MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, May 27th 2019 - 13:20 UTC

Chinese jet fighters, an option to re-equip the Argentine Air Force

Wednesday, January 14th 2015 - 22:46 UTC
Full article 74 comments

China has emerged as a possible supplier of jet fighters to help modernize the Argentine Air Force, depleted since the 1982 Falklands' war, according to reports from Defense News. In effect the FC-1/JF-17’s, 'Thunder' operational with the Pakistani air force and proven in combat could be a suitable, accessible option for the Argentines after the Spanish, French, Israeli offers seem to have fallen through. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • CabezaDura2

    Ohhh Argentina's fighter jet search saga continues... If Argentina had the money it would have them long ago.

    Jan 14th, 2015 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brasileiro

    Another strategic mistake of the West.

    An old saying of Sun Tsu: Keep your enemy always near you.

    Jan 14th, 2015 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Klingon

    CB Kristina is just searching out the best deal (Backhanders for her).
    At the moment we can't afford a Cessnar 172 let alone new jets.
    Maybe they should worry about the internal threats to security (aka Motochorro's) as opposed to an Island full of toothless sheep shaggers off our coast.

    Jan 14th, 2015 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • imoyaro

    @3

    But, but...Motochorros ARE the Security. ;)

    Jan 14th, 2015 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Eye will say this,

    if we end up going to war AGAIN just so some deluded twat can have her Victory,

    then Argentina should without doubt be broken up into different countries and NEVER ever again be allowed to function as one,

    for if bloodshed is again spilt, we will know who to blame,
    And it wont be greedy money grabbing China.

    Jan 14th, 2015 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura2

    3
    I agree the article is balls, the British haven’t cancelled anything. It makes it sound as if the UK is picking up the phone and telling the Spanish, French, Brazilians and Israeli what to do.
    Argentina is still non nato ally officially since the 1990s, and the A4s where modernized back then.

    Why instead of radars, buy fighter jets? They don’t even have the ley de derribo applied for ideological reasons. Why instead helicopters like those black hawks that work pretty well in Colombia ??
    The Americans seem to have so much gear and weaponry left over from the war on terror that they don’t know what to do it and dump it on their police station.
    A lot of that stuff can come very handy up in the northern border against Evo Morales drug cartel.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Falkland Islands

    I hope they are not thinking of militarising the south atlantic :)

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Britworker

    @2

    We also use an old saying too “quid pro quo”. They up their capabilities, we up ours at Mount Pleasant.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JuanGabriel

    So that's pretty much every non-leading edge combat plane Argentina has been linked with in the last couple of years. PAC would be best advised not to bother wasting time and effort with any proposal.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    The British MOD will now buy new super missiles,

    and all because of provocation.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    8 - and that normally works perfectly well.

    But if the tiny islands follow that law, and Argentina makes upgrades naturally in line as a large nation must, then you'll end up with the islands as a giant expensive military base with some civilians attached.

    Rather than a civilian colony with some soldiers attached.

    This is partly why UK has been spending diplomatic points to stop Argentina upgrading til the aircraft carriers are in place.

    But new fighters will inevitably be bought regardless.
    Continuously.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Ditto.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    try again.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Ditto.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    Actually I think Argentina will end up with a squadron of refurbished Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3 fighters from Russia on very good purchase terms.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @15 Chicureo,
    Which were quite good in their day.
    l think the Argentines should buy some Fairey Swordfish.
    Almost indestructible workhorses, that crippled the ltalian fleet in 1940. lol!

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Phail.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anbar

    The more pertinent questions is how will the relations between the USA and Argentina change if Argentina starts buying her key defence elements entirely from China?

    Argentina is still seen as bring in the “Western” influence zone, a move to Chinese fighter aircraft (or Russian) may shift that considerably.

    Which may then shift US fence-sitting over the Falklands.

    Bear in mind that (unless you do go to war) the major expenditure is in support, training and outfitting that comes with the purchase - and the country's reliance on that often determining its strategic outlook; buy Chinese and you drift towards their influence, buy Russian and your drift towards theirs.

