MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina joins manufacturing of Brazil’s KC 390 jet powered military transport
Brazil and Argentina aircraft industries have signed a partnership contract for the manufacturing of the Embraer KC 390, a medium sized twin engine jet powered military transport aircraft with a 23 tons capacity. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment ruleswell done !
Apr 19th, 2011 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the first step to SAMO ( or SAMP) !
Looks like a highly versatile aircraft, and the right size... not too big, not too small. I'm betting two of them will be permanently deployed to Antártida Argentina. Together with the newly refurbished Alt Irizar and its onboard Sea King we've got it covered. Argentina ordered 6 fully refurbished Sea King helicopters in 2008, here is an interesting article: http://www.aviationnews.eu/2008/10/28/navair-and-argentine-navy-team-to-deliver-six-sea-king-helicopters/
Apr 19th, 2011 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 01 yul, what do you mean by 'SAMO/SAMP'?
#Martin/
Apr 19th, 2011 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I had declared it at article ;
An estimated 40% Argentine live on les than 8 US $ per day/April 18
on comment # 10 . !
@Martin
Apr 19th, 2011 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0S.A.M.O.
South America/ Atlantic Military Organization May be?
And what about M.A.S.A?
Military Alliance of South Atlantic?
Or This is much better...
SAMANAMFMI
South Atlantic Military Alliance Not Allowing Mohammeds From Monkeys Islands
@yul
As a matter or efficiency you have used more words describing where to find the explanation than filling up the Acronyms. : )
haha... yul I don't read every article on here
Apr 19th, 2011 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Military manufacture and military organizations are two different issues, they're not necessarily related. If UNASUR wants to form a Joint Military Alliance they can do it with whatever they have in terms of military assets, regardless of where these were built.
I don't think this article is about that.
[] 3 -- Yul
Apr 19th, 2011 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bright idea and new strategical step.. but
don't forget the realities of -3- global dominant military-industry complex owners are USA + China + Russia ! the rest is not important.
The rule of the game is to be must negotiate and deal with this trio .
Again, not necessarily.
Apr 19th, 2011 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The KC-390 is a highly modern, highly capable aircraft. It's not always about big dumb jets, a more maneuverable and versatile cargo/refuel aircraft, if priced right, could compete with anyone else's offer.
Think about it, the KC-390 could be faster and easier to land on shorter runways, it's a military aircraft after all.
#5/ Martin
Apr 19th, 2011 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Miltry manufacturing and miltry organization are together complex unit..you can't make one of them apart from another.
Unasur ( can not )has no any capability on these kinds of projects.
It can be realized by between Brazil --Argentina the other countries
of Latin America won't do ! ( plus maybe Chile)..You can do nothing
with *Colombia & Venezuela (they have secret miltry pact anyway )*
#6 /Geo
You are right 100%. for instance ;
Our bound East European countries are newly Nato members ,but
just on paper ,at some applications You have to take OK from Russia...
Well, I will say South America needs to develop its own military manufacture in order to cease its dependency on foreign supplies, this is a huge risk in times of conflict. So, yul, you do have a point. And I think we are doing this, we are certainly on the right path. Argentina, Brazil and Chile have military manufacture complexes that are more than capable. FADEA, Tandanor, IMVAP, Talcahuano, Embraer, etc.
Apr 19th, 2011 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Put all of those together and all our natural resources and you've got what you need, more than you need.
[] 8 --
Apr 19th, 2011 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...you can do nothing with Colombia + Venezuela (have secret
military pact) !? .... no doubt.
South America has been the backyard of US ,tengo miedo it could be
frontyard , becouse they have been examining the South America
by Hugo Chaves..and recently landed US military plane was a warning.
These are Super Powers' languages...You must understand it quickly !
or watching like the adventures at Afganistan ,Irak, Libya ......
I mean INVAP, not 'IMVAP'.
Apr 19th, 2011 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0geo, the US is just as broke as the UK. They're planning to limit their military presence, not expand it. They're planning to use more unmanned aircraft, to downsize their aircraft carrier fleet. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/53353/us-downsizing-superpower.html
I don't know what the 'US military plane' has to do with anything, it was a minor incident.
A full scale financial collapse, will submerge US and its allies into the bigger mess they ever have thought.
Apr 19th, 2011 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Super power? Ha see Russia complete chaos after financial collapse.
“Wall Street shares slump as S&P downgrades US debt outlook.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/18/us-economy-credit-rating
Party is near to be over, the rating agencies cannot lie anymore and as matter to keep the little credibility they still enjoy, had warned that US and others (UKI may be?) will downgrade their AAA ratings.
Default even closer?
2012 will be very interesting just by watching tuning “super powers” into super chaos.
Denial is the key word when it comes to these so-called “superpowers”.
