Air power dominates the sea power, if you control the air, which then can effectively neutralize the enemy surface force after you defeat the enemy land based airforce, even your vantage fleet can be effectively accomplish the landing job.

That’s if they can chug out of port!

Don’t forget Britain has operational submarines.

And I don’t see how the Argentine Air Force can go from mainly grounded and nonoperational to full offensive capability by 2017 or even by 2020 or even by 2025.

I think you underestimate in how dire circumstances Argentina’s land and air forces are.

Their entire operational jet fighter fleet is hovering around 12-20 odd A-4M Skyhawks and maybe 8 Super Etendards (not sure on operational numbers). IA-63 is not combat capable for anything other than COIN and even there a EMB-3114 Super Tucano is far better.

Most of the MPA (P-3B and S-2T) and transports fleets (basically 5 K/C-130B/H) are also antiquainted and need replacing up considerable upgrading.

I doubt Brits would be sending Eurofighters over Argentine territory. The Brits didn’t attack Argentina directly in 1982 (failed SBS/SAS expedition aside).

I think British strategy would be based on defence of islands and British waters.

I think the Brits would launch Tomahawks as a show of force.

Also given entire Argentine AF and Navy are mainly grounded non-operational junk right now, it would take at least a decade to achieve even same capability they had in 1982!

By then F-35B and RN carriers are operational.

Not to mention the cost of replacing 4 destroyers, 9 corvettes, upgradring 3 submarines as well as acquiring a large fleet of combat aircraft, AWACS, tankers etc. Not to mention cost of crew training .

You’re looking at tens of billions of dollars which Argentina as the perennial economic basket case does not have.

The only countries that can afford this level of rearmament (i.e. 100% new equipment) are oil rich Arab countries and certainly not the useless Argentine economy (http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21576120-dollar-shortage-bites-gaucho-blues ).

The question arises as to what are you exactly defending from or in this case attacking?

For air policing and maintaining rudimentary deterrence capability, JF-17, JAS-39 or F-16 is perfectly adequate and probably only a squadron or 2 (12-24 aircraft).

If you want to be able to dominate Chile or Falklands (cause the Argies are bit loony like that), then something more is required and then in considerable numbers – think 80+ aircraft at least.

One thing about either a Falkland Islands or Beagle Sound scenario is that both the Chileans and the Brits are decades ahead of Argentina in terms of equipment, training (e.g. currently no Argentinian pilots are flying supersonic aircraft) and systems.

UK also has fun things ala Tomahawk Cruise Missiles which can make a mess of such beautiful Buenos Aires buildings such as the Libertador Building, HQ of Argentina’s military.

Or use these missiles to ensure that Peurto Belgrano (main naval base) is made as inoperable as a certain cruiser of the same name.

But then targeting Argentina’s navy is a waste of time as the Argentines have ensured the Navy is as crippled as the Air Force:

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/11/22/argentine-navy-short-on-spares-and-resources-for-training-and-maintenance

Ordinance for destroyers expired, lack of spares to put ships out to sea and 3 strong submarine force spending a total of 19 hours submerged in 2013.
Argies should focus on more basic security needs such as stabilising the economy.

I included the A-7s as an example of how the Thai Navy was trying to develop a full fledged air combat capability.

An LPD would’ve been better, whilst money spent on pointless AV-8S and A-7 attack jets could’ve been spent on helicopters or transports which would also help with disaster relief or actual security threats such as insurgency in South or Cambodian/Burmese incursions in the North.

Leave the air combat role to Thai Air Force.

By the way I think Spanish, Brazilian, Italian and even French carriers are also a waste of resources. Not only are they expensive to operate but they chew up other naval resources like supply ships, submarines and frigates which are diverted from other duties to Carrier Battle Group Support.

Also anything less than 3 carriers is generally a waste of time. 3 is minimum required to maintain a 365 day a year capability (1 in overhaul, 1 in training and 1 in active service). At worst you need 2 to maintain some sort of capability (e.g. look at Libya when Charle de Gaulle was withdrawn without replacement – what if it was a deployment outside of range of friendly land bases?).

Nils, F-7 just went out of production.

I would hardly say Argentina is under the yoke of the Americans. They’d be keeping quiet about Falklands if that was the case.