Better to have a carrier and not need it than to need a carrier and not have it
… Is that what I am saying , is nice to see someone with common sense.
Common sense?
OK then, better to have TEN carriers instead of none.
Better to have 15000 ICBM, just in case Brazil gets 12000!!!
Common sense eh!
Better to have 15000 ICBM, just in case Brazil gets 12000!!!
Is that suposed to be funny… :shock: … why I am not laughing … 
As I say before Brasil ir not our treath.
In the other hand, I particulary dont like to see Argentina involved in nuclear proyects for military use like India or Pakistan, it is my opinion that it will cause more trouble that it solved. The best alternative is a more modern and powerful conventional Armed Forces.
I think what your country has to do before modernising and getting a Carrier is genuinely sit down and see what you want to do.
What will you use your forces for and then you can decide on what equipment you will need to carry out your decisions.
To have a Carrier simply because you want one and then to have it sit in Port for its whole life because you cannot afford to use it is simply wasteful.
Surely this carrier will never operate beyond land based air cover? Unless Argentina is suddenly going to become involved in expeditionary type warfare in the Pacific or Indian Oceans?
Remember, as has been stated before, its not just the Carrier but the escorts and the support ships that will have to go with it.
I think the money could be spent much better on other military projects.
Firefly, believe or not I agree with the majority of your post.
And Man of Stoat…with your nice weapons post I honestly tough that you was a serius member, but seems to I had the wrong idea. :?
My previous post applies equally to any country. Just checking – are you aware of the English idiom “a white elephant”?
Excuse me for having a sense of humour!
Uncle Sam might even give them some early block F-16’s or F/A-18’s at bargain prices.
It will be great. But the cost lates is much expensive… :arrow:
My previous post applies equally to any country. Just checking – are you aware of the English idiom “a white elephant”?
Excuse me for having a sense of humour![/quote]
I am familiar with the meaning, only that your sense of humour stinks.
My previous post applies equally to any country. Just checking – are you aware of the English idiom “a white elephant”?
Excuse me for having a sense of humour![/quote]
I am familiar with the meaning, only that your sense of humour stinks.[/quote]
Wth respect Panzer, if you did understand the idiom then you would not be annoyed at the picture.
I thought it was very funny MoS.
just different points of view.
3D art about the TAM tank, all images made by Iñaki Karras from Valencia, Spain.
In the patagonian desert.
The southwest forest.
Gracias Iñaki
Panzerknacker- what is the current project production status on the TAM?
The state Factory TAMSE delivered the last of 256 TAMs in 1996, currently is inactive, the modernization and maintenance of the TAMs are made in other 2 private enterprises. There is about 80 chassis left in factory still waiting for his turrets.
The last thing I know about it is, maybe with a little modification
some of that material will be a VCTM (vehículo de combate transporte de mortero) (Mortar transport fight vehicle)
A few years ago, the turret was produced in Germany, and the shot computer too. :arrow:
What is the armour available on the TAM? What is it proof against? 7.62, 30mm, Milan?
Hull:
30 mm “Russian” APDS in the front , 25 mm “western” APDS in the sides.
Turret:
40mm front, 25 mm sides.