Gentlemen let me answer your questions one at a time, and as always please excuse my command of the English language. Granted that my perspective is of a person from a developing/3rd world nation and not from a super power or global player nation.
If Argentina has no intention of ever taking back the Falklands, then there is no need for subs.
Back in the mid 1980’s Argentina had a specific requirement for its Navy to acquire 6 TR-1700 submarines and to retain the existing 209 submarines in the training role. The Gato class submarines were all retired after the 1982 conflict. So there is a need for at least eight submarines in the fleet. Currently the Navy has two TR-1700 and one type 209. The other four TR-1700 where not finished and are various stages of construction (only one of these could possibly be completed).
Subs are only useful for actual combat. They are inherently unsuitable for peace time missions such as patrolling, aid provision and fly the flag missions etc.
I disagree. Submarines can provide a nation a crucial intelligence-gathering capability that cannot be replicated by other means. If professionally operated with care and cunning and deploying multiple sensors, submarines can monitor activities in the air, surface, or subsurface areas, providing a complete picture of events across most intelligence disciplines. They can be used as an intelligence "force-multiplier," providing tip-offs of high interest events to other intelligence collection.
The unique ability of a submarine operating clandestinely, or shadowing an “enemy fleet” enables it to intercept high interest signal formats that are invisible to other collection platforms and for nations that don’t have the luxury of reconnaissance satellites. Furthermore, the ability to dwell covertly for extended periods defeats efforts to evade or deceive collection by surface ships and aircraft. Submarines can provide real time alert to command authorities on indications of imminent hostilities. And unlike other intelligence collection systems such as satellites or reconnaissance aircraft, submarines are full-fledged war-fighting platforms carrying significant offensive firepower. In regards to “flying the flag” missions - that is mainly an ego boost for the high command and politicians. To use an analogy: I would rather be the skinny nonthreatening guy that is a black belt than the showoff muscular body builder. If thing where to get difficult I’ll put my money on the skinny guy.
If we rule out the Falklands, what other scenario is there left for need of modern attack subs? I may not be all that up to date on evens in Latin America, but I would have thought I would have remembered if anyone was threatening to launch an amphibious invasion against Argentina.
The Malvinas/Falklands is out as far as a potential conflict. However, the negotiation leverage that a fleet of submarines can bring is worth the investment, which brings me to my second point. This may seem trivial or even ridiculous to both of you, however unless you live in a country you can not feel or understand what the “fears”, or “panic” that the people, military or government official feel they see or perceive. The threat of Chile is still very present and felt in the nation. Recently Chile’s acquisition of new aircraft, submarines, surface ships, tanks, APCs, etc. is seen as a very real threat in Argentina that is being taken seriously. In addition the “panic” and “fear” is now heightened by the fact that even the government has realized that the neglecting of the armed force has placed the country with a possibility of being unable to repel an invasion and the possible loss of the oil and mineral rich provinces of Patagonia, Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego.
Additionally the international treaty that protects Antarctica as international territory will be expiring within the next decade and there will most certainly be a land rush by “nations with might” to acquire new territory. This is happening in Argentina’s back yard. Please ask yourself honestly what would you do if new territory became available next to your homeland and other nations “wanted in” in it.
Granted you are not going to project power very far offshore with SSK’s, but you can prevent (or at least make him pay dearly) if he wants to push into your backyard
I order to decide which sub is best, or even if a sub should be considered at all, we need to know why Argentina needs a sub force compared to say, a Frigate or Corvette force.
I recently spoke with a relative that works in the naval strategic assessment division on what’s going on with the big submarine push in around the world and specifically Asia. He said that the recent sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan reinforces the fact that the smart play in future naval warfare is to be under the water and shooting torpedoes and missiles, not above the water and take a torpedo or missile hit.
Not saying "someone should not do any military build ups on its own, at all", but ambitions always have to face the reality, submarines of any kind, is part of a bigger picture called "offensive force", did Argentina suits the shoes? I don't know, Argentine people should find it out on their own, and work it out on their own, not because some arms dealer told you "the best way to counter a sub is another sub.
Argentina has sufficient surface combatants to perform the costal protection and fisheries duties. However, a submarine force fits it well for the above mentioned missions. First, highly capable, multi-mission submarines are cost-effective to operate over their service life. Additionally, among smaller regional powers a small and stealthy submarine fleet is seen as a “force equalizer,” against a large surface fleet.
I recently read that South Korea is buying six more of the medium sized KSS II/Type 214 Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) boats and plans to build a more capable KSS III type. Vietnam has ordered six Project 636 Kilo boats from Russia. Singapore bought two modern Vastergotland class subs retro-fitted with AIP systems from Sweden. Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are all developing or enhancing their submarines.
Australia’s 2009 Defense White paper called for doubling its sub fleet to 12 boats, all equipped with cruise missiles. India is building six Scorpene class subs under French license. The recent US Pentagon assessment of China’s PLA Navy modernization says it may add up to five Type 095 nuclear attack boats and 15 more of the diesel-electric Yuan class boats in the coming years.
I am not sure who's the bad guy in Argentine people's eyes, but I am sure most of Latine American countries do not have the capability to wage a modern war on its neighbor which results in significant gains, on its own. - Not to mention a modern navy warfare. One or two new toys can weighten the other guy's burden in the process, but can not change the loss-loss outcome.
As mentioned above there are potential conflicts looming. However when one country arms its self to “the teeth” and the other does noting to enhance its defense posture for over three decades. It begins to create a mentality that territorial disputes and land acquisition could succeed in the form of armed conflict.
Gentlemen, I would like to thank you for these interesting debates. Even though we do not agree some times, I truly enjoy that we can openly (and without retribution) talk about thing that interest us. whether our view point changes, or if it help us strengthen our position, this forum allows us this opportunity.