Apr 19th, 2011 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Super denial... : P
That tripple A warning is bogus, they know it. If the rest of the world is smart, they follow the Chinese who already lowered the “tripple A” of US treasuries. Matter of fact, their dumping them slowly.
Apr 19th, 2011 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who is buying those worthless US treasuries?
The Fed is buying it's own crap to keep the ponzi scheme going. We all know what will happenwhen you eat your own crap.
[] 11 ,12,13,14 amigos
Apr 20th, 2011 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I said “”super powers “” not “” super countries “” . Who care their peoples !
Don't forget their awesome intelligent services and multinational firms
[-- they have many bigger them than merely Argentina/GDP ].
I am zero at Economy ...but I know Wall Street's crisis year dates were
1929 , 1941 , 1973 , 1981 , 1992 , 2003 ,2008 ..........
I know all mortgage accounts are the cause of ponzi scheme inevitable in all countries.
I live in the US and I know they're fucked.
Apr 20th, 2011 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“They're planning to limit their military presence, not expand it.”
Apr 20th, 2011 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0They just this year increased there military budget. The US budget has doubled(over) in the last 11 years.
17 Zethee
Apr 20th, 2011 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Brits can build a powerful military base in our the Malvinas Islands and Argentina can not increased military budget, What are saying! With this base in our Malvinas threatening all the region!!!do not forget that!
@18
Apr 20th, 2011 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wow, MPA scares you that much eh?....good, that's its purpose after all, to discourage you lot from doing anything stupid. There's no need to piss your pants though, it's a small, defensive establishment and they're hardly going to invade South America are they?
Mind you, regarding these transport planes you're all so busy crowing about, I reckon one Typhoon would splash all six of them and have some change left over....if the typhoons aren't in a museum by the time the KC390's are delivered that is.
;-)
You people are particularly stupid today.
Apr 20th, 2011 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 017 Zethee,
You're just wrong.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/53353/us-downsizing-superpower.html
19 WestisBest
Even the oldest piece of shit fighter can take down a big dumb cargo plane.
@20
Apr 20th, 2011 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well why the orgy of backslapping about a few big dumb cargo planes then? is your airforce really so piss poor that these aircraft are a notable addition?
Anyhow, stupid or not, we're the one's sitting cozy in the Falkland Islands, it's a nice day, Union Jack's flying proudly, How's it in Argentina? ;-)
21,
Apr 20th, 2011 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We're just talking about it Westis... what the hell is your problem?
Did we interrupt your discussion about the Voyager cargo plane? No, none of us made a single comment... http://en.mercopress.com/2011/04/18/raf-biggest-ever-aircraft-transport-and-tanker-begins-testing-in-uk
You're just feeling stupid about your statement, that a fighter jet can take down a cargo plane. NO SHIT genius.
Share your union jack moment with the rest of the islanders here, will you? Those who like to portray the islands as “an individual nation” with “it's own government” and all that other crap.
“How's it in Argentina?”
Just fine, we fly our own flag, we're a REAL NATION.
Thanks for asking.
“17 Zethee,
Apr 20th, 2011 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're just wrong. ”
I am not incorrect. Your link proves nothing. Have you even read it? It has NOTHING to do with military and has NO facts.
“18 Kiwisarg”
I don't know what you're on about. My post had nothing to do with the British military.
As for the plane, does it have air to air refueling? I think the Hercules(most of world use) has this and if this plane wants to compete i believe it would need something like it. Apart from that looks like a good plane.
@22
Apr 20th, 2011 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I merely find it amusing how you get all puffy chested and proud because you're going to get a few transport planes in the next few years....SAMO indeed...
...and so angry when somone pops your little military fantasy bubble, it's good for a laugh.
:-)
24,
Apr 20th, 2011 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, I am happy that Argentina is getting new cargo planes.
And you have mental problems.
It is good to have co-operative build and purchase.
Apr 20th, 2011 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Co-operative use would be good, especially mixed-use where the planes are also used for civil disaster-support.
Getting things where they are most needed asap saves lots of lives.
@kiwifruit
Apr 20th, 2011 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina can not increased military budget
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/03/08/argentina-s-defence-budget-forecasted-to-reach-1.3-of-gdp-by-2015
@25
Apr 20th, 2011 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0wow, that's some riposte....you're too good for me Martin.
#20/ Martin ............ #23/ Zethee
Apr 20th, 2011 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0US military budgets in the years ;
2000 / 304 billions $
2002 / 362 billions $
2004 / 490 billions $
2006 / 556 billions $
2008 / 696 billions $
2010 / 750 billions $
29, Riiiiight Yul, and the purpose of those figures is to prove what?......That the US military Budgets after 2 major foreign interventions, and inflation mean that it is bigger than 10 years ago?...clap clap clap
Apr 20th, 2011 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.......another astounding feat Argentine of analytical intelligence
He actually proved me right. Martin is claiming that the US budget is shrinking. I simply said it's not and he told me im wrong.
