Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Argentine navy future

This is a discussion on Argentine navy future within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Gollevainen I understand your stand, you are (if opservered correctly) a representor of the "big navy" thinking ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 3.67 average.
Old September 18th, 2006   #31
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen
I understand your stand, you are (if opservered correctly) a representor of the "big navy" thinking with your service backround alone. But as a voice of small militaries (tough I've never been in naval service) I tend to see the things differently...tough I find the glimpses of slight chauvinism bit weird, but then again I've propaply bit provocated you so, I apologises...
I am representative of the "Big Navy." Does that mean I have exhibited hatred (chauvanism) towards small navies? I think not. To deny their capabilities (lack of AAW) to placate their sense of importance (prestige of carriers) would be reckless in any real-world setting. All I have said is, if you want a carrier you have to be able to protect it... they can not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen
I'm not saying that Argentina should seddle solely for Super Etendarts if it decides to resume it's carrier operations. There are few good candinates for light multirole planes with similar cabability in anti-shipping as Super Etendarts, but added with adequate airdefence capability as well.
Like what? They're not getting Rafales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen
The "pathetic" low sortie rate was enough for British to win the Falklands was without any CATOBAR fighters. And remember as i've pointed out several times, the main opponent that Argentinain carrier force would have to face is either Chile or Brazil, both lacking the capabilities of USN which would without a doupt be lethal threat to the argentinians if they would go agaisnt it. But against other navies (remember USN is regardless of it's oversize, still only one of the many navies in that area )
The "pathetic" sortie rate I was refering to does not apply to the UK V-TOL aircraft. They can take off and land almost at will. Thus the UK had a very high sortie rate.

My point regarding potential S. American opponents is Argentina's navy would not have a reason to conduct blue water ops. What target are they going after? They can't blockade out of Chile/Brazilian land based aircraft with surface ships. They would have to have air superiority to conduct any surface naval operations and this carrier would not help them achieve it. This has nothing to do with other navies, it has to do with air forces and air superiority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen
If Brazil sees it fit to have a CATOBAR carrier, there is no real reasons why Argentinains shouldn't have it as well. Ofcourse you might first say money, but what piece of military equipment is ever worht of it's prize
Yeah, well Brazil gave up Entendards for the even less capable Skyhawk. Explain that one. Wait I can. Because they got the whole package for 100 million. They don't need to protect it because it's worthless. It only serves to stroke their egos.
Big-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2006   #32
the corporal
Master Sergeant
Gollevainen's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: somewere in Hame, Finland
Posts: 328
Threads:
Quote:
Does that mean I have exhibited hatred (chauvanism) towards small navies? I think not.
Well thats why I said "slight glimpses". Using words like phatetic or generally denegrating the Argentinian navy is not entirely constructive either, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
All I have said is, if you want a carrier you have to be able to protect it... they can not.
And I've not disagreeing with that. Ofcourse carriers needs escort vessels, but unlike USN with rather unlimited recources, smaller navies have to seddle what they can have. If Argentinians should go for carrier, ofcourse that would require at least 3-4 modern escort ships with decent AA, ASW and AsuW ability. But if you look beond the borders, Brazilian navy is pretty much in the same situation as Argentinians are now whenit comes to escorting the carrier.

Quote:
Like what? They're not getting Rafales.
Why not? In fact in the future what prevents them having F/A-18, MiG-29K or even JSF?? France haven't been so picky over whom to sell it's weapons in the past, so why should they now (in theoretical hypetetis that Argentina would purchace a carrier) turn their backs to potent customer?


Quote:
My point regarding potential S. American opponents is Argentina's navy would not have a reason to conduct blue water ops. What target are they going after? They can't blockade out of Chile/Brazilian land based aircraft with surface ships. They would have to have air superiority to conduct any surface naval operations and this carrier would not help them achieve it. This has nothing to do with other navies, it has to do with air forces and air superiority.
Yeas, air superiocy, and only thing what Brazil needs is it's ageing A-4s when facing Argentinians in waters out of effective reach of Argentinian landbase airforces. Even A-4 when fighting against navy with limited airdefence (in modern standarts) and with no areal airdefence assets is a deathly to argentinian surface ships. Not to mention if Brazil would purchase even more sophisticated planes. So if Argentine wishes to face the challenge of Brazil, it needs to bring it's own naval airarm to the same seas. Othervice it's forced to near coastal waters. Remeber that the landbase aviation assets of Argentina is limited to Mirage III/5, A-4s and Super Etendarts. You can count the combat radius of those planes and see it for yourself how big the reach is.