    And we know what the US thinks about having any openly non-friendly countries on its continent (and, yes, I make and mean that as “the Americas” north and South)

    ---

    I doubt Argentina can afford the Russian Flankers though - even if they bought them they dont have the money to train and keep them air worthy, so the cheaper (lower tech, lower pilot training) Chinese/Pak version would be better.

    That said can they even afford those?

    --

    As Argentina has zero local potential enemies (according to the “we're all in it together” theory of South American politics) can they also “sell” the need for high fighter expenditure to their citizens? The Malvos and other paid thugs will swallow anything, but will the Argentine Middle and Upper Classes? If they dont, is there anything they can do about it?

    And, Finally - whats all this “Militarisation of the South Atlantic”?

    You cant accuse the Brits of such with 4 fighters on the Falklands and then go and buy a boatload of Chinese fighters... when your only 'potential enemy' is the Falklands.

    So, as usual, Argentinas politicians have dug themselves into a very awkward situation.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    Argentina is going to have U$4.5B less in Soy sales this year. Even with o/g down they'll have U$1.5B less in export dollars going into BCRA.
    They cant afford to keep the lights on much less new military equipment.
    Its a non issue for at least a decade maybe a generation.

    If they're lucky Brazil, Chile and Paraguay will break up Argentina and get it on the right path.
    Right now Paraguay could invade and there's absolutely nothing the Rgs could do about it. They'd literally be out of ammunition in an hour.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Britworker

    @11
    I am less concerned about what Argentina buys, the top and bottom is that Argentina can only buy the cast offs from richer countries. The F-35 joint strike fighter will probably be the last manned fighter aircraft we procure.

    BAE Systems is a that cutting edge of drone technology which fill find its target rather more quickly than some inexperienced and poorly trained Argentine dithering at the controls.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FMwisjKpI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FMwisjKpI

    Mrs Kirchner should watch these whilst she is blowing the budget on yesterdays aircraft.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • imoyaro

    @ 16

    I think Fairey Battles might be more their speed. ;)

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    20. The Drone technology that's coming out now is incredible!!
    Add in what is similar to the Cylon Basestar, where many drones sit on a large unmanned base high above any current anti aircraft capabilities and whomever we are taming will have a little problem competing.

    The biggest issue Americans have with the USA getting involved in foreign wars is the death of human soldiers. You take that out of the equation. Watch out below!

    Lesser countries just can't match what's coming

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/11/10/the-pentagon-wants-an-airborne-aircraft-carrier-for-drones/

    USA USA USA!!!
    :)

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    2035. Fortress falklands. Keeping in line with the enemy's natural procurements the islands defense now consists of 20 top range fighters, 4 offshore missile destroyers, 2 battalions and 2 submarines on call. At a mere cost of 2 billion p.a the UK taxpayer is happy to pay the price for now 2501 islanders. 12 of whom live don't live there seasonally.
    Meanwhile in Argentina ... Argies continue their sinister mass charade of nonchalance.
    But all the clues are there ... no nation buys fighters simply to protect the sovereignty of its airspace. Nice try argies.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    23. Why do progressives think that military spending is a drain on an economy? If you are paying your own people to develop and produce new systems its a wash financially and its a net plus for your Society with the advancement of the technology that can be used for commercial applications.
    Its much better to have highly educated people working on developing new technology than paying idiots to stay home and watch TV.
    Win win in my book.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    I'm sure the electorate will agree.

    On the bright side they do pass on to their kids the gift of an unfriendly Argentine/mercosur market. Totally worth it.

