MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Construction of first Argentine-built Argentine Navy ship in almost 40 years commences
The Rio Santiago shipyard (ARS) Tuesday began building the first ship for the Argentine Navy in 38 years, it was announced. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWouldn't it be cheaper to buy Russian rejects?
Dec 21st, 2016 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Thats the good news. It will be finished about 3000!
Dec 21st, 2016 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Construction “commences.” That means that the first celebration fiestas for completion should be in about the year 2089, with an actual launch attempt down the ways 13 to 15 years later, with a prompt return for 8 years of repairs.
Dec 21st, 2016 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The repairs - just the fooking repairs - to the Argentine icebreaker ARA Almirante Risible “commenced” in 2009 and it's the end of 2016 now, with no completion date in sight. Lots of money spent, though. Anyone want to guess where all the money went? Remember the reports in 2011 that the Risible would be ready to go to Antarctica in 2012? Lots of celebration of completion, but no real-world completion.
Welcome to Argentina !
I suppose ships are like old houses...it can be quicker and cheaper to demolish them and rebuild than to renovate and modernise them to standard....
Dec 22nd, 2016 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse -1'“It is very important that the Argentine Navy, after 38 years, has placed an order for a new construction at the shipyard, they are our main customer,'.......
Dec 22nd, 2016 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse +2Things must be pretty quiet down at ARS(e) then.... an order every 38 years...
This is going to take some time... I saw the Eva Peron being built there for Venezuela... if they had been building it twice as fast it would still have been going backwards... one solitary welder could be seen poking away under the hull...
V-oink... you suppose do you? For once I think you suppose right.... the good ship Risible being a good example of this.
Is it my imagination but the photograph makes it seem aground already!
Dec 22nd, 2016 - 06:26 am - Link - Report abuse +3Fascinating fact. If they entered their shiny new ship in the Oxford vs Cambridge boat race it would come last.
Dec 22nd, 2016 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse +3Golly... I knew ARA King was old... but 70 years old!!!!!
Dec 22nd, 2016 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse +1She would be older but it took them at ARS(e) 3 years from launching to completion... nothing new there ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_King_(P-21)
I bet Airfix will be thrilled.
Dec 22nd, 2016 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Surely this fine ship will be completed “within 25 years”, in perpetuity?
Dec 22nd, 2016 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1crikey - in service since 1946, almost as long as HMS Victory or the US Constitution..! They'd probably still have the Belgrano in service - or they could have sold it back to the US as a museum ship for a tidy sum since it was at Pearl Harbor as the USS Phoenix - the only major ship to escape without damage.
Dec 22nd, 2016 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Phoenix_(CL-46)
@shackelton
Dec 23rd, 2016 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse +1In fact, as far as I know at the beginning of year 1982 there were talks between both, the argentine navy and the US navy, to cede the ARA Belgrano to US. In fact, the US Navy was interested in getting it restored and putting it on exhibition as a floating museum.
This doesn't talk well about Conqueror's achievement….sinking a museum with a nuclear submarine with satellite guidance doesn't seem to be quite an achievement to feel pride of....
@pgerman
Dec 23rd, 2016 - 03:30 am - Link - Report abuse +1That “museum” was carrying armament that was a serious threat to the Falklands-recovery team, so sinking it with whatever means was certainly in order. Even senior Argentine naval officers concluded that it was a militarily appropriate thing to do. The exclusion zone was not respected by Argentina, so that is hardly a useful argument. The submarine did its assigned work in a stellar manner.
Te lo explicamos en cristiano:
“En 2005 Pedro Luis Galazi, segundo en jerarquía en el buque, en unas declaraciones hechas al periódico argentino ”La Capital”24 consideró legítima la acción del submarino HMS Conqueror. El segundo comandante del Crucero General Belgrano justificó virtualmente esa acción al señalar que se encontraban en guerra, y no tenía sentido decir que los británicos no debían atacar porque el buque argentino se hallaba fuera de la zona de exclusión, como sostienen quienes cuestionan la legitimidad del ataque. Explica además que ellos (la flota argentina) también podían entrar en combate. Revela que no poseían misiles, pero sí estaban acompañados por dos destructores y el Belgrano contaba con cañones de 20 km de alcance. Aclaró además que “la zona de exclusión” es un diagrama geográfico importante en situaciones de bloqueo, pero no en un conflicto de guerra.”
