Argentinian Military

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#241

worried about chile?,we can put the conscription and have 4 times his regular troops! (there is obligatory service there adn they still have low numbers),not to say that we have national fabrication waeponss (TAN PAtagon is a national tank and it’s very modern,much more than the TAM),and why would we need navy to attack them if they are connected to us by land?,we have our capital far from their,they need to conquer 3 provinces to attack our capital,and argentina jumps from mendoza to santiago and…bang,we cutted their supplies,most of chile is in santiago,the rest of chile is crap.

viva argentina!

#242

Erwin wrote

worried about chile?,we can put the conscription and have 4 times his regular troops! (there is obligatory service there adn they still have low numbers),not to say that we have national fabrication waeponss (TAN PAtagon is a national tank and it’s very modern,much more than the TAM),and why would we need navy to attack them if they are connected to us by land?,we have our capital far from their,they need to conquer 3 provinces to attack our capital,and argentina jumps from mendoza to santiago and…bang,we cutted their supplies,most of chile is in santiago,the rest of chile is crap.

So a carrier and its associated expenses are need because…

#243

Argentina is a big country,so its has a big sea, Argentina needs protection,as one of the richest countries in natural resources we would fear the interests of powerful expansionists countries,israel wanted to form their own country called “andinia” in the zone of the entire patagonia,that means stealing all our south and forming a big israel,the same happened when the Sas had operations to attack our south during the falkalnds conflict.thanks to our luck none of this things happened,today,argentina has more enemies than friends,and it’s our responsability to keep argentina for the argentines, and defend us for countries that we consider as hostile to us.
imagine,european countries with pretty small seas have a lot of carriers,we,with a giant country,a lot of sea,and illegal fishers from first world countries stealing our fish,we need protection.

the army is very good,but politics want to destroy it, the navy is good,but it isn’t adquiring nothing new or modernizing,our airforce,the best of the world in a time,now is destroyed and with aircrafts of museum!.

this country needs to get up,we have all conditions needed to be an empire,a more or less necesary amount of population,good infrastructure,natural resources,good human level culture and education,territories,good weather,cult people,what do we need?,we need to kick the corrupt politics,and to have an army,if we don’t do,i wouldn’t like to be in a country anexed by an expansionist world power.

#244

about the expenses,we have a lot of money for paying it,we are going to pay the money that the IMF lent us,and we have more,if our politics make a better distribution of the resources,we would be able to grow our armed forces.

i hope one of those powerful guys do something for all this people down the stairs.

#245

PzKnacker, I fully understand and applaud your patriotism but there are actually a number of members with a vast range of practical experience in military matters rather than a most praiseworthy interest in the subject.
These gentlemen have tried to explain as gently as possible that carriers are very, very expensive - not to purchase so much but to maintain.

1000’ suggested an eminently workable and tested solution at a fraction of the price.
Admittedly it does not have the undoubted immediate attraction of a large flagship with it’s attendant covey of support and defence ships, but one must ask what would be the purpose of such a fleet when there are other less glamorous projects which the same money could - or perhaps should - be spent.

Now, and please don’t take this as a criticism, I realise that machismo is a facet of the Latin-American character and that it is important for you to have the respect of your neighbours, but the bottom line is that Argentina does not actually need a force projection capability.
(Fishery protection does not require carriers by the way Erwin.)

“Unless, you the readers, have access to other information…”

#246

let’s see,yes,you said that carriers are expensive for us,in more words,well,ARGENTINA IS RICH,FULL OF MONEY,but argentine people don’t receive it,the politics receive it.

i prefer the politics spending the money in a carrier than in their own life!,also this country is big and full of natural resources like i said,and countries with big armies and less territory,natural resources,etc woould like to invade us im afraid.

so the best thing is prevent our country from an attack that will happen,we don’t know when ,but im sure there will be a war here.

in fact,we can waste the money,there are better ways to spend it,but the patriotism calls,i prefer to be a poor argentine instead of a rich foreigner.