    Condominium/leaseback agreement my ass .... There's a windswept hamlet to appease for god sake.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura2

    May 2012 they where already talking about it, then came the Spanish, French and israeli offers.

    http://www.taringa.net/posts/imagenes/14728335/Fuerza-Aerea-Argentina.html

    Its lack of money, they cant even buy liquified gas they are going to buy fighters??
    And what are the Ks going to say, the UK blocked it all.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @20. Without referring to youtube videos, can you please explain to us about combat drones? Somehow I have a problem envisaging a drone engaging in air combat. Given that a human pilot can look all around by turning his/her head, how do you provide the same capability to a drone pilot 8,000 miles away being engaged in a dog fight? As the years have gone past we have seen people suggesting that monoplanes were the 'cutting edge', then it was jets, then it was faster jets. Curiously, I wonder whether the future doesn't hold jet/rocket combat aircraft docked to an orbiting space station. When the need arises, the craft undocks, goes into a shallow approach to take it into atmosphere and fires a salvo of BVR missiles. It could continue action if necessary on its jet engine, then point its nose up and switch to the rocket engine. And its gone. Anyone remember the SR.53 and the SR.177?
    @23. Oh please. Time after time it is pointed out that most of the money spent on the Falklands defence capability would be spent anyway. The RAF Voyager provides a whole new capability for reinforcement. We're about to spend £228 million on a new missile defence system. So we can stick with the 1 missile destroyer. 1 infantry company has been more than enough for 33 years. Why would we need more? There only needs to be 1 submarine. And a resupply vessel. Might go up to 8 fighters. 20 would probably be enough to fight a war! What do you think the argies have got to repel a Typhoon attack flying over a salvo of submarine-launched cruise missiles?

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    Even if China gave the fighters to Argentina, they couldn't afford to arm and fly them. Exocet missiles alone cost over a million dollars each.
    It costs Chile roughly 25 thousand dollars an hour per each F-16 we fly in our modest but well equipped and trained Air Force (the so-called “ownership” cost-per-flight-hour, which includes modifications) Our pilots train with their American counterparts on a regular basis which is extremely expensive, but necessary.
    Argentina does not have the potential to pay its current debts, much less additional ones, while oil prices remain in the sub $50 per barrel range. (Vaca Muerte is nearly muerte as long as the world oil prices remain low.)
    Why do they need attack fighters? It's not like ourselves here in Chile, who are surrounded by neighbors we can't trust...

    Isolde, you're right on the mark... I'm afraid our humor is a bit under appreciated.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • brucey-babe

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2911169/Ministry-Defence-orders-228m-super-missiles-protect-Falklands-Argentina-strengthens-air-force.html?utm_source=mailoutinteractive&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Defence+Daily+Update+-+15+January+2015

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Philippe

    How could either China or Russia sell- really sell- anything to a country like Argentina: not solvent, and on top of that, highly unreliable!

    Philippe

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Skip

    Nice to see that Vestige still sees the Falkland Islands as British in 2035.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Englander

    Apparently in Pakistan, the JF17 is known as the Junk Fighter 17.
    It has a number of issues and shouldn't trouble the Falkland Islands air defences.
    Chile might have some concerns.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • chronic

    2. Dumbass. lol.

    What in the world makes you think that any FBW aircraft that anybody is willing to sell to rotting roadkill or any other banana republic won't have an executable kill code embeded in the system. The military requires it for rogue control. And the manufacturers are beholden to supply it to their country's intelligence services. lol The art of war indeed. lol

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #27
    To answer your question. The weakest link in a modern fighter aircraft is the pilot. Modern aircraft can pull more “g ” forces than the human body can stand. Many pilots have been killed by blacking out under severe maneuvers - see clip.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=4laCspgsIbk
    In addition a drone does away with the need for an ejector seat, cockpit control systems and life support systems saving a huge amount of weight. A drone can stay “alert” for the full mission lasting much longer than a human could. It would have sensor fusion allowing it to be aware of all threats in it's vicinity. It could be pre programmed to act autonomously or under the control of a pilot on the ground thousands of miles away. He would have the same info.as a pilot in an aircraft and be able to take action equally effectively .
    No one wants a dog fight as the result is too unpredictable. The idea is to be unseen in any visual or electro- magnetic spectrum, fire your missile and then depart, again unseen. If the drone is shot down you have not lost a pilot and his expensive training.
    However, realistically, this is decades away.
    Your idea of aircraft and orbiting space stations is hugely expensive and really does not offer any advantage. It probably violates the treaty with the Russians of having no offensive weapons in space.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • golfcronie

