons learnt, the Trafalgar class subs, capable of
launching Tomahawk Missiles were procured.

In more recent times - post Kosovo, the Joint Rapid Reaction Force was set up, which allows for several levels of response to crisis as seen fit.

So.... how would it play out?

There are about 500 British Troops permanently deployed to the Islands now, which means that a sizeable landing force, plus air backup is going to be needed to remove them. Air cover is provided by the F.3's. Any potential aggressor is, therefore, going to have to look at removing the standing forces and taking out four of the most capable interceptors in the world (despite what some people think, the F.3 isn't a sitting duck). Bear in mind that communications with the Falklands are much much better now than back in '82. As soon as the first shots are fired the reaction to them will be under way.

And thats the difference, because the forces there now aren't a rag-tag group of locals, they are highly capable members of one of the worlds premier military services. No suprise landings this time.

During that initial assault the troops on the ground would be deployed to defend the airfield at all costs. The UK would move the JRRF to resupply the forces there, which basically means chartering a couple of 747's, sitting 400 troops a piece on them (including members of the Special Forces)whilst loading their gear and air-defense/logistical reinforcements onto C-17's.

The RAF would immediately move to deploying an AWACS and Nimrod asset to the islands, and look to ferrying a squadron of GR4's and Eurofighters out as soon as possible to Ascension and then on to the islands. I reckon we're looking at a 72 hour timeframe for the intial deployment of troops, up to a week for the comabt aircraft.

The UK Government would, more than likely, extend an exclusion zone around the islands as it did in 1982, and order one, maybe two Trafalgar class subs to the area, with orders to prevent approching vessels from landing on the islands, possibly to track down and disable the Argentinian Carrier group and then look at deploying Ocean, with a full compliment of troops and one or both of Illustrious and Ark Royal (with one carrying attack helicopters), and support vessels into the area, approaching the Islands at maximum distance from the Argentine coast

Then god help anyone who came near.

So, my assessment is that unless the Islands are completely overrun within 72 hours and the airfield taken, the UK can reinforce and re-supply much more capable assets in theatre quickly, whilst defending an island from amphibious attack. The fleet could follow on if need be.

In short, its doable. The key is airpower and thats why Mount Pleasant Airfield was built.

I think that pretty much seals things.
Any military confrontation would clearly end in UK victory with serious political repercussions in Argentina and any supporting South American nations.

On the domestic UK political front it would be political suicide for any party to agree to a negotiated, peaceful handover of the islands.

The current islanders themselves wish to remain in the British Union.

The loss of the Islands would also result in the loss of the finances, power and influence that goes with access to the mineral deposits under The Falklands and associated areas.

This is just not going to happen, at least not for a very long time.
End of.

What I find interesting is Chavez's mention of joint South American military forces and a united political front.
The first steps towards a united South American Union?
Now what would be the US reaction to that?

While Chavez may talk about a unified South American force, his neighbors have expressed that they are not interested. It is unlikely to happen and some of his neighbors have stated that Chavez is a bigger threat than any from outside the area.

While it is certain that the UK would be able to bring in more firepower and sustain a higher level of support than Chavez and the Argentinians, initially they are not in such a good state of defence. While the Falklands Forces do have F3 jets, they only have four and they are of the older models. If Chavez chose to use less than half of his SU-30's along with Sub based missile support, he could potentially overrun the islands forces in short order. The problem lies when the UK begins to be able to bring in outside equipment. There wouldn't be enough time for Chavez to bring in ground troops and to set up any significant land based defences. It would all be Air and Naval based, and while formidable, the final outcome would be his loss. He would be able to cause significant damage however, and that is the problem.

In the Falklands conflict of 1982, the Argentineans, going it alone, with an outdated air force, whose planes had to approach slow to conserve fuel, and only had a two minute window, they were able to keep the British in hot water for quite some time. Casualties on the British side include 255 men, six ships (ten more had combat damage that was often significant), 34 aircraft and three civilian female islanders by friendly fire. It cost the UK £2.778 billion. Task force commander Rear Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward refers to the conflict as "a lot closer run than many would care to believe." Add to that conflict, a modern air force and cruise missile capable submarines and the damage Chavez alone could inflict would be far greater. In the end, his forces are far less than what the British could bring to the area and that is the deciding factor.