#247

we would fear the interests of powerful expansionists countries,israel wanted to form their own country called “andinia” in the zone of the entire patagonia,that means stealing all our south and forming a big israel,the same happened when the Sas had operations to attack our south during the falkalnds conflict.

Apart from a helicopter that crashed on your continent with a handfull of men (not country) during 1982 I can’t recall a single SAS operation to attack your south.

Can you prove that Israel wanted/wants to form their own country called andinia? Preferably from a less rabid site than this ww…org. A full explanation how this invasion was to occur would also be nice considering in a rough estimation…

they only have 100,000 troops of which only 4 brigades are airmobile.
they have only C-130 as tpt planes, f-14, f-15 and cobras as offensive aircraft.
they have no ships large enough for the job.
they have 6 subs, 3 of which were commisioned in 1971.
they don’t have an aircraft carrier either.

Your coastline is indeed vast, which is why you can’t defend it with one or two carriers. You have 1656 miles of coast line of which a carrier could only defend maybe effectively 150 miles tops, with it’s carrier surface group. As for the CAGs combat air patrols, even with the long endurance of F-14s, with a range of 1853 miles, this would mean that your carrier would have to sit in the middle of the countrys coastline to allow the aircraft to fly their 900 mile patrols.

So although technically possible, the defence would be sparse at best, and the fighters would not have much loitering time nor fighting time at after about 500 miles anyway. Also these aircraft have to balance the fuel they carry with the weapons they carry, otherwise they can’t get off the ship. Further distance of patrol = less ordinance. Also on return the aircraft might have to dump its ordinance or fuel to land in the event of a quiet mission.

Long range maritime patrol aircraft, however, flying in race track patterns up and down the coast vectoring in ground based strike aircraft would be a lot more efficient. These aircraft could also carry more fuel and ordinance as they would take off from land.

#248

yes sir,this proves what israel wanted with our territory,they wanted to make their own new country called “Andinia”

here you can see:

http://www.patagoniaargentina.8m.com/VIP/Patagonia-ocupada.htm

#249

On subject of the rich Argentine nation but poor people, would it not be better to use the money to help the people?

I am not convinced the IMF loaned the money to you so you could buy a shiny new aircraft carrier.

#250

but you have to take in count that the carrier would have more firepower (thanks of course to the aircrafts on it),than another kind of ship,it has of course a different purpose than a battleship,but both it and this are the most powerful ships.

also the aircrafts in the carrier would have more range of defense, the aircrafts can land in argentina instead of the sea if they want too.

#251

how funny,fishering protection was just an example idiot,i don’t want your expansionist country invading mine because you don’t have tha half of the natural resources that we have,THAT IS ENOUGH FOR YOU??.

#252

Behave Erwin.

Britain is not likely to invade Argentina.

#253

Let him believe that his country is important enough to be invaded, and that Britain is still in the business it was in hundreds of years ago.

Meanwhile, we can sit back and laugh at his country’s economic record despite all these huge quantities of natural resources that it apparently has. Perhaps it does have them – but they don’t do anyone any good by sitting there in the ground untapped.

#254

How do you know?,if it’s not britain it can be Usa,China or Israel!!!.

I don’t want to have strange hats and talk languages with a femenine tone.

For gods sake!,i know that you wouldn’t like to see argentina armed from the feet to the tooths,but don’t worry,argentine politics will make us fall if we don’t kick them.