@pgerman
Dec 23rd, 2016 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse +3The torpedoes used to sink Belgrano were also a WWII era design.
But I don't feel proud of the achievement; a lot of people died. Nevertheless, it was effective since the Argentine navy, and in particular the aircraft carrier, took no more part in the war.
Argentine Navy ship -
Dec 23rd, 2016 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Another provocative move by this aggressive nation,
another excuse to militarise the south Atlantic, were the Falkland's informed or asked , were the British informed or asked,
no I thought not, or is it just an argentine thing ?
When we do anything, we are aggressive and militarising the south Atlantic, but its ok for this aggressive threatening country to do so.?
Well, that's my moan for today, ,,,Feel free.
@DT “...since the Argentine navy, and in particular the aircraft carrier, took no more part in the war.”
Dec 24th, 2016 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse +1Not exactly. Some of the surface fleet was bottled up. But the argie submarine force was still a threat, with the ARA San Luis operating in the theatre. Likewise argie naval air continued to operate and presented more than just a serious threat to the task force. The missile that struck the HMS Glamorgan was an Argentine navy missile operated by Argentine navy personnel. The Argentine navy operated at least one hospital boat and a hospital ship (the Irízar) in the Falklands waters and while it should have acted according to international conventions on rules of war, it notably failed to do so. You may also wish to also study the participation of the destroyers “Bouchard” and “Piedrabuena” among others during the war.
So it is entirely false to allege that the Argentine navy took “no more part in the war” after the sinking of the Belgrano, although that is the version that is normally consumed by a less than critically thinking and only superficially informed public.
@ML
Dec 24th, 2016 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +2So it's not completely accurate to say that, but the main point is still true; sinking the Belgrano considerably reduced the treat posed by Argentina's navy. Or are you saying that is not true either?
@DT -- So you are backpedaling again, but at least you understand that you were inaccurate and ill-informed. Why don't you summarise the damage caused by Argentine navy during the war? Before somebody else, with some knowledge of the war, does it for you.
Dec 24th, 2016 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +2@ML
Dec 24th, 2016 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Why don't you summarise the damage caused by Argentine navy during the war?”
Because I'm not an expert and nor do I desire to be one. I will leave that to other people on this site.
I've told you what my point was, and you didn't say whether you agree or not. So, do you think the sinking was effective, ie it helped Britain to win the war?
pgerman
Dec 24th, 2016 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“ This doesn't talk well about Conqueror's achievement….sinking a museum with a nuclear submarine with satellite guidance doesn't seem to be quite an achievement to feel pride of....”
Nor is the fact that the accompanying Argentine ships were told that they would be not attacked, yet they did not stop to pick up survivors.
Are you saying because British ships were sunk by modern Exocet missiles that was wrong, because the aircraft launching them at the time were modern?
The Belgrano's sinking was entirely the fault of Galteiri. Argentina were informed on 23rd April 1982 that any Argentine kit deemed a threat to the task force anywhere, would be liable to attack.
Galteri dismissed this warning, so he and Anaya were responsible, by allowing Belgrano to be anywhere near danger.
The Belgrano taking part in a pincer movement against the task force, was not a brilliant idea if Argentina did not want her sunk. the fresponsibility lies with whoever ordered that pincer movement-plastic face Anaya?
Also earlier in April, Margaret Thatcher refused permission to attack Argentine Boeing 707 aircraft and an earlier request from a submarine to sink the Argentine aircraft carrier.
@DT “ do you think the sinking was effective, ie it helped Britain to win the war?”
Dec 24th, 2016 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Of course it was an effective sinking. That ship went straight to the bottom.
It is difficult to say how much the sinking helped or hindered the British effort. It could be argued that the sinking also sunk any of the tiny remaining potential for a peaceful settlement, in that the event tended to steel the Argentines somewhat, which could be viewed as hampering the task force efforts. Likewise it gave the silk panties crowd in the UK something to more loudly whinge about, and may have helped to keep up Peru's material assistance to Argentina's war effort while pretending to broker a peace effort. Obviously the sinking removed considerable capability from the Argentine side, not just from the armament on the old cruiser but also the considerable reduction in supply shipping from the continent.The importance of keeping the Argentine aircraft carrier out of blue water can't be overstated, although the sinking of the carrier itself would have probably made more strategic sense. Once the majority of the Argentine surface fleet went to port, this freed up the UK submarines for other tasks that contributed to the task force's success. So on the whole it seems that the sinking of the Belgrano was appropriate and beneficial for the UK forces.