    Captain to co-pilot “ Did you switch the engines off?” Co-pilot “ No Captain” Captain “ Oh shit CFK hasn't finished paying for them I bet, quick bail out ”

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Either way chaps,
    I think we are all in agreement,
    Argentina wont get them, and if she was stupid enough to try she would suffer another humiliating defeat,

    still,
    as long as some argies believe otherwise, they will keep CFKs dream alive,
    poor sods.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • chronic

    “ He would have the same info.as a pilot in an aircraft . . . .”

    Since when do drone operators experience acceleration or controls resistance?

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder
    Is this the plane Argentina wants/china wants to get rid…?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder
    .

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CaptainSilver

    Heres a helpful link for KFC to get fixed up with an affordable air force.http://www.airfix.com/?_$ja=cgid:15198108017|tsid:64776|cid:217016777|lid:20062522818|nw:g|crid:49747657097|rnd:1675763862624825376|dvc:t|adp:1t1&gclid=Cj0KEQiA592lBRCXy8yl4bjK17wBEiQAg1Az_TuB_KoIfFk9llkAlNPE_TboFuCLhgo-N_xTItQMdG8aAmh48P8HAQ

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    It always amuses me to see the ‘threats’ that Argentine fighters would present to the FI, especially when the designation include Chinese or Pakistan or Timbuktu if you like.

    And the reason for my hilarity is the simple fact that after 10 years and U$D 10 Billion, having all the engineering plans for the Russian engines they have in their existing planes and I don’t know how many Chinese “Engineers they still cannot get an engine MADE by them to stay in one piece!

    So they have given up and are still using the Klimov RD-93 turbofan engines of which Russia has agreed to provide 100 more in the coming year.

    I hope they buy the Chinese crap, they will kill more pilots than the enemy ever will.

    PS The Chinese are SO good at making cars that the latest small Geely has achieved a total of NO stars in the Latin crash test programme and the organizes are writing to every government which allows this junk into their countries encouraging them to BAN it.

    So they cannot even make a car that meets ANY crap standard on the planet.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @40 ChrisR,
    But they can improve, Chris.
    Japanese cars in the 1950s were mostly junk.
    You wouldn't say that now, though.
    Japanese cars now are very good.
    Chinese equipment will get better in time.
    We just have to keep ahead.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 41 lsolde
    “We just have to keep ahead.”

    Yes, that's the answer. The Japanese did it by embracing quality in everthing they did.

    The Chinese so far are just relying on (not so) cheap labour and copying other countries designs. The Russians are so upset with the Chinese copying their military equipment that they have been talking of stopping supplies to them.

    Best to wait until the Russians have come bak up from monetary crisis first.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    In the end, it's sort of like your stupid drunken over in debt brother-in-law wants to buy an expensive sports car.

    Jan 15th, 2015 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • imoyaro

    @43

    With similar predictable results. ;)

    Jan 16th, 2015 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    31 - why thats a whole 20 years. lets bury time capsules for the future people so they may learn of our ancient ways.

    Jan 16th, 2015 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #37
    Why do you think a drone pilot needs to physically feel acceleration or control resistance ? Note, I said that they would have the same information! He/she can be informed by telemetry as with the rest of the systems !
    How do you think they can manage flying drones just now ?

    Modern aircraft are controlled by computers to keep them in the air.
    They react faster than any human can and have software to prevent any dangerous actions such as exceeding “g” limits for the airframe or pilot safety. Without their computer systems modern fighters are virtually uncontrollable. In order to make them extremely maneuverable, they are designed to be unstable in flight making it impossible for a pilot to keep control without the input of computers.
    A drone just eliminates the weakest link in the chain--the onboard pilot.

    Jan 16th, 2015 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Viscount Falkland

    The winner of any of these contracts will be the one with the biggest suitcase for the Pink Palace Tapu !