Apr 20th, 2011 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good to see Argentina back in the game and the Argentine Air Force Manufacuter FADEA ready for some new projects with their neighbour Brazil, but Argentina should focus on developing there Stealth super jet fighter SAIA 90 again that would give them a serious edge over those Britt Typhoons.
Apr 20th, 2011 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SAIA 90 was not a stealth fighter. It was an air superiority aircraft with a minimal stealth crossection. Like the eurofighter.
Apr 20th, 2011 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you honestly think that crap plane would hold a bar to the eurofighter, you're insane.
British warplanes have been iconic. Some of the best in the world. You don't have any experence. The eurofighter is one of the best jets in the world.
Good to see all the 'experts' coming out of the woodwork.
Apr 21st, 2011 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 032, Tigre2000
I've been thinking about FADEA and Embraer developing a joint fighter project, if they can build a jet cargo plane they can certainly build a fighter.
Watch out for the barrage of criticism from our resident aeronautical experts.
Other countries in SA would join... what are your thoughts on this? The SAIA 90 looks like an outdated design, I image a new project would be geared more towards a 'stealth' design like the F22 or the Russian T-50, surely Venezuela would rather pitch into something like this than pay 3 times more for imports.
Argentina has no fighter jets to speak of, nothing but old crap.
Brazil can't make up its mind, they'll probably stick with their F2000 for a while.
Chile and its F16, already old, and dependent on US imports... not a very clever move.
Venezuela and Peru they both fly Sukhoi and seem to be up to date, but this would be a long-term project, I'm sure they'd be interested.
So the only question would be... why the hell not? ;-)
“pitch into something like this than pay 3 times more for imports”
Apr 21st, 2011 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Creating something especially military stuff costs more to make than to import.
While we wait for Tigre2000
Apr 21st, 2011 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Back to the article.
Does anyone know which type of cargo plane is more ideally suited for Antarctic conditions? Jet engine or propeller? Any difference?
Hercules C-130
Some cool shots at the airport in Base Marambio, Antártida Argentina
http://s1.subirimagenes.com/privadas/23844965.jpg
http://s1.subirimagenes.com/privadas/23844965.jpg
http://s1.subirimagenes.com/privadas/23844965.jpg
http://s1.subirimagenes.com/privadas/23844965.jpg
Can't wait to see the new KC-390 down there...
@36 Me quedo con la “chancha” Martin, sorry!
Apr 21st, 2011 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0haha... la 'chancha' is an old bird, it served its purpose but it needs to be replaced... safety and reliability comes first, our men and women on those bases deserve that much... ;-)
Apr 21st, 2011 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Does anyone know which type of cargo plane is more ideally suited for Antarctic conditions? Jet engine or propeller? Any difference?”
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think it entirely depends on how good the plane is. The C-130 is a good plane, is why half the world use it and instead of replacing it they're redesigning it.
Not much info on this one at the moment.
Hola Martin_Fierro : )
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes we need to develop an air superiority Jet fighter and it would be cheaper for us in the long term to develop it in Argentina, since we have the capability and extensive experience in developing jet fighters, and establishing a partnership with Brazil would only strengthen the aeronautical industry further, during the 1950's Argentina was one of the leaders in jet fighter technology but had several economic setbacks,
we can give the Brits a surprise when they least expect it . Had the Argentine ground attack Pucara's aircrafts not been destroyed by the Britt SAS the Pucara's would have devastated the progress of the Britt Naval forces entering on to the Islands. We should not depend on France, or the U.S , Russia for combat jet fighters I'ts time we had our own, although Argentine air manufacturers have developed the Pampa2000 which is a next-generation combat Jet trainer aircraft for the Air Force and Navy and we can go stealth check out the designs from the late 1950's adios for now.
“Yes we need to develop an air superiority Jet fighter and it would be cheaper for us in the long term to develop it in Argentina”
Apr 24th, 2011 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No it wouldn't and i have already explained this.
Creating a new technology is always more expensive than buying something already mass produced. You have to pay for design, testing production start ups, cost over runs, delays and then when it's airborne it's still not a guarantee that it will be good.
If you're buying an aircraft that is already tested and battle used and proven to be good it's MUCH cheaper.
This is why only the top military budgets in the world make such things and even then most nations now team up on big projects.
40,
Apr 25th, 2011 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Damn right we can, we do need Chile and Brazil onboard. The key is not to rely on foreign imports, especially on times of conflict.
The Pampa is only a trainer, a very good trainer but still just a trainer. They're upgrading its radar and weapon systems so it could take the role of the Pucara as a light attack/ground support aircraft, though it probably wouldn't have the range the Pucara has.
http://img219.imageshack.us/f/at63pampa2.png/
http://img219.imageshack.us/f/at63pampa2.png/
We are more than capable of developing an air superiority fighter, it's only a matter of time. It may be expensive to develop but it will be cheaper to maintain in the long run and beneficial for the economy of S.A.