If Brazil wins the naval dominance, which is more than possiple with it's naval forces being stronger, they are left quite freely to sinking Argentinian shippings which might proove out to be quite disastrous to Argentinas ability to continue this "hypothetical" war. Having a naval airassets of her own would however change the balance to another direction.

Quote:
Yeah, well Brazil gave up Entendards for the even less capable Skyhawk. Explain that one. Wait I can. Because they got the whole package for 100 million. They don't need to protect it because it's worthless. It only serves to stroke their egos.
Well I'm sure you are familiar with the fact that Brazil made the A-4 deal when they still didn't have the Sao Paulo, but the older carrier Minas Geiras. The latter, being a former HMS Venegeance, a Colossus class carrier. Colossus and it's sister class Majestetic was prooven out to be just too big for the Etendarts (In fact it was Argentina which found out this when they evaluated Super Etendarts onboard 25 de mayo, ex HMS Venerable). Colossus and majestetics are so small that A-4 is pretty much the sole flyable jet around that can operate from them.

I'm sensing some bad blood trying to sneak into our discussion, so lets not shame the bluecolour of us and lower ourselves to childish ranting...it would be just too silly. Ok?
________________
Once Gollevainen was biten by snake....

...after ten days of suffering the snake died
Gollevainen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2006   #33
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen
Well thats why I said "slight glimpses". Using words like phatetic or generally denegrating the Argentinian navy is not entirely constructive either, wouldn't you agree?
Pathetic is simply an adjective that in my use meant not adequate which their AAW capabilities and sortie rates are. I think I used it in it's proper context.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen
And I've not disagreeing with that. Ofcourse carriers needs escort vessels, but unlike USN with rather unlimited recources, smaller navies have to seddle what they can have. If Argentinians should go for carrier, ofcourse that would require at least 3-4 modern escort ships with decent AA, ASW and AsuW ability. But if you look beond the borders, Brazilian navy is pretty much in the same situation as Argentinians are now whenit comes to escorting the carrier.
When small navies settle for what they have they don't go around buying carriers. I guess if I am going to make any headway in trying to convince you that Argentina operating a carrier serves any more purpose than prestige I will have to point out what goes into protecting a US CVSG.

1 CVN with multiple strike and defensive elements
2 AEGIS cruisers
3 AEGIS destroyers
1 Frigate
2 SSN attack subs
1 Oiler
2 Supply ships

This list equals more AAW, ASW, AA and AG capability than all your listed countries combined. This is what is required to support and protect a CV. Do you think Argentina should get one and leave it unprotected b/c they won't ever be able to afford all this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen
Why not? In fact in the future what prevents them having F/A-18, MiG-29K or even JSF?? France haven't been so picky over whom to sell it's weapons in the past, so why should they now (in theoretical hypetetis that Argentina would purchace a carrier) turn their backs to potent customer?
mmm, how about money. Have you looked at their relations with the IMF lately. Resurgent inflation has always haunted them and it's rearing it's ugly head yet again. I just hope this time they don't default on the IMF again or no-one will ever lend them money again. Shame on me once, but twice... no way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen
Yeas, air superiocy, and only thing what Brazil needs is it's ageing A-4s when facing Argentinians in waters out of effective reach of Argentinian landbase airforces. Even A-4 when fighting against navy with limited airdefence (in modern standarts) and with no areal airdefence assets is a deathly to argentinian surface ships. Not to mention if Brazil would purchase even more sophisticated planes. So if Argentine wishes to face the challenge of Brazil, it needs to bring it's own naval airarm to the same seas. Othervice it's forced to near coastal waters. Remeber that the landbase aviation assets of Argentina is limited to Mirage III/5, A-4s and Super Etendarts. You can count the combat radius of those planes and see it for yourself how big the reach is.
First off Brazil's A-4 have no AShMs so they are usless in a strike role unless you want them shot down by Argie SAMs.