    Jan 16th, 2015 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • chronic

    46. Lol. Wtb.

    Jan 16th, 2015 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #48
    If you want to fly a drone, get a flight simulator for your computer.
    This gives a simplified experience of flying remotely. The beauty being that if you crash,nothing gets harmed and you can walk away !!

    Jan 16th, 2015 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • chronic

    49 There is no substitute for being there. And the current gen of WBW's all have input feedback. Now who are you tring to kid? lol

    Jan 16th, 2015 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    @11 Vestige
    “This is partly why UK has been spending diplomatic points to stop Argentina upgrading til the aircraft carriers are in place.”

    We have an aircraft carrier now -it's called MPA. There is no way Argentina can like 1982 now invade the Falklands and take it within days. Taking out MPA airfield(that's a huge if) means you can't land transport or fighter aircraft there to defend the islands from UK reinforcements either.

    The aircraft carriers would take weeks to reach the Falklands, so would be irrelevant. If F35 fighters were available-they don't need an aircraft carrier to take them 8000 miles, can fly there in just over a day (tanker support)and land vertically.

    The Thunder has to operate from runways-so it is vulnerable to British counter strikes.

    Also it has a Martin Baker ejector seat-so the Argentines will have to try Russian ones or build their own.

    There is still a strange assumption that if Argentina have literally any aircraft before the aircraft carriers are operational it will overwhelm the Falklands, just like that, by magic.

    As has been discussed before, even if MPA runway is taken out-that isn't game over for UK -it means Argentina are restricted to landing what few transport aircraft they have on rough strips miles from Stanley, (Stanley airport itself would be defended to the hilt and blockaded )and they would have to land forces by ship.

    They then have to prevent the UK extending Stanley runway to take flights from UK (as per 1982-1985) and it would take a sub not on station ,not long to get down there, and cruise missile Argentine runways and sink ships.

    Once a T45 was on station, even if Argentina got a foothold at MPA, the T45 could pick off aircraft flying from Argentina or MPA.

    Without destroying MPA within say 3 days, it doesn't matter how many Thunders the Argentines buy, the UK can heavily reinforce MPA then launch air strikes against the nearest Argentine airfields.(if a sub is not on station).

    Jan 16th, 2015 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #49
    Sorry, you have lost me here. What is your point ?
    The next generation of fighter/attack aircraft being designed by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Dassault and Bae will be drones...or so they tell us in the aeronautical press. Do you have an insight that the press don't know about ?
    Please share it as I would be interested to hear. Facts please and not just your opinion.

    Jan 17th, 2015 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 52 Clyde15

    Why are you talking to yourself? :o)

    Jan 17th, 2015 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @51 Pete Bog

    I agree with your post.

    Another thing our Malvinistas fail to understand is that even IF Argentina bought these aircraft, it would take years (and that is not an understatement) to train it's pilots to fly them (as they are far, far more advanced than anything that Argentina currently has), and for their ground crews to be able to maintain them.

    By the time that Argentina actually got a usable airforce, the UK's new aircraft carriers would be fully operational and equipped.

    Our Malvinista friends also fail to realise just how expensive it is to be able to maintain and keep these modern aircraft flying, and given the way Argentina has been looking after its current military equipment (which isn't nearly as sophisticated) then it is more likely that any new equipment would be neglected, after the initial politicising of the event for the unwashed masses to go 'oooh' at them.

    Argentina had one chance of taking the Falklands by force. They blew it, and now they'll never get a second chance, because unlike 1982 the UK are keeping a close eye on them. Any military buildup that in any way looks like it might threaten the Falklands would see the garrison there reinforced with either 3 Cdo Bde or 16 Air Assault Bde...some of the best fighting troops in the world, whilst other reinforcements would follow on.

    You can't win a war by bombing people into submission from the air - both the Axis and Allies tried that in WW2 and it was an abject failure. Eventually you have to put boots on the ground and Argentina hasn't got the necessary troop transporters (whether by air or sea) to be able to do it.

    So no matter what aircraft Argentina buys, they will never be a true threat to the Falkland Islands.

    I'd be more worried if they started massively upgrading their navy.

