MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentine navy and air force dispute operation of the five refurbished Super Etendard
Super Etendards have been flown by the Argentine navy and became famous together with Exocet missiles, during the South Atlantic conflict. 
Aguad also has his eyes on the Gendarmerie's aircraft, but will have to clash with the powerful Home and Security minister Patricia Bullrich. 
The Argentine Air Force argues there is not much difference flying a Super Etendard or the Mirages, both manufactured by France's Dassault. The purchase by Argentina of five refurbished French Super Etendard to help with security measures when Argentina hosts the 2018 G20 summit, which will bring together the world's top leaders, has triggered a dispute among the country's services since the current defense minister, Oscar Aguad wants to concentrate all military aircraft in the Air Force.
This apparently includes taking over the Navy, Army and Gendarmerie aircrafts, and hand them over to the Air Force, but this faces several ministerial hurdles, if not also emotional. In effect the Super Etendard have always been flown by the Argentine navy and became famous together with Exocet missiles, during the South Atlantic conflict. The navy apparently still has nine of them but none operational because of lack of spares and maintenance.
The Argentine Air Force argues there is not much difference flying a Super Etendard or the Mirages, both manufactured by France's Dassault. The Air Force Mirages have been decommissioned for similar reasons as the Navy's Super Etendard, and currently it has operational less than five of the 35 US built the Lockheed-Martin A4 AR fighter bombers.
Likewise Aguad has his eyes on the Gendarmerie's aircraft, (in spite of the fact frontier police duties are different), but will have to clash with the powerful Home and Security minister Patricia Bullrich.
However apparently the determined Aguad must be given credit for having finally managed to convince the French and Argentine governments to agree on the Super Etendard contract, at a reasonable cost for the cash short treasury. Besides an attempt to rent aircraft from the Brazilian Air Force did not advance and the alternative would have been to ask the Chileans.
In the same line of action, Aguad somehow convinced the Navy of his air power concentration objective by promising the admirals that he would hand them the Coast Guard, a much desired wish of the navy, but here also they will have to face minister Bullrich.
Top Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules-
-
-
Read all commentsTwo bald men fighting over a comb.
Nov 17th, 2017 - 02:50 pm +3Off subject I know but I hope the crew of the San Juan are found safe and well. I can't imagine a worse fate than being trapped in, what amounts to a large tin can, at the bottom of the sea.
Nov 18th, 2017 - 09:14 am +3https://news.sky.com/story/argentinian-military-submarine-ara-san-juan-missing-at-sea-for-two-days-11130303
I understand that the British Government have offered assistance. Let's hope that Argentine pride doesn't get in the way...like it did with the Russians back in the 1990's, where they refused all help until it was too late for the trapped submariners.
The British and USA have the best submarine rescue teams in the world and they are always on standby.
Even further off subject...Tobias the no longer so teenage troll...you don't use a vaccine unless they are 100% effective?!?!?!?
No vaccine in the world is 100% effective, the majority are about 95% effective at best, so I'm surprised that you haven't died of some awful disease. Yet that 95% effectiveness has reduce child mortality by a huge amount. Anyone with any medical knowledge knows that in order for a disease to spread you need a reservoir of the disease, a vector (the thing that spreads the disease...a mosquito for example) and a susceptible population at risk.
If you can remove just one of the above and the disease cannot spread. By vaccinating people you vastly reduce the population at risk. But since it isn't 100% effective, governments usually try to eliminate one of the others too.
Lets take small pox as the most famous example. A huge reservoir (in other words lots of infected people), the vector (by person to person contact), and the population at risk. Vaccination, plus INFECTION PREVENTION and CONTROL have reduced the cases of small pox to 0.
You supposition that everything (from seatbelts to vaccines) must be 100% effective or why bother using them is very childish. It's like saying “I'm not going to eat food unless you can 100% guarantee that I won't choke on it”. Which no one can do.
Nostrils
Nov 18th, 2017 - 10:21 am +3I would have to say that your attitude exhibits a large degree of selfishness.
Immunisation protects society, and also, to a lesser degree, does the wearing of seatbelts.
A seat belt is not only of use in a crash. If you get into skid, then the belt will hold you securely as you try to regain control. If you are not wearing one then your only point of balance is to cling to the steering wheel which means you have lost control..
if you have to brake in an emergency, without a seat belt, you will impact with the steering wheel as you lift off the seat and possibly go through the windscreen.
It's obvious that you have no experience in driving a car..
As to vaccinations, you play the percentages. You have a much greater chance of not getting a disease if you are vaccinated and if you do contract it, your survival chances are greatly enhanced..
I was brought up as a child when Polio, T.B. and Smallpox were killers. Since the advent of mass immunisation, these diseases are all but eliminated in Western societies.
As to not wearing a helmet, the human skull cracks easily on contact with the ground.
Better for the helmet to receive a dent than the cranium.
I can only suppose that your skull is so dense that it doesn't matter.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!