Well, Chile has an scorpene submarine,if that country has something like that!,then a country like argentina must have a VERY VERY BIG carrier! 
.
This leads right back to 1912 doesnt it? Chile has a Dreadnought, brazil has 2, we want 1 too.
Chile has a submarine, Brazil has some too etc etc etcâŚ
What good does it do except drain your money?
Chile hasnât even a national fabrication tanks,argentinas in chase of war can put the obligatory recruitment,and compare our population to the population of chile :lol: .
apart from TAM,we have the new TAN Patagon,a modern national tank,also im afraid chile hasnât a considerable army industry,they buy everything,most of their vehicles are different so guess what would be repairing them,also in chase of war bolivia and peru claim lands stolen by chile,and want war with them,if chile declares us the war,the same happens with bolivia and peru.
And the argentine troops by far have more balls,i never have seen chile in front to a first world country in the top 3 more powerfull countries (also argentina has more resources,population,territory,culture,human level,education,infrastructure) and is by far a more considerable country than chile!.
Argentina is a great army,i think itâs the best of LA but of course,after brasil that has a great army with a lot of efectives.
Greetings!.
Erwin, I have no idea about the Chilean Armed forces really. But do you think Argentina and Chile will ever go to war?
In the 78âs we were going to have war,but finally it ended in peace,the argentine army thanks to the dictatorship was really powerful,even more than when falklands war,and we could destroy chile easily,there was half million of argentine troops in our south prepared for the battle,the biggest number of troops movilizated there.
also peru and bolivia hate chile and viceverza,i have to say that chile has good armed forces,specially if we compare it to peru and boliviaâs army,but i think the argentine and brazilian forces are far better!.
greetings!
Sorry, fellow, but we cannot do much when the Air Force does not have a decent plane. Navy is still has private preserves the spare parts of its ships and the Army also doesnât have a really combative force when the state doesnât modernize its forces.
Exists an enormous will of the officers, but for the troops is just a work.
How many units battle ready are existed now aside from the Commandos and the marines? Few, very few, and it laments much this old soldier⌠:arrow:
Yes, it is, but we have a great coast and how other countries, we have to defend it. 8)
In that case C_C you would probably find it a great deal more effective and cheaper to defend your borders and coastline by building losts of small runways. These can be supported by C-130 (or similar aircraft) or by ground vehicles with the combat aircraft landing as neccesary.
During the cold war both the Warsaw pact and Nato had similar airfields. There are stretches of roads which suddenly go wide and straight, these are the dispersal fields for use in the event of WWIII. Your aircraft simply fly to the base land. Get refuelled from fuel bladders, rebombed and away they go again. This would include coastal defence and allow defence of your inland borders, in which a carrier would be useless.
You also canât sink a ground based airfield. An aircraft carrier would need a substantial flotilla around it, to provide a buffer zone for incoming threats, including itâs own submarine or two. At a rough guess you would need two anti-submarine vessels, one anti-aircraft vessel, one or two attack submarines aswell as a number of oilers and other support vessels. Aircraft carriers are horrendous to keep supplied for long missions.
This number would increase depending on the threat, if Chile (assuming this is your enemy) has two carriers you will need extra anti-aircraft ships to support the carrier and if you end up in a war with a nation that has superior submarines then you will need extra anti-submarine ships, remembering that even some of the diesals now a days are extremly quiet.
youâre right, for a confrontation of that kind.
In the war of today, everybody uses different factors of disuasion,
and for these places, it will be all right. :arrow:
Think of it as a guerrilla airforce.
Maybe not a p3nis extention like a carrier but a credible defence never the less.
Iâm talking of a WAR, guerrilla donât need a carrier, or planes like these.
We got the IA-58 PucarĂĄ for those operations. Guerrilla move in lands.
not in a cruiser, or fragate. 8)
It passing by the sexual opinion. :arrow:
What I meant C_C was that they would be fast, mobile, hidden and given a higher survivablity because of this style of working, which has similarities to gurrilla tactics.
The pocket battleships Graf Spee, Bismarck and Tirpitz all operated in a guerilla fashion also.
Obviously I wasnât saying that they would be a real guerilla fighters, as in the VC or similar. They would simply be able to operate in anypart of the country, with the enemy unable to second guess where they would operate from. Also attacks could reach far out, as they could take off from A (where they were refueled and bombed up), attack and land at B. Instead of always returning to their home field.
Pucarras are completely useless now adays against anything but 4th rate armies and backward air forces. However you can invest in some descent type helicoptors, for AG work and conduct descente ops or place people on the ground. Likewise there are fast jets out there that could operate from these primitive fields. Maybe Dani could tell us if a Mig-29 Fulcrum could. But Harriers or similar definitly could. The British have landed fast jets such as Jaguar on stretches of our countries motorways.
And obviously I didnât mean real gorillas, that would just be silly and they are an endangered species.