    Jan 17th, 2015 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #50...#53 or any combination.
    It's an age thing !
    Also, it is often the only way to get an intelligent conversation on this forum.

    Jan 17th, 2015 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hernán

    How many times are we going to tell you, Argentina is not planning to buy Russian or chinnese aircrafts.

    If ever buy some plane, it is to protect its borders from threats such as terrorism and drug trafficking.

    The current problem is the radar installation in the country, to prevent the entry of aircraft with cargo of drugs.

    Ia 63 The Pampas, are being used to act against the planes that bring drugs from PARAGUAY and BOLIVIA.

    Because Mercopress dont makes notes from on the large amount of drug that is manufactured in Paraguay and Bolivia and are doing the complicated life to us, instead of making notes defaming my country, continuosly?

    ¿Mercopress is headquartered in London, Port Stanley, or some historical ally country of England ?. ¿COULD SOMEONE TELL ME WHERE THEY ARE?

    Argentina, want to work with Brazil to promote the air industry, building and supplying aircraft parts to Brazil and eventually in several years buy SAAB brazileros, NOT FOR MALVINAS,

    Argentina is a very long country in territorial extension and I think you should buy something once, but it will be, within the distant future.

    Obviously both China and Russia, want to sell planes to Argentina because they knows that our aviation is outdated.

    Argentina should not enter in the game of militarization of South Atlantic, quite the opposite.

    The desire of my country is the demilitarization of the South Atlantic but having a NATO base in the islands that seems impossible.

    NOT PLANE AND WEAPON, PRESENT OR FUTURE, MUST BE USED IN OUR BELOVED MALVINAS, IN THIS SACRED GROUND FOR US.

    Jan 18th, 2015 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 56 Hernán

    It does not matter a bit what you think your country is doing with aircraft, it only matters what TMBOA claims to be doing and that is nothing like you say.

    Turbofan powered fighter planes are of no use against drug cartels, you need propeller powered machines.

    Anyway the Falklands are not yours, were never yours, and unless the Falklanders all agree by ballot will NEVER be yours.

    So STFU with all the bleating. Peace!

    Jan 18th, 2015 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @56 Hernán,
    The Falklands ARE NOT:-
    1) Your beloved Malvinas,
    2) Your “sacred ground”.
    Wake up to yourself, give yourself an uppercut, you're talking rubbish.
    The Falklands ARE however:-
    1) Ours(& NEVER likely to be “yours”).
    Hope this clears up your misconceptions.

    Jan 18th, 2015 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #56
    I thought that Mercopress was located in Uruguay..
    I emailed them a few years ago and they said they were located there.
    The time difference in the emails seemed to confirm this.

    As to the UK base on the Falklands being a NATO base, I have not seen any evidence of this. My understanding of a NATO base is one that has been dedicated for use...by right....for all NATO partners.
    A UK sovereign base is one solely under the control of the UK who MAY permit it's use, on request, to other NATO members.
    I have not heard of any NATO visiting aircraft on the Falklands.
    Do any Islanders know the designation of Mt.Pleasant in light of the above ?

    Jan 18th, 2015 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    56@
    one word=indoctrinated.

    Jan 18th, 2015 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    56 Hernán

    “NOT PLANE AND WEAPON, PRESENT OR FUTURE, MUST BE USED IN OUR BELOVED MALVINAS, IN THIS SACRED GROUND FOR US.”

    No doubt these “malvinas” that you bleating on about are your sacred ground..........

    The Falkland Islands however, have always been, are and WILL ALWAYS be, British.

    Get over it and move the f**k on

    Jan 18th, 2015 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DouglasBlammo

    Yup British. Snaggle toothed sheep shaggers who worship an old hag and her band of ladrones.

    Jan 19th, 2015 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 62 DouglasBlammo

    What a great definition of TMBOA!

    I should look out if I were you, you might commit 'suicide' one night soon.

    What a joy that would be for us.

    HA, HA, HA, HA. BANG! I bet that made you jump!

    Jan 19th, 2015 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    lol.

