Central/South American Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Pointblank said:

Considering that the UK regularly stations a quartet of Eurofighters plus a Voyager refueling aircraft, there is plenty of ramp space for additional aircraft. The Eurofighters are kept in hardened shelters, and such is the size of the airfield that runway-denial weapons would be unable to inhibit operations to any appreciable extent. The Eurofighter is a very capable aerial combat aircraft that's extremely well armed with AMRAAM and eventually, Meteor. And in a pinch, F-35B's can also joint the party as well.

.

Click to expand...

you overestimate England`s capabilities.
England almost lost the war in 1982, however Leopoldo Galtieri knew Argentina was not a nuclear power and did not want to risk British attacks to continental Argentina either to the Patagonian air bases or the cities in Argentina, thus by June he stop any military activity.
Today is not different, Argentina as well as Brazil have civil nuclear programs and have decided to halt any nuclear military application for the sake of economic development and the unity of South America.

4 Eurofighters are not enough and basically they are an easy target, what really keeps Argentina at bay is the fact there is no way Argentina can retaliate a nuclear attack and Argentina`s leaders are unwilling to arm themselves with ICBMs and nukes, despite it is not out of the technical reach of the Argentine scientists if they really are up to the task.

Argentina does not want to become a nuclear power at the expense of bad relations with Europe or the US and same is Brazil.

[video=youtube;YZasd1Icnjc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZasd1Icnjc[/video]

b787 said:

you overestimate England`s capabilities.
England almost lost the war in 1982, however Leopoldo Galtieri knew Argentina was not a nuclear power and did not want to risk British attacks to continental Argentina either to the Patagonian air bases or the cities in Argentina, thus by June he stop any military activity.

Click to expand...

Basic reasoning is simply laying out your premise to support your conclusion. You have made 2 assertions but without any warrant other than your opinion i.e. :

(i) that England almost lost the war in 1982
The Falklands conflict remains the largest air-naval combat operation between modern forces since the end of the WW2. As such, it has been the subject of intense study by military analysts and historians. Can you point to some credible work that supports your assertion that England almost lost the war.

(ii) that Argentina stopped military activity because England had nuclear attack capability.
When did Leopoldo Galteri became aware that England had nuclear capability? Maybe someone in the Argentinian military intelligence forgot to tell him those facts until the campaign was going badly and had he known he might not have started it.

Brumby said:

Basic reasoning is simply laying out your premise to support your conclusion. You have made 2 assertions but without any warrant other than your opinion i.e. :

(i) that England almost lost the war in 1982
The Falklands conflict remains the largest air-naval combat operation between modern forces since the end of the WW2. As such, it has been the subject of intense study by military analysts and historians. Can you point to some credible work that supports your assertion that England almost lost the war.

(ii) that Argentina stopped military activity because England had nuclear attack capability.
When did Leopoldo Galteri became aware that England had nuclear capability? Maybe someone in the Argentinian military intelligence forgot to tell him those facts until the campaign was going badly and had he known he might not have started it.

Click to expand...

Argentina was wining the war because England was losing Harriers and England had no AWACs, just a fact the A-4s were all re-fueled in the air, the British never ever knew where they were refueled, what really stop Galtieri was the fact the US did not support Argentina as he was expecting.

The plan of Galtieri was the US help Argentina and repay the help Argentina did in central America, Galtieri was an anti-communist, however the US did not help Argentina, this has been paid by the US by the fact Argentina is leaning towards China and Russia now.

The Argentine troops were not expecting to surrender even when the order came.

Galtieri knew without US help England could strike continental Argentina if the war lasted longer, and he knew England is a nuclear power, Brazil did not want England to strike continental south America, thus England and Argentina needed to fight only over the Islands, however Galtieri suffered an embargo so while he could theoretically continue the fight longer, the cards were on the table to keep the war over the Islands he needed more ammunition, but specifically a guarantee the US supported Argentina, i can give several links, but is public knowledge Galtieri knew England had nukes.

i doubt you understand Spanish

b787 said:

Argentina was wining the war because England was losing Harriers and England had no AWACs, just a fact the A-4s were all re-fueled in the air, the British never ever knew where they were refueled, what really stop Galtieri was the fact the US did not support Argentina as he was expecting.

Click to expand...

1. The US never supported Galtieri; they had an arms embargo on Argentina from 1976 to 1990's.
2. Argentina lost more A-4's; 22 A-4's were lost, along with 2 Mirage III's, 11 Dagger's and 11 Purcara's. Considerably more aircraft than 10 Harrier's.
3. Winning the war? You mean when Argentine ground forces crumbled under British attack and were all forced back to Port Stanley, surrounded, pummeled with artillery, and then surrendered.

b787 said:

The plan of Galtieri was the US help Argentina and repay the help Argentina did in central America, Galtieri was an anti-communist, however the US did not help Argentina, this has been paid by the US by the fact Argentina is leaning towards China and Russia now.

Click to expand...

Yes, despite the fact that the US had frozen arms sales to Argentina since 1976, and was openly providing material support to the British. Unless Galtieri was that stupid, or was akin to Adolf Hitler during the final days.

b787 said:

The Argentine troops were not expecting to surrender even when the order came.

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that Argentine troops were completely despondent, hungry, cold, disoriented, and more of them were dead. Many knew the war was over for them and that they had lost.