#40 , #43//
Apr 25th, 2011 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0just fantasy ! firstly you have to try to make your own brand military
vehicles let alone air vehicles , besides Argentina can not make
these products like airplanes ,even though it has technology,organization
but doesn't have scaled economy to order them and having external marketing engagements !
Yul you need to be educated,
Apr 25th, 2011 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has been producing several military and commercial aircraft for the past 60 years and has a broad range of Argentine made military vehicles from tanks such as the Patagon, TAM to light military vehicles along with artillery weapons and several anti aircraft systems the Pucara which is an Argentine made land attack aircraft served in the Falklands and was exported to various countries, along with other Argentine made militray equipment we have been exporting for years I suggest you do your homework you sound like a fool.
#44 / Tigre
Apr 25th, 2011 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok ! We wait your Argentine military vehicle production & sales data .
“It may be expensive to develop but it will be cheaper”
Apr 25th, 2011 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Logic....fail....can't....compute...
45 Yul,
Apr 25th, 2011 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't need to wait for it donkey lol we have been producing our own military equipment for ages get with the program or get out.
Yes yul, get with the program. You clearly have not read about the Argentinian TAM. This advanced tank has recently had a periscope installed so the drivers don't drive into stuff.
Apr 25th, 2011 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then you have the Pucara that's been blown up more than it's done blowing up stuff.
And then you have the...erm, no..That's it.
The defence budgets of all the South American countries put together would not be enough to generate and maintain a modern armaments industry producing an itegrated suite of satellites, warships, submarines, tanks, fighter jets, tactical missiles, ICBMs, and small arms, together with all the logistics, communications and integrative systems, necessary to compete with the modern equipment of first world nations.
Apr 25th, 2011 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The defence R&D demands themselves need decades of evolution and vast expense before internationally competitive major armaments reach anywhere near the production line.
For God's sake, don't think of going down this road, it is vastly too expensive, and for needs that are too nebulous.
The opportunity cost is too great also.
Low defence budget and off-the-shelf is the way to go.
Zethee's half-ass arguments... haha
Apr 25th, 2011 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Logic....fail....can't....compute...” That's probably what Zethee's like every night, pissed drunk... passed out.
Let me help you... I said “expensive to develop but it will be cheaper to maintain in the long run and beneficial for the economy of S.A.”
It's true.
Isn't.
Apr 25th, 2011 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Example: Modern fighter jets cost upwards of 8 billion(possibly more, if you want a good jet.) to design then about 50 million a pop to buy. You can buy them from other nations at 50 million a pop. Saves you 8 billion. Maintenance isn't much more expensive.
If you have a small budget(Under 5 billion) you obviously aren't going to buy 100+ jets and so there is no point spending a billions on designing a jet if you're only going to have 25 jets.
It's cheaper to buy jets from other exporting nations, both in the long and short run.
Ofcourse if this jet is going to be exported to loads of nations that can offset the money spent, but this is not a guarantee.
51,
Apr 26th, 2011 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, if you had been paying attention, which with all that drinking is probably quite a stretch... you would have noticed that I clearly stated that the development of a fighter jet would only be feasible given the cooperation of several nations, not just to sell it but to produce it.
The numbers should add up before production, like in the case of the CK-390, to guarantee enough commitment to make the project feasible.
One thing I can guarantee you right now, is that parts and maintenance for the CK-390 will be far more affordable for us than it would be with any other import of the kind. And if there is a war not everyone agrees with we won't be too worried about supplies, same with any other product developed in S.A.
You should probably read this again in the morning when you're sober.
I read it perfectly fine, point still stands. Two examples:
Apr 26th, 2011 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Example one - You join a project with say Brazil and chile. You want say 25 aircraft. Development is 8 billion. Your share is 2.6 billion + 1.25 billion for the planes. This is an untested plane and there is no guarantee it will be good from a group of nations with little experence creating air superiority fighters.
Example two - You go to another nation, say the US. You pay 50 million per plane and you buy 25. This costs you 1.25 billion; you save 2.6 billion and can afford easily another 25 planes. These jets are tested and have been exported all over the world.
Whatever last-word freak... you're boring now.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like I said before ...I like “la chancha” better (la chancha = C130). C130 goes down the street, airborne daddy is going to make a little trip .... We already have songs about it, why change it? ...lol!!
Apr 26th, 2011 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0hahaha... fine, you fly la chancha I'll fly... the, umm... the other one...
Apr 26th, 2011 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0KC-390
Max speed: Mach 0.8 (608 mph)
C-130
Max speed: 366 mph
Llego y pongo la pava para el mate, dale?? Te espero chabon!!
lol
lol !!!!
Apr 27th, 2011 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!