    Jan 19th, 2015 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @62 DouglasBlammo,
    We don't ALL shag sheep, you know.
    Are you jealous?
    Don't you have good-looking sheep in Argentina?
    Or are they as ugly as that plastic faced thing you have looting, er l mean running your silly country?

    Jan 19th, 2015 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    65 lsolde

    “Don't you have good-looking sheep in Argentina?”

    Don't be too hard on him, his “Love yew” has developed a puncture.............

    Jan 19th, 2015 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    @56 Hernan

    “The desire of my country is the demilitarization of the South Atlantic but having a NATO base in the islands that seems impossible.”

    If it's a NATO base, how come only British aircraft are based there?

    NATO is made up of many countries, i.e.
    1/- The USA.
    2/-Canada
    3/-Norway.
    4/-Germany.
    5/-Italy.
    6/-Spain.
    7/- Greece.
    8/-Turkey.
    9/-The Netherlands.
    10/-Belgium
    11/-Denmark.
    12.Portugual.

    There are others I have not included. But even excluding the remainder, how many of the above conduct joint NATO military exercises, with their army, navy or (pertinent to MPA) their airforces?

    How many of these countries have their aircraft based at MPA?

    How many Argentine Airforce aircraft are based on each Argentine air base, less than ten?

    If you want to de-militarise the South Atlantic, by definition that means removing all Argentine air force aircraft from anywhere near the South Atlantic , even , if they don't work properly.

    But you haven't.

    Until you de-militarise the South Atlantic, surprise, surprise, MPA stays open, to prevent a repeat of your 1982 imperialism. And Emperor Galteiri despite being an army general, didn't even fight on the Falklands.

    If he had really believed in the Malvinas myth he would have been there fighting instead of getting pissed 1000 miles away.

    @62

    “Yup British. Snaggle toothed sheep shaggers who worship an old hag and her band of ladrones.”

    You know George Galloway then?

    Jan 19th, 2015 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hepatia

    I don't know why this article is appearing in the Brazilian section. It doesn't have much relevance to Brazil. I guess in the warped world of 'Mercopenguin' and the British government such a connection makes sense.

    In any case, and irrespective of whether the Argentinians buy these aircraft, or others, or none at all, the UK will be returning the Malvinas within 25 years.

    This article does illustrate the asymmetric nature of this situation and the unfavorable position occupied by the UK. The Argentinians have not announced any firm plans WRT aircraft but already the UK has been forced to spend nearly $1b in response to what is no more than speculation.

    Jan 20th, 2015 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    Where have you been, Hepatia?
    l've missed your doom & gloom re “returning”(thats an impossibility)the malvinas within 25 years.
    1) What are malvinas?
    garden gnomes?
    fence posts?
    kitchenware? got me stumped.
    2) Returning them to who?
    The Flat Earth Society?
    BsAs All Girls Pipe Band?
    The Ministry of Silly Walks?
    Who knows, not Hepatia anyway.
    Well Hepatia, you won't be getting the Swedish aircraft that you wanted.
    So whatever we did or spent……it worked!

    Jan 20th, 2015 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    68
    Enlighten me oh wise one -(sarcasm). Break down this mythical $1b in response to this situation vis-a-vis Argentina. You really are puffed up with your own UNIMPORTANCE to the UK.

    Jan 20th, 2015 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin Woodhead

    They are going to lose the plot when rapier is replaced by camms a proper SAM system with a range of twenty plus klicks

    Jan 20th, 2015 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Evil Colonialist Pirate

    Even if they buy 20, only about 4 will actually be airworthy at any one time. Even then, it would take a braver man than me to actually get into one.

    Jan 21st, 2015 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • RICO

    Argentina will revert to type and buy from whoever is stupid enough to offer them credit, they just have not found anyone that stupid yet.

    Jan 21st, 2015 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Evil Colonialist Pirate

    #68 Herpes

    The UK will never hand the “Malvinas” to Argentina, not in 25 years, not in 2500 years unless the people want it.

    Jan 21st, 2015 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!