I think you missed what I said before. I hear your point of sea based fighters if they buy something decent. What I'm saying is Argentina's Navy is not going to operate outside of land based fighter cover. You mention how limited Argie range is and their navy is designed to operate in the litoral, not blue water. Blue Water = suicide. So it won't happen making this point stop here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen
If Brazil wins the naval dominance, which is more than possiple with it's naval forces being stronger, they are left quite freely to sinking Argentinian shippings which might proove out to be quite disastrous to Argentinas ability to continue this "hypothetical" war. Having a naval airassets of her own would however change the balance to another direction.
This is why Argentina needs tankers so they can deep strike Brazils navy like the sitting ducks they would be. If Argentina boosts her AF capabilities rather than her naval ones she will be in a much better position to crush her neighbors in a potential conflict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen
Well I'm sure you are familiar with the fact that Brazil made the A-4 deal when they still didn't have the Sao Paulo, but the older carrier Minas Geiras. The latter, being a former HMS Venegeance, a Colossus class carrier. Colossus and it's sister class Majestetic was prooven out to be just too big for the Etendarts (In fact it was Argentina which found out this when they evaluated Super Etendarts onboard 25 de mayo, ex HMS Venerable). Colossus and majestetics are so small that A-4 is pretty much the sole flyable jet around that can operate from them.
And the A-4s serve little purpose. What can they do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen
I'm sensing some bad blood trying to sneak into our discussion, so lets not shame the bluecolour of us and lower ourselves to childish ranting...it would be just too silly. Ok?
Why do you keep accusing me of sneaking in childish ranting? Quit the accusations and the conversation will progress just fine.
Big-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2006   #34
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
the nub of all this lies in a couple of fundamentals:
  • strategic requirement
  • tactical requirement.
  • doctrine
they are mutually exclusive - especially for a smaller navy. add in the witches brew ingredients of political interference and national pride and you have the makings of a floating cluster...
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2006   #35
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-E
And the A-4s serve little purpose. What can they do?
well, in addition to the Lear jet - they are one of the best platforms available to simulate a cruise missile attack. Thats mainly what we used to use the Kiwis scooters for.

In a contemp fight for battlespace - I'm not so sure they bring much leverage to the table - esp against the Brasilians....
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006   #36
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,685
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
well, in addition to the Lear jet - they are one of the best platforms available to simulate a cruise missile attack. Thats mainly what we used to use the Kiwis scooters for.

In a contemp fight for battlespace - I'm not so sure they bring much leverage to the table - esp against the Brasilians....
The Argentinean A-4AR Fightinghawks actually have a useful air-air capability. AN/APG-66(v)2 radar, other upgrades. Very like the Kahu Skyhawks. Brasilian A-4 are A-4KU - slightly modified A-4M.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006   #37
the corporal
Master Sergeant
Gollevainen's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: somewere in Hame, Finland
Posts: 328
Threads:
Quote:
Pathetic is simply an adjective that in my use meant not adequate which their AAW capabilities and sortie rates are. I think I used it in it's proper context.
History have showed several times how "phatetic" stuff eventually beats the sophisticated ones, so avoiding the bad karma, at least I tend to be cautions.

Quote:
When small navies settle for what they have they don't go around buying carriers. I guess if I am going to make any headway in trying to convince you that Argentina operating a carrier serves any more purpose than prestige I will have to point out what goes into protecting a US CVSG.
I know waht USN is made of, also I know in theory whats the minimal adequate escorting for carriers. But my point (which apparently haven't landed so well) is beeing all the time that Argentina isen't USA. They haven't got the capabilities of producing "effective" carrier taskforce in USN standarts, but they don't it. Why does Brazil have a carrier? Why did Argentina had a carrier? Why did Chile seeked carriers back in the early 80's? Why does Peru have a WWII era Light Cruiser(s) still floating? I've tryed to tell you that the Latin American countries tend to look naval matters bit differnetly than for example USA. When their whole naval precence is based on competiting against each others, it sort of creates a own world in which there are bit different rules than normal naval strategies. It have been for so since the 19th century and remains to be so too. You call it prestige, well it's true in the way but thats one of the definite features of that regions naval policy.

