Argentinian Military

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#301

Yeah lad,we also need such things,but a Carrier wouldn’t have more firepower than more or less the 300 modern tanks together!!!, i know it’s expensive as shit,but with support and escorts,a carrier would be like an entire land force at the time of attack from the air to ground (i say air and not sea because the carrier uses the planes for attacking).

of course what you have said is necesary,but comparing us to other latin american countries,it’s obvious that we need a masterpiece,the chileans have an scorpene french sub,then,why we wouldn’t have a fat,explosive,armed,stinky,bad and letal carrier? :smiley: .

Greetings

ES[/quote]

A carrier more power than 300 tanks??!?!

A carrier is not a cruiser, a carrier is not well-knew by its weapons. A single attack of four aircraft, each with two missiles type AM-39 Exocet II or the latest versions of the AGM-84 Harpoon would be enough to the sinking of the carrier, but is really difficult to destroy 300 tanks, don’t you think?

#302

A carrier never go alone in a conflict. And aboard it have a lots of aircrafts.
Don’t compare the sea and the ground forces, because if in the sea don’t have superiority, in the ground the battle will be dramatic.
I think the navy must have a carrier, the coast of our country are vast,
and always there are a menace around… :arrow:

#303

Yeah lad,we also need such things,but a Carrier wouldn’t have more firepower than more or less the 300 modern tanks together!!!, i know it’s expensive as shit,but with support and escorts,a carrier would be like an entire land force at the time of attack from the air to ground (i say air and not sea because the carrier uses the planes for attacking).

of course what you have said is necesary,but comparing us to other latin american countries,it’s obvious that we need a masterpiece,the chileans have an scorpene french sub,then,why we wouldn’t have a fat,explosive,armed,stinky,bad and letal carrier? :smiley: .

Greetings

ES[/quote]

A carrier more power than 300 tanks??!?!

A carrier is not a cruiser, a carrier is not well-knew by its weapons. A single attack of four aircraft, each with two missiles type AM-39 Exocet II or the latest versions of the AGM-84 Harpoon would be enough to the sinking of the carrier, but is really difficult to destroy 300 tanks, don’t you think?[/quote]

Lad, 300 tanks,which kind,sk-105? :slight_smile: ,a carrier has aircraft,you cannot compare the anti-aicraft weapons of a tank that are crappy with a air to ground misile!,also it wouldn’t be easy for tanks to destroy the planes.

apart from that you can load aircrafts with powerful weapons,what has a tank?,a sabot? :lol: .
a cruiser isn’t good as a carrier,a plane in a carrier can load a nuke if it wants! :shock: .

i know that 4 misiles can destroy the carrier,but a carrier has fighters and escorts defending it!!!

#304

You have to situate in a hipotetic conflict
Everybody’s first attack is to the coast. And with 300 tanks can’t defend
all the coast.
Once, a 300 tanks cannot do it, I know we have too the artillery, etc.
But the problem always is the same. The sea. :arrow:

#305

True words,also,Infantry win wars :wink:

#306

The infantry is the “Queen of the battles” :arrow:

#307

:smiley:

#308

If you ever go up against a modern navy with modern submarines, this carrier of yours would sink faster than an extremely fast-sinking thing.

Surely it will be better to spend the money on something/somethings which is/are less of a torpedo magnet?

#309

I would still like the question answered. Why have a carrier? Please explain what it would do if it wasnt there for a war with Chile or Brasil?

You all keep forgetting that you have to support and pay for the damned thing (except Eagle).

#310

Aircraft carriers are for projecting military power outside the range of home based forces & are merely a liability in most defensive situations; the only exception I can think of was the use of Escort, or “Woolworths” Carriers in the Battle of the Atlantic.
An enhanced air to air refuelling capability would better serve Argentina’s needs.

#311

Sorry but a carrier can not be compared to any number of tanks.

A carrier would be a priority target for anyone attempting an invasion or defending their own territory. The idea that it is invulnerable is also flawed. Unless it well protected it is vulnerable, and always will be. Google “USS Cole” for some ideas…

It is an expensive white elephant at the moment and the only thing it would probably do is either signal the invasion is imminent by suddenly changing course to the bottom of the sea or spend the war tied up because it can’t be defended properly.

New submarines on the other hand and/or new maritime patrol aircraft would sort out any problems of sea defence very well.

Also you can not defend your coast with one carrier. You will need other assets as well. all of which will be drained of resources by this carrier.

#312

Well with the carrier or not I would put my money in aircraft, I think the Army is relatively well equpped by now.

And talking about submarines here is some pics of SSK ARA Salta (modified U-209) under refurbishing. the data is early 2005.

#313

:lol: ,lad,our navy is equiped as shit,we cannot fight a single boat,even our air force is better.

#314

I say ARMY…not navy :roll: and relative …you know.

#315

excuse me.

#316

I’m still question, what going to modernize then?
:arrow:

#317

Well, is more a refurbishing than modernizing, check this link, the work is completed already.:

http://www.fuerzasnavales.com/070905_2.html

There is no more info about the others submarines hulls ( casco) that you see in the Domeq Garcia shipyard.

#318

Better to have a carrier and not need it than to need a carrier and not have it.

#319

Even if it is unaffordable and thus strips the rest of the defence budget bear?

#320

I still contend there is no reason for it, except as a might white elephant.