Pointblank said:

1. The US never supported Galtieri; they had an arms embargo on Argentina from 1976 to 1990's.
2. Argentina lost more A-4's; 22 A-4's were lost, along with 2 Mirage III's, 11 Dagger's and 11 Purcara's. Considerably more aircraft than 10 Harrier's.
3. Winning the war? You mean when Argentine ground forces crumbled under British attack and were all forced back to Port Stanley, surrounded, pummeled with artillery, and then surrendered.



Yes, despite the fact that the US had frozen arms sales to Argentina since 1976, and was openly providing material support to the British. Unless Galtieri was that stupid, or was akin to Adolf Hitler during the final days.


Except for the fact that Argentine troops were completely despondent, hungry, cold, disoriented, and more of them were dead. Many knew the war was over for them and that they had lost.

Click to expand...

Argentina lost A-4s as attackers, but The Harrier fleet was smaller, they never ever could stop the A-4s or Super etendard been refueled by C-130s, tell me whe they did ever down the tankers?

[video=youtube;1E9cJa61wKs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E9cJa61wKs[/video]

This video shows Bartiz an Argentine soldier that downed a Harrier with AAA, do you think Argentina did not do it, England won the war thanks to France not delivering any more Exocets and the US providing satellite imagery, the rest was the depletion of the Argentine weaponry and the decision to surrender due to the risk of attacks to continental Argentina


Do you think the Harrier was much better than a A-4 without AAMs? of course not the A-4s had no chance against Harriers with AIM-9s since these only had a fixed gun

The new, unobtrusive appearance of the presidential plane Air Force of Venezuela


(defensa.com) Thanks to two recent scales of the main Venezuelan presidential plane, an Airbus A319-133X CJ-called Bolivarian Military Aviation, Adolfo Suarez Airport Madrid-Barajas International, we saw her again, and very discreet appearance . The device, which has military tuition 0001, was photographed with his all-white fuselage few days ago, when he came to Madrid from Simón Bolívar Maiquetía International Airport, located near (Venezuela).


This A319 CJ, construction number 1468, was delivered to Venezuela in 2001 from the Airbus production line located in Hamburg-Finkenwerder. During the long years mainly served the late President Hugo Chavez, pike a very visible and colorful decoration, with titles such as VIP transport "Bolivarian Republic", right, and "Venezuela, left, who was accompanied by a line along the entire fuselage with the national colors and the shield of the Caribbean nation painted tail.




I will now open my Malbec and toast a happy 2015 to all my dear friends at SDF

UK is serious about the possible arrival of Russian Su-24 Fencer to Argentina


(defensa.com) The Ministry of Defence would have provided a review of their security plans in the Malvinas / Falkland after various British media pick the news that Russia has offered to Argentina Sukhoi fighter jets Su- 24. This announcement came on the 28th and was picked in the Daily Express. The Russian offer would be leasing 12 fighters Su-24 Fencer to Argentina Air Force in exchange for the supply of foodstuffs as beef and wheat. In July there was the visit of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to Argentina, at which allegedly occurred the first contacts on this exchange.


Argentina would like to have these aircraft to counter the arrival of the British aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth. The vessel, equipped with combat aircraft F-35B, will enter service in 2020 and get full operational capability in 2023. This situation is assessed by the Ministry of Defence as a "window of real vulnerability" as reflected Daily Express .

The Su-24 Fencer would not be affected by any political or commercial veto, as that was raised after assessed the possible acquisition by Argentina aircraft Saab Gripen, which was answered by the British government with the intent to veto the sale to include components manufactured in the UK. It is a high performance aircraft, given its range, speed and capacity to bear arms, is also a veteran in the service of the Russian Air Force. The range of 650 miles would allow missions to the islands without having to use tanker and is also capable of carrying more than three tons of weapons.

UK remains at the Malvinas / Falklands four Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft, air defense missile Rapier and a staff of 1,200 troops, means are reinforced promptly with the arrival of warships regularly.




I will now open my Malbec and toast a happy 2015 to all my dear friends at SDF

Mexico will acquire 2,200 vehicles HMMWV for 245.5 million dollars



(defensa.com) The US Department of Defense released the December 23 awarding the manufacturer AM General LLC for the construction of 2,200 vehicles multipurpose road wheels (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, or HMMWV) amounting to 245,594,857 dollars. The work will be performed at the premises of AM General LLC in Mishakawa, Indiana, and must be completed before December 15, 2017, materializing the acquisition through a Foreign Military Sales contract in which the Army Contracting Command, Tank and Automotive acts as prime contractor.


In Mexico the HMMWV is also manufactured under license by the General Directorate of Military Industry (MIM) for Army of Mexico. These armored significantly improve the mobility of the Armed Forces of Mexico and light transport capabilities




I will now open my Malbec and toast a happy 2015 to all my dear friends at SDF

Attention Gentlemen


This is another warning! I will not have this thread closed down!

I specifically stated that I do not want to have this become a Falklands/Malvinas argument. Discussions on this topic tend to get out of hand, are combative and counterproductive.

If you wish to peruse this topic I suggest that one of you open a separate thread and pursue this discussion there.

Thank you

Miragedriver said:

Attention Gentlemen


This is another warning! I will not have this thread closed down!

I specifically stated that I do not want to have this become a Falklands/Malvinas argument. Discussions on this topic tend to get out of hand, are combative and counterproductive.

If you wish to peruse this topic I suggest that one of you open a separate thread and pursue this discussion there.

Thank you

Click to expand...

There was no intention to start any Falklands/Malvinas argument other than to rebut some assertions to the 1982 historical conflict that was in my view totally unfounded.

Btw, your postings on the 1982 conflict is real cool and informative. Good job.