MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, July 18th 2019 - 02:44 UTC

 

 

Argentina pays for the first batch of 24 T-6C training aircraft for its Air Force

Thursday, April 27th 2017 - 10:27 UTC
Full article 15 comments

Textron Aviation’s Beechcraft has received an US$88.2 million contract to supply the Argentina Air Force with T-6 aircraft. The U.S. Air Force contract calls for Beechcraft to supply four T-6C airplanes as well as maintenance, pilot training and interim contractor support for maintenance. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • AustrOllOpithecus

    I've seen 3rd graders in class intermissions grab a test paper sheet and craft a superior aircraft in less than 4 minutes, than whatever is shown in the picture above.

    What a monumental waste of money, on that and on the military too.

    Apr 27th, 2017 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    It's a training aircraft Toby, for novices...
    Fit for the purpose, would you rather have nothing to train young pilots...?

    Apr 27th, 2017 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Clyde15

    Let's get serious. You have NOT seen 3d graders do anything of the sort.

    If you want an air force than you have to train pilots. This is an ab initio trainer with some capacity for anti-insurgent strikes.

    The qualified pilots can then go on to multi engine transports or jet fighter/strike aircraft if you have any.

    Any country without the means of self defence is an open target. That is why some sort of military capability is required.

    Apr 27th, 2017 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • The Voice

    Neandertroll, it's for quelling the Mendoza riots, didn't you hear?

    Apr 27th, 2017 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Yes, he would rather have nothing to train young pilots. He wants to abolish the military, remember?

    Apr 27th, 2017 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • AustrOllOpithecus

    What is a military? Destroy or be destroyed. Kill or be killed. That is the definition of warfare, which is what a military is created to carry out.

    Destroy or be destroyed, kill or be killed are absolute, there is no gray middle. You win, or you lose.

    Therefore, if you build a military, it must be a military that can defeat all possible opponents. anything less is a complete waste of resources.

    Thus, spending billions on a military that could not stop an invasion from Brazil, USA, Germany, France, UK, Russia, China, Korea, Italy, Turkey, Iran, among many many others is pointless.

    Those 4-5 billion a year could on the other hand give you a far better education system.

    Apr 27th, 2017 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    I think the purpose of the military is to defend the population and ones borders...
    I'm sure you have also heard of alliances and treaties to deter invasion...

    Simple question...is the military defence of the Falklands pointless or effective...?
    Is the Israeli military pointless or effective...?
    ...and so on....

    Apr 27th, 2017 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • AustrOllOpithecus

    Yes, it is, pointless if the Chinese, Russians, or North americans decided tomorrow to invade the Falklands...

    Of course a military can appear to have a purpose for many years, until the wrong opponent attacks you.

    But the Falklands and Israel have very different realities from Argentina.

    The defense of a population should fall to the citizens themselves. Holding on to a country whose citizens are willing to do all it takes to drive the invader out has not succeeded once in Human History.

    Apr 27th, 2017 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    When you say willing to do all it takes...you mean die...
    How well did that work against the Europeans in the Americas...?

    Problem was....they didn't have a military...

    btw...Against powerful armies one has powerful deterrents....(Nukes)

    Apr 28th, 2017 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • AustrOllOpithecus

    It was the diseases, don't let yourself be fooled. Recent estimates put the population collapse in the Americas post 1492 up to 91%... Imagine if Spain, England, France, Portugal, Holland, Denmark, and all other murderous savages had to face uprisings from populations 10 times greater than what they did. I think after a century or so the Indians would have successfully retaken back most of everything.

    Apr 28th, 2017 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Don't make me laugh Toby....Scholars estimate that the population of the Inca Empire numbered more than 16,000,000...
    Aztecs bout 5 million and everyone else...
    10 times greater my arse....
    The first Battle of Cajamarca against the Incas was 180 Spanish against 3000 to 8000 Incas...two thousand dead, five thousand prisoners...
    Fighters they were not...or not willing to do all it takes...

    Apr 28th, 2017 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    The Inca were fighters, their army was very effective against their neighbours who had a similar level of technology. It just wasn't effective at all against the Spanish who had steel weapons and armour, and horses.

    Judging from the number of empires that have existed in the past, most people are NOT willing to do what it takes, they would rather get on with their lives even if ruled from some distant capital. And resistance does not always work anyway, if you're truly a murderous savage then you just kill all the people who resist.

    Trollboy, your idea of warfare is way off. We spent centuries fighting regular wars against France, and both countries are still around. Britain has lost plenty of wars and wasn't destroyed, and we won plenty that didn't destroy the other side either. Or look at your own history. You won a war against Spain and it wasn't kill or be killed, it was independence or not. You fought one against Brazil over Uruguay and it ended in a compromise and Uruguay becoming independent, but neither country was ever trying to destroy the other. And Argentina continued on just fine after the Falklands war, despite losing.

    The only accurate thing you've said is this: “But the Falklands and Israel have very different realities from Argentina.”

    This is true. Argentina could afford to abolish its army and would most likely be fine. If Israel abolished its army it would cease to exist tomorrow, and almost certainly a lot of its citizens would be killed and the rest would have to flee. If the British army left the Falklands... well, it would depend on who you elected and how things were going at home, I think.

    Apr 28th, 2017 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    Mr. Voice...

    You say...:
    《“The first Battle of Cajamarca against the Incas was 180 Spanish against 3000 to 8000 Incas...two thousand dead, five thousand prisoners...
    Fighters they were not...or not willing to do all it takes...”》 huhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...?

    I say...:
    The first Battle of Twin Towers & Pentagon against the Yanks was 18 Sandniggas against 400,000,000 Americans...three thousand dead, no prisoners...
    Fighters they are not...or not willing to do all it takes...?

    An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind...
    El Think...

    Apr 28th, 2017 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • The Voice

    Airfix must be really pleased to have received this order

    Apr 28th, 2017 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    But the USA is still there ! It was a pointless exercise and caused the USA to hit out in fury against so called jihadists and anyone with a penchant for the Muslim religion. The US will not lose...this one matters ....unlike Vietnam.

    Apr 28th, 2017 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1

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