In addition, as in the previous conflict, the British would not be going it alone. Although it was in violation of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, the US provided the British with all manner of military supplies. This would more than likely happen in any future combat and ironically, it was the Americans who started the whole mess by attacking the Argentinians on the Falklands, in violation of the Monroe doctrine back in 1831.

Originally posted by Terapin
In the Falklands conflict of 1982, the Argentineans, going it alone, with an outdated air force, whose planes had to approach slow to conserve fuel, and only had a two minute window,

what utter twaddle - on paper the argentine afrorce was FAR stronger - it was equiped with mirage and rafale aircraft

look up thier specs

PS - as NONE of the supposed south american coalition you propose has any air to air refueling capability - so how do you propose that any current aggersors would fare any better ?

and any carrier borne assests they posess will either sit out the war , cowering in port - as the argentines did in 82 - or be deep sixed like the general belgrano was

none of your supposed alliance have the ASW assets to engage the RN hunter killers with any sort of relability

further - as already stated - the british army has a MINIMUM of one infantry battalion in garrison at all times - plus engineers , the RAF regiment detachment - providing air defences RAPIER and MANPADS

also the defenders are very well supplied with ATGW and motars - that would make chips of arigentine / south american forces on the beach heads

in 1982 the argentines made hard work of overpowering the 56 men of the naval party - who had almost no heavy weapons / support

what posseses you to think that any current strike on the island would prevail ?

Originally posted by amfirst
Who cares, the people on the land is happy the way it is, there's no need for a change in rule. Just like the Americans took land from the indians. I'm sure differnent indians took land from other indians, which is wrong also. All land has been own by different people in the past. Now, it depends on who they want as a goverment and if they're happy then let it be.

You have changed my perspective, I see the light. oh me and about 30 friends are comming over next week to take your house. I suggest you start packing unless you want to lose your stuff to.

(This is an example of the truth of what happens when people have their land taken, it is only an example, I will not be over at his house, nor do I know where he lives. It is hypothetical)

Firstly, this message was probably for public consumption to maintain his image with a large anti-American sentiment in his country.

Second I do not trust the translation and am more willing to believe he was saying Falkland like conflict.

From memory, British actually had to move troops in very vulnerable converted cruise ships.

I believe(just a guess) US subs were supporting them all over those waters. The Argentina Cruiser and a few destroyers turned tail and headed back to port, it had to be the water was swimming with subs.

Oil makes sense. but if the Panama goes down, or you want to run a clandestine sub from Atlantic to Pacific the Falklands would be a good place to watch for that. A western base in that region would be advantages for that reason, but I am only guessing.

reply to post by Chris McGee


GB keeps the FI under wraps and garrisoned because of the nice bulk of hydrocarbons that are waiting to be tapped into. Watch the price of oil go up and it becomes more viable to drill for them there
This is one of the factors for why we launched the taskforce back in 1982

Originally posted by ANOK
The Falklands war was nothing but a popularity boost for thatcher and her 'party'. The country was falling apart and her ratings were at an all time low. Nothing better than a good old war to rally the country around the flag. She was voted in office for a 2nd term.

The falklands war was nothing but a response to a foreign invasion of British terretorial soil. The side affects were not the reason for the war. If Argentina invaded Hawaii then im sure the US would have reacted the same as we did.

So the big mouth now wants to take on both the US and England, which means Nato and also the EU, as the Islands Are British and any attack on their land is an attack on all NATO/UK/EU.

I will laugh my arse off when he is removed and gotten rid of.

reply to post by Terapin



Can't argue with the facts as laid out by this person. That is unless you just go around justifying what you want after you've taken it.

I can just picture Maggie being told by her handlers that if she invaded the Falklands her ratings would go up -- her, admiring herself in a hand mirror and touching her hair whilst saying, "....rrrrreally"? No better than a soccor thug ......bully.