Naturally, a great deal has been written on this topic and I don't pretend to cover any of the bases. One thing often forgotten is that the loss of life from the sinking was made worse by the Argentine navy's many errors, including the Belgrano's failure to perform disciplined damage control, and the failure of its destroyers to provide timely assistance (remember that they had no idea what was going on and inadvertently abandoned the Belgrano for quite some time. )
If you invade the territory of another and then send your fleet all locked and loaded to make it worse, don't be surprised when your boats get holed.
@ DT & ML
Dec 25th, 2016 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse +2The UK also made false claims about how the war was progressing and I have no problem with that.
It doesn't really matter who did what to who and with what because the outcome is the only thing that mattered and the UK kicked the argies off the Falklands, never to return.
That's it!
“......accompanying Argentine ships were told that they would be not attacked, yet they did not stop to pick up survivors.....”
Dec 25th, 2016 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +4That's a point that has been brought up repeatedly in the Argentine media and it appears to be accurate, though I've only read the Spanish-language versions so can't point to an English text.
On 02 May 1982 the Argentine fleet was indeed engaged in offensive operations against the UK task force. The Royal Navy had intel that the Belgrano was serving as the command and control platform for the Argentine fleet. Thus no matter where their ships were, they were subject to engagement. Especially the cruiser. No C2, fleet goes headless.
Argentine government and media have confirmed that on that day, 8 Skyhawks from the Argentine aircraft carrier (25 de mayo) were to have attacked the British fleet but wind conditions were unfavourable. Contrary to popular belief, a do-over due to wind does not grant immunity to a hostile fleet.
Once the Belgrano was hit by the torpedoes, the escorting Argentine destroyers in theory should have either (1) taken hostile action against the submarine, or (2) followed the international protocols for effecting a protected-status rescue which involved, among other things, clear-channel communication between the parties. What the Argentine investigations have revealed is that their two destroyers took option 3, which was to run away from the scene of the sinking and thereby allow the Belgrano's crew a much-diminished chance of survival. Apparently, at about 10 pm on the night of the sinking, the destroyers were ordered to return to the site of the sinking, but it took them a lot longer to get back than it had taken them to reach to area from which they had fled. So they didn't get back there until the next afternoon at almost dark, by which time some of the pibes in the rafts were already dead from hypothermia while some rafts had overturned or were otherwise lost. Essentially self-inflicted losses.
@ML
Dec 26th, 2016 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, like most things, it was more complicated than what is reported in the papers, but I think that was a qualified yes.
About the escorting destroyers, I heard that they just didn't realise what had happened until later, and when they did they went back. I haven't seen anything saying that they just ran away.
@ChrisR
You know I don't agree with you that the ends always justify the means, but I don't have a problem with that, or with the sinking of the Belgrano.
@DT “...I haven't seen anything saying that they just ran away.”
Dec 26th, 2016 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MercoPiss had an article back in 2007 which mentioned “Two Argentine destroyers were escorting General Belgrano when the incident but fearing further torpedoes abandoned the scene.”
Up until a few years ago, the Argentine version of events understandably included fabricated tales of how the destroyers made valiant efforts to chase off the British submarine with depth charges and tactical dumping of waste-bins of used toilet-paper overboard.
But even the early Argentine accounts with the fabrications left some clues, by carelessly indicating that the rafts containing the crewmembers were found about 100 km from the site of the sinking, about 30 hours after the attack. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there was a conspicuous absence of destroyer rescue efforts for more than 24 hours. And it wasn't even a ship that found the widely dispersed rafts, but a search aircraft, which then allowed vectoring of a number of vessels to the scene, including a Chilean boat that took on survivors. The two destroyers actually had to be ordered back to take part in the rescue.
Details on the matter finally started to come out more clearly by about 2003 or so, by which time in Argentina it had become fashionable and somewhat safe to out the misbehaviour of the Argentine military during those years. There some letters published from veterans of those destroyers which faulted their commanders for fleeing rather than turning on their lights and immediately undertaking rescue of the Belgrano survivors. And with those revelations came the details of how the escorting destroyers fled the scene in fear of being themselves torpedoed. Other details emerged: the flares and the emergency rations on the Belgrano's rafts were long expired (many of the flares either didn't work at all or flared-out almost immediately). The rafts themselves were unsuitable for the South Atlantic conditions.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!