There is sort of balance of the technological elements which makes the navies. None of them have a Aegis type of airdefence ships, nuclear submarines, modern longrange interceptors or interdiction aircrafts. If suddenly one was to have a Aegis (or similar performance system) ship, it would make the brazilian carrierforce useless, but so far the best SAM systems in argentinas navy is Sea Sparrow (Seawolfs in those british ddgs are not-operational). If Argentina would go for nuclear subs instead of carriers, it would again shift the balance, but that would propaply be even more expensive than using seccond hand carriers.

Quote:
This list equals more AAW, ASW, AA and AG capability than all your listed countries combined. This is what is required to support and protect a CV. Do you think Argentina should get one and leave it unprotected b/c they won't ever be able to afford all this.
Well like I said it's required in USN. Other, smaller navies and countries have to seddle for compromises. During our army times, the drill instructors said constanly to us that "this is no *** US army, we cannot afford to let you use the rapidfire mode, so if I see any of you bastards firing rapid fire... "

Quote:
mmm, how about money. Have you looked at their relations with the IMF lately. Resurgent inflation has always haunted them and it's rearing it's ugly head yet again. I just hope this time they don't default on the IMF again or no-one will ever lend them money again. Shame on me once, but twice... no way.
Economical situations may change. And we are discussing in hypotheticaly, about the need of carrier. It's true that the current economical situation prevents Argentinians to even dream about carriers, but that doesen't eliminate the need of it in strategical levels.

Quote:
First off Brazil's A-4 have no AShMs so they are usless in a strike role unless you want them shot down by Argie SAMs.
Well they managed quite well to sink carriers back in the days beofre AShMs. Remember Argentina doesen't have anything else than Sea sparrows in those
MEKO class DDGs, other naval vessels are left with only AAA. So even ageing A-4s with freefall bombs would proove out to be quite serious risk.

Quote:
I think you missed what I said before. I hear your point of sea based fighters if they buy something decent. What I'm saying is Argentina's Navy is not going to operate outside of land based fighter cover. You mention how limited Argie range is and their navy is designed to operate in the litoral, not blue water. Blue Water = suicide. So it won't happen making this point stop here
Yeas, at the moment. But with carrier taskforce (Meaning in argentinas case, 1 carrier, 3-4 multirole FFGs or small DDGs with area-airdefence ability coupled with ASW suite and SSMs, 1-2 submarines and supportship(s)) you can bend the limits of your navy. It would be suecidal to go against USN or VMF or RN or MN but against Brazil...I don't think so.

Quote:
This is why Argentina needs tankers so they can deep strike Brazils navy like the sitting ducks they would be. If Argentina boosts her AF capabilities rather than her naval ones she will be in a much better position to crush her neighbors in a potential conflict.
Could be, It's all down to the school of toughts. I might argue that in hypotetical conflict, the somewhat limited argentinas airforce even with extended range with arealairfueling isen't sufficient enough to serve the navy as it have to spread it's small quantity to vast range and you need someone attacking on Brazils soil (the fourth or fifth largest in the wolrd) too.

Quote:
Why do you keep accusing me of sneaking in childish ranting? Quit the accusations and the conversation will progress just fine.
I'm not accusing you, I admitt i've might been provokating you too. The thing is that from experience I know that in situations like this where two strong minds depate over wievdifferences, things might get out of tracks if we allow ourselfs to lower the level of the conversation.
________________
Once Gollevainen was biten by snake....

