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.contedicavour said:
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.Aussie Digger said:
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 inventoryBig-E said:@ 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.
Well If you are patient enough to wait untill the next weekend, I will try to awnser you (I need to go trough my sources, mean= I have few good books which gives valuable backup information, but they are in different location than I am at the moment)
No NZ still has them and are trying to find a buyer. They are already Navalised as NZ bought them from Australia after we finished operating them off OUR Carrier...contedicavour said:
Ah-ha I wasn't aware of that ! Well then Brazil should try to make an offer for them if it wants to preserve its small and ageing Skyhawk force airborne for some more time.Aussie Digger said:
Be happy, your Navy will be again very powerful with the new Aegis DDGs and the 2 huge LPDH plannedrobsta83 said:
Well like I promised, heres my attempt to try to awnser to your questions...
As with any other nations, protect the national intress and show the flag eg. power to other countries. What makes the Latin america different than in other parts of the world is the unique geopolitical situation. USA has considered the both american continents as their "own backyards" keeping other major powers out there. This has generated some sort of "greenhouse" world to the south american countries where they are quite free to focus on each others without intervention of other global players. The four major players in the area, Argentina, Peru, Brazil and Chile have been rivaling with each others (and formed "a pairs" like Brazil vs. Argentina and Chile vs. Peru) As the only reasonble military thread comes from the neighbouring country (USA keeping the Soviets and others away) it makes some the "rules" bit different than with other navies. The mahanian type of direct rivaling between two nations have remained considerably longer than in other parts of the world.
Like I said, each others, Argentina has Brazil as it's main rival, but also Chile which has also Peru as it's opponent.
Quite well. Like the Dreadnouhts in the "good old days" they are powerfull "penis-extensions" with this sort of enviroment. Argentina and Brazil have managed to aquire ones and Chile was offered the HMS Hermes (eventually went to India) and Peru tried to buy the HMS Bulwark. About the actual usabilty of carriers in such a small countries you can speak in many ways, but if you understand the enviroment of the Latin America, then in fact even the modest type of naval airarm is an advantage agaisnt the opponent.
Yeas and no. None of the South american countries have a good longrange land based aircrafts able to fullfill the strike and Airdefence for the naval units. Argentinian Skyhawks where able to attack against Brazilian and Chilean warhsips even if those where of the range of land bases as they where launched from the carrier. And as the SAM assets of both Chilean and Brazilian navies where pretty inadequate, the effect of the Skyhaws shouldn't be underestimated.
Yeas, as it's considerably bigger than the earlier light fleet carriers being used by Argentina and Brazil. The only difference is that now Brazil have the advantage over Argentina as the later has no carrier. If Argentina would have a carrier with better airassets than the Skyhawks, it would again resume the advantage it once had. Is it reasonable? Perhaps not if you look the matter in the eyes of non-latin american but apparently the wievs haven't changed. My quess that the only matter that prevents Argentina to field a new carrier is money...
I think the last thing that the Argentinians (or anyone else) needs is a deal like the one India got with the Admiral Gorshkov. Cost overruns, constantly shifting delivery dates and capability gaps. Really, not a good idea.
You're also assuming the French would deliberately try to piss the UK off when they're trying to get Anglo co-operation over projects like the future aircraft carrier. At the moment Argentina can't offer anything that France really wants.
I doubt Clemenceau is fit to restore to service. She was stripped of everything of value, & sent for scrapping in 2005. If it hadn't been for the fuss over the asbestos & other unpleasant substances aboard, her steel would have been re-used two years ago, but instead, she's been rusting at anchor.
also the similar issue with the LPD which had to be sent back to France which Argentina were meant to have but said no because of the Asbestos problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouragan_class_landing_platform_dock