The P3nis extentions referrs to the fact that it may be sexy or seen as good to have a whopping great carrier, but in fact it isnât always neccesary.
A carrier, in military terms, is used to project power into an area where a country needs it and may have few freindly areas to operate from. Or it is used to show the world how âgreatâ a nation is.
Unless the Argentines are going to start fighting or invadeing places where they do not have support or friendly neighbours do they need a carrier?
A carrier is certainly not a defensive asset, as it almost becomes a burden in itself to defend.
Ahem, 1000yds. Do i need to remind you that there was nothing âpocketâ about Bismark and Tirpitz, they were infact, full-size battleships? :oops:
carrier is certainly not a defensive asset, as it almost becomes a burden in itself to defend
If the US navy had follow your military thinking in the WW2, they would be speaking japanese right now. :lol:
The reason for the carrier are simply, the Navy had it in the past, and they need to have it now.
But why does Argentina need an aircraft carrier? What purpose will it serve?
UrrrghhhâŚIs so hard to understand ?? :? , the purpose is the defense of the national soil and maritime resources and provide the Navy more range for his operationsâŚyou start to sound like a chilean.
And that purpose cannot be achieved without an expensive aircraft carrier, why not just buy moders aircraft and a few modern Tankers? Then you can get multi purpose ships for the Navy.
Where were you all the time that i have been searching you!!! 
,
Viva Panzerknacker!
Good point firefly, by modifying aircraft such as airbus and boeing products it is possible to have an aircraft that could carry troops, carry fuel or be permanently assigned to maritime patrol (a job that the Nimrod in UK does very well) over long distances, the full width of the Atlantic for example.
As has been pointed out it is not as simple as purchasing a carrier. It has to be defended and supplied in operation. Not to mention initial equipping costs for the airwing, etc. Unless Argentina has designs on another country not connected to it by land, and not near it. Or they wish to get in to the force projection business they donât need a carrier.
If Chile is all you are worried about, you donât need a carrier as it would in fact serve no real purpose, and be an achilles heel to your navy. It would either never leave port or tie up vital ships, that could be used else where, to defend it.
The reference to the US is flawed. The aircraft carriers at the start of WW2 werenât as active or as potent as they were later. There were only 7 or 8 fleet carriers and one escort carrier at the time of Pearl Harbour in the Pacific. In association with the flying aircraft carriers such as the USS Macon and her sister ships (that were decommisioned in the early 1930s) their aircrafts main roles were to recon, air defence, limited ground attack and attacking capital ships in support of/supported by Battleships (depending on which source you read). It was only when the CVEs were commissioned in greater numbers and the CVBs, in around 43, that the carrier, as we all know it, became what it would be in the future.
After Pearl Harbour the carriers roles, especially in the Pacific were altered to be more offensive. After seeing what an air attack carried out by carrierbourne aircraft was capable of, the attack on Pearl Harbour was seen by the Japanese as a very risky but doable operation. It is worth noting also that the Japanese were horrified by the success of their operation, as it showed how vulnerable to air attack a surface ship was, and promptly ordered the beefing up of their ships AA defences. They had expected massive losses in the attack, which is why they ordered the mission to be cancelled if Pearl Harbour showed any signs that it was pre-warned or ready for an attack - which it wasnât.
The following is about the Yamato but shows how ships Air defences were constantly being upgraded through the war, in all navies. Pearl Harbour was Dec 1941, 18 months laterâŚ
In May 1943, she returned to Kure where the two wing 15.5 cm turrets were removed and replaced by 25 mm machine guns, and Type-22 surface search radars were added. She returned to Truk on 25 December 1943, and on the way there, she was damaged by a torpedo from the submarine USS Skate, and was not fully repaired until April 1944. During these repairs, additional 12.7 cm anti-aircraft guns were installed in the place of the 15.5 cm turrets removed in May, and additional 25 mm anti-aircraft guns were added.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato
Panzerknacker wrote
If the US navy had follow your military thinking in the WW2, they would be speaking japanese right now.
Even if the Americans had had no aircraft carriers at the start of the war, they would still have won. The USN was too big for the Japanese to defeat, with the vast resources of America to back it up. The Americans also had vast numbers of cruisers, destroyers and frigates to defend the carriers. With enough left over to deploy cruiser squadrons to flank the battle ship groups with assorted destroyer and frigate protection also.
Panzerknacker wrote
The reason for the carrier are simply, the Navy had it in the past, and they need to have it now.
The navy had cannons, muskets and scurvy in the past too.
Bladensburg, My bad, I confused the size of the Bismarck class with the role. All 3, Graf Spee (and her sisters), Tirpitz and Bismarck, had a similar mission which was to be an independant hunter of commerce ships in particular, although vulnerable warships were also targetted. And were equipped as such for this task. Although I admit their sizes were widely different.