...after ten days of suffering the snake died
Gollevainen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006   #38
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve
The Argentinean A-4AR Fightinghawks actually have a useful air-air capability. AN/APG-66(v)2 radar, other upgrades. Very like the Kahu Skyhawks. Brasilian A-4 are A-4KU - slightly modified A-4M.
I probably should have clarified my comments. IMV, the Argies wouldn't have much hope going up against the Brasilians as the latter have a much more integrated and balanced defence force.

they (Brasil) cetainly have a more robust and capable defence industry - and that has a dynamic advantage all of its own.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006   #39
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,685
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
I probably should have clarified my comments. IMV, the Argies wouldn't have much hope going up against the Brasilians as the latter have a much more integrated and balanced defence force.

they (Brasil) cetainly have a more robust and capable defence industry - and that has a dynamic advantage all of its own.
True. And a much larger economy & population. Argentinas best hope is a quick tactical win through surprise or superior leadership, a la June 1967, then sue for peace ASAP before the Brazilians get their industry mobilised. Not that there's actually any prospect of war between them. Argentina & Chile, now . . that is a possibility, though only a very faint one, & not under their current governments.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006   #40
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve
The Argentinean A-4AR Fightinghawks actually have a useful air-air capability. AN/APG-66(v)2 radar, other upgrades. Very like the Kahu Skyhawks. Brasilian A-4 are A-4KU - slightly modified A-4M.
Very interesting thanks !
What weapons do they use though ? I've only seen Piranhas which are AFAIK short range IR self defence missiles comparable to Sidewinders. Lack of BVR plus a subsonic speed hamper these birds a lot...
What armament did the NZ A4s have before being retired from service ?

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006   #41
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour
Very interesting thanks !
What weapons do they use though ? I've only seen Piranhas which are AFAIK short range IR self defence missiles comparable to Sidewinders. Lack of BVR plus a subsonic speed hamper these birds a lot...
What armament did the NZ A4s have before being retired from service ?

cheers
AIM-9L Sidewinders, AGM-65 Maverick missiles, 20mm cannon, Mk 82/83/82 bombs, GBU-10/12/16 bombs, A2G rockets etc. A uesful CAS, light strike and "point" air defence capability, but that was about it.

They also had an APG-66 radar system and a "buddy" A2A refuelling capability...

Such a waste.

Sigh...
  Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006   #42
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger
AIM-9L Sidewinders, AGM-65 Maverick missiles, 20mm cannon, Mk 82/83/82 bombs, GBU-10/12/16 bombs, A2G rockets etc. A uesful CAS, light strike and "point" air defence capability, but that was about it.

They also had an APG-66 radar system and a "buddy" A2A refuelling capability...

Such a waste.

Sigh...
Not bad for a relatively small and old plane ! Were the NZ A4s just scrapped ? Brazil could have been interested if only NZ scrapped them a bit later... though I'm not sure all A4s could be as easily navalized as those taken by Brazil from Kuwaiti stock.

thks
cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006   #43
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
@ Gollevainen

You say I need to get in the mind set of S. American navies. Your right, I need to understand their needs and geo-political mind set (wether I agree with it or not). So a few questions for you...

What is the goal of the navies of major S. American nations?

What are the threats they face?

How does a carrier integrate into these threats?

Are these threats outside of land based aircraft?

Are the tempos needed going to be met by a Foch style carrier?

I guess I need to hear your thought on these questions before I continue.
Big-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006   #44
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-E
@ Gollevainen

You say I need to get in the mind set of S. American navies. Your right, I need to understand their needs and geo-political mind set (wether I agree with it or not). So a few questions for you...

What is the goal of the navies of major S. American nations?

What are the threats they face?

How does a carrier integrate into these threats?

Are these threats outside of land based aircraft?

Are the tempos needed going to be met by a Foch style carrier?

I guess I need to hear your thought on these questions before I continue.
If only most governments and defence ministries followed this logical set of questions before taking up ships (and aircrafts and MBTs...) that don't make sense in their inventory

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2006   #45
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,685
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour
Very interesting thanks !
What weapons do they use though ? I've only seen Piranhas which are AFAIK short range IR self defence missiles comparable to Sidewinders. Lack of BVR plus a subsonic speed hamper these birds a lot...
What armament did the NZ A4s have before being retired from service ?

cheers
Piranha on the Brasilian A-4s. Argentina used to have R-530, R-550 & Shafrir. I'm not sure what the A-4ARs have. They're equipped to fire AIM-9L/M. BVR AAMs could be integrated, but Argentina doesn't have any.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:10 PM.