#255

GDP (purchasing power parity) – $483.5 billion (24th in the world, comparable with the Netherlands – a tiny country of 16 million people with almost no natural resources)
GDP per capita – $12,400 (71st in the world, comparable with Lithuania – a post-communist economy)

Argentina benefits from rich natural resources, a highly literate population, an export-oriented agricultural sector, and a diversified industrial base. Over the past decade, however, the country has suffered problems of inflation, external debt, capital flight, and budget deficits. Growth in 2000 was a negative 0.8%, as both domestic and foreign investors remained skeptical of the government’s ability to pay debts and maintain the peso’s fixed exchange rate with the US dollar. The economic situation worsened in 2001 with the widening of spreads on Argentine bonds, massive withdrawals from the banks, and a further decline in consumer and investor confidence. Government efforts to achieve a “zero deficit,” to stabilize the banking system, and to restore economic growth proved inadequate in the face of the mounting economic problems. The peso’s peg to the dollar was abandoned in January 2002, and the peso was floated in February; the exchange rate plunged and real GDP fell by 10.9% in 2002, but by mid-year the economy had stabilized, albeit at a lower level. GDP expanded by more than 8% in 2003 and again in 2004, with unemployment falling and inflation remaining in single digits.

Source:http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ar.html

#256

GDP (purchasing power parity) – $483.5 billion (24th in the world, comparable with the Netherlands – a tiny country of 16 million people with almost no natural resources)
GDP per capita – $12,400 (71st in the world, comparable with Lithuania – a post-communist economy)

Argentina benefits from rich natural resources, a highly literate population, an export-oriented agricultural sector, and a diversified industrial base. Over the past decade, however, the country has suffered problems of inflation, external debt, capital flight, and budget deficits. Growth in 2000 was a negative 0.8%, as both domestic and foreign investors remained skeptical of the government’s ability to pay debts and maintain the peso’s fixed exchange rate with the US dollar. The economic situation worsened in 2001 with the widening of spreads on Argentine bonds, massive withdrawals from the banks, and a further decline in consumer and investor confidence. Government efforts to achieve a “zero deficit,” to stabilize the banking system, and to restore economic growth proved inadequate in the face of the mounting economic problems. The peso’s peg to the dollar was abandoned in January 2002, and the peso was floated in February; the exchange rate plunged and real GDP fell by 10.9% in 2002, but by mid-year the economy had stabilized, albeit at a lower level. GDP expanded by more than 8% in 2003 and again in 2004, with unemployment falling and inflation remaining in single digits.

Source:http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ar.html[/quote]

i said that argenitna is full of cash,BUT THAT CASH IS IN THE HANDS OF THE POLITICS,NO THE PEOPLE!!!
you don’t know how to cut and paste,do you?

Edited by Dani (removing the insults)

#257

Man of Stoat you should quote full paragraphs or all relevent sentances not just bits e.g.

So you think Erwin’s country is worth invading? I know you don’t think so but it is easy to make it appear so by only quoting bits.

#258

thankyou very much SS

#259

Panzerknacker wrote
Quote:
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.

Huhummm…I was meaning that if you already have trained pilots for carriers operations and you buy carrier based aircraft you need to have a carrier to mantain this level of equipment in the navy.
:roll:

#260

PzKnacker, I fully understand and applaud your patriotism but there are actually a number of members with a vast range of practical experience in military matters rather than a most praiseworthy interest in the subject.
These gentlemen have tried to explain as gently as possible that carriers are very, very expensive - not to purchase so much but to maintain.

1000’ suggested an eminently workable and tested solution at a fraction of the price.
Admittedly it does not have the undoubted immediate attraction of a large flagship with it’s attendant covey of support and defence ships, but one must ask what would be the purpose of such a fleet when there are other less glamorous projects which the same money could - or perhaps should - be spent.

I fully undestand that, but I dont understand the question like " why you need a carrier"…or the tremendous worry that some members have for our finances.

Now, and please don’t take this as a criticism, I realise that machismo is a facet of the Latin-American character and that it is important for you to have the respect of your neighbours

I am not a Machist…I am macho…that is not the same. :lol:

but the bottom line is that Argentina does not actually need a force projection capability

That is a opinion not a fact.

Let him believe that his country is important enough to be invaded

M.o.S…that comment…is not very fortunate one, you could easily save it.

Lather I show you tha expensive things that Chile has bought, but off course nobody says nothing to the chileans.