well money ofcourse is the sole idea of why wouldn't some country not to have carrier, but if there would be insane enough government to pay for new carrier, no-one can denye its tactical uselfullness. Even single carrier can bring the crucial fighter-bomber squardon directly to the zone of combat, and therefore it would allow the argentinian navy to decide where it wants the conflict to take place, as the accompanionign airgroup travels along. None of the local navyes have posessed a true AAW ships (apart form the lates two dutch ships in Chilean fleet....) so airthread of six- to twelve Super Etendards whit exocets would be major force multiplyer.
Argentine navy future
- Thread starter kilo
- Start date
contedicavour
New Member
While reading the previous posts, I've been surprised to read that Brazil's Air Force is receiving a dozen Mirage 2000 A/Bs. I thought that purchase had been suspended, just as the programme to replace the Mirage IIIs.
Back to the thread's subject, given Argentina's current policies (closer to Venezuela, and pro-Mercosur as a way to build a bulwark against the US), I doubt the US will help out by delivering second hand OHPs, which would be very useful. I'll explain why : Argentina's surface fleet lacks decent ASW (no VDS or towed array sonars, only hull sonars, and no dedicated ASW helo). Yes, the 3 SSKs may help, but the surface fleet is extremely vulnerable to enemy SSKs or SSNs (a single RN Trafalgar would sink the entire fleet without much of an effort). Forget a carrier for offensive operations with Super Etendard, priority is ensuring proper defensive operations.
cheers
Back to the thread's subject, given Argentina's current policies (closer to Venezuela, and pro-Mercosur as a way to build a bulwark against the US), I doubt the US will help out by delivering second hand OHPs, which would be very useful. I'll explain why : Argentina's surface fleet lacks decent ASW (no VDS or towed array sonars, only hull sonars, and no dedicated ASW helo). Yes, the 3 SSKs may help, but the surface fleet is extremely vulnerable to enemy SSKs or SSNs (a single RN Trafalgar would sink the entire fleet without much of an effort). Forget a carrier for offensive operations with Super Etendard, priority is ensuring proper defensive operations.
cheers
land areal support isent as usefull as fully seaborne force. I think there is lot of examples and ill-fated friendly fire sinkings in the history that speaks ill for that sort of configuration. If there would be theorethical change to Argentina to budgetise a new carrier, it wouldn't be useless. Carriers are at theri best in the power projection, but thats not the sole purpose that they can benefit, expecially smaller navyes facing equal opponents. Aircrafts are pretty often quoted as the most practical way of ASuW as well as active fighter defence is lot better than sole relying to shipborne SAMs (thougth Argentina wouldn't been having either of them). But if the organic fleet aircover is to be land based, it makes easily the distances (even whit tankerplanes) so long that the tactical requirments can change several time before the planes enter the combat zone.
the problem with land based air is that its persistence is governed by a static deployment hub - admittedly that hub can be modified by air to air refueling etc... but it more or less imposes or dictates a lack of flexibility in response.Gollevainen said:
maritime air provides greater fluidity as its deployment hub is fluid (in more than one sense
)I'm not so sure land based ASW has as many advantages as maritime based ASW - helos, for example provide far greater persistence and compression over a target. they can also be shared amongst any assets with a deck or fantail. In the case of a group, it can provide the opportunity to load up attending ships/escorts with the carrier wings ASW rotors, and allow more fixed wings on board (kind of useful if greater strike capability is required - esp if another strike group is near by - or friendly and capable land based air is nearby)
Carrier is as its simples form a sea beased airfield and in that primitive funciton it had been the main body of Argentine and brazilian fleets since the end of the dreadnougth-era. Unlike ones so blinded by the cold war superpower orientated warfare migth usually think, carriers havent 'lose' their orginal idea of bringing simple aircover to the fleet, and even today similar strategies can be used if the conflict isent fougth against superpowers with limited stocks and arsenals. Falkald itself was a good example of this, as was the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war, that without overhelming threat against the carrier, it brings unmatched edge to the fleet fielding it.
Offcourse there are good reasons for not to such small navyes to have them (usually from the bigger nations citizens mouths) but it doesent give them any less tactically distavantage. The range of the argentinian martime aviation shouldn't be determ solely on the basis of how far can its Etendards reach on straigth foward fligth. When deployed in the heart of the naval units, the planes can be loaded whit lesser fuel and more armament to get more out of the planes potential if compared to land based planes that usually require huge range to reach the operational area and stay there for the required time.
Offcourse there are good reasons for not to such small navyes to have them (usually from the bigger nations citizens mouths) but it doesent give them any less tactically distavantage. The range of the argentinian martime aviation shouldn't be determ solely on the basis of how far can its Etendards reach on straigth foward fligth. When deployed in the heart of the naval units, the planes can be loaded whit lesser fuel and more armament to get more out of the planes potential if compared to land based planes that usually require huge range to reach the operational area and stay there for the required time.
This is the heart of the debate. I say for Argentina to get a carrier gives their naval forces a tactical disavantage. Not b/c they have it, but b/c of all the resources needed to protect it. Without a multiple intercept AAW system on any escorts and her lack of quality organic fighter cover (which Super Entedards are pathetic) makes her a bigger liabilty than asset. If any nation with semi-quality strike fighters decides to launch an ASM attack against the fleet she'll go to the bottom, fleet CAP or not. The best protection the fleet can have is land based CAPs over the coast. The limited air-wing her mini-flatops can produce along with the pathetic sortie rates of that class of carrier is useless. All she is really capable of is ASW operations but that can be accomplished without the need for a CATOBAR carrier.Gollevainen said:
If they want to conduct long range flight ops get a tanker. Leave the carriers to the big boys.
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'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. 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 )
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
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. 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
) 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
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.Gollevainen said:
Like what? They're not getting Rafales.Gollevainen said:
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.Gollevainen said: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
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.
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.Gollevainen said: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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.Gollevainen said:
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.Gollevainen said:
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.
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.Gollevainen said:
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.Gollevainen said:
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.
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.Gollevainen said:
And the A-4s serve little purpose. What can they do?Gollevainen said:
Why do you keep accusing me of sneaking in childish ranting? Quit the accusations and the conversation will progress just fine.Gollevainen said:
the nub of all this lies in a couple of fundamentals:
- strategic requirement
- tactical requirement.
- doctrine
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.Big-E said:
In a contemp fight for battlespace - I'm not so sure they bring much leverage to the table - esp against the Brasilians....
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.
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.
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...:nono "
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.swerve said:
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.gf0012-aust said:
contedicavour
New Member
Very interesting thanks !swerve said:
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