Originally posted by MarocMirage

The reason why they invested in MiG-29s is to patrol their skies as they have no value against fundamentalists on the ground. But algeria has a vast airspace which means that the Mig-29 with its short range is bad choise. Su-30 was offered. And why do they have Su-24 bombers when they weren’t used against the fundamentalists?

It’s sort of expensive to use Flankers and Fulcrums for air patrol against fundamentalists. This makes little sense. But what does make sense in Algeria’s civil war after all?

Originally posted by Srbin
Who cares buddy this is a thread regarding PC-9s, not S&M.

If you had read the previous posts, you would have noticed that I was asked to specify. The PC-9 or PC-21 are not a good option for S&M.
I even agree partially with SerbPVO: It’s much better for them to produce a domestic model (though probably a little expensive). An other option would be to look at importing the Super Tucano instead. The likeliness to obtain spare parts in a possible conflict is much bigger than with the Pilatus models.

Originally posted by Malandro
Please forgive me . youre right its IMF . FMI would be in portuguese . Thats the probelm when you have lfew spare time

No worries, English isn’t my mother tongue either, and it was a rather easy one to figure out. I just wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same thing.

True , but as soon as Cardoso became Economy’s Minister it did deep necessary reforms on our economy , many of then unpopular but necessary. I think Kichner should be more audacious since its popularity is very high in Argentine for a long time . I have the impression that if Kichner fails on it , the future ones will have less popular support and more difficult to impose such refomrs

I agree. Coming from the left and being not quite as populist as Menem, he really would have the potential to reform things. Look what Blair achieved in GB.
Yet his initial procedures are understandable given the failure of the IMF “medicine” prior to his election. After all Argentina basically went bankrupt despite sticking to the IMF recipe. Kirchner’s presidency still is rather new. Genarally there’s a tendency of Presidents to become more “realistic” after a while. (See Cardoso). He seems willing to learn and talk.
I guess the future will tell.

You should then ask yourself if your original comment (“ Well, the Falkland conflict was really the end of expansionist dreams involving aircraft carriers, wasn’t it.“) sounds offensive, or rather infuriating…the way I see it you made a clearly false and unsubstantial accusation, and added a little to much sarcasm for my tastebuds. With your original statement you tainted Argentinas long-standing and valid claim on the Falklands/Malvinas as being a baseless and gratuituos agression campaign, which it was not. You have been implying all the time that Argentina deliberatly scaled weapons purchases to satisfy expansionist ambitions. This is a false accusation, and I feel offended by it.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with sarcasm if you can back it up with facts, if not its totally missplaced.

False statement? If you count out your old Argentina propaganda material (I suppose) you can read about the military build up and the Galtieri’s attempt to divert attention from the socio- economic crisis in Argentina just about everywhere.
I never tainted the Argentine claims, as you try to imply, just this rather unwise procedure the military junta pursued.

True, a reference to that must sound offensive to a person who still justifies the policy of Galtieri and the like and harbours old dreams of military conquest and glory in battle. If you count yourself among those, then it’s your problem.

It seems to me that fortunately a majority in Argentina has learned something. The old nostalgics seem to die out or go behind bars, eventually.
If the Galtieri junta had stuck to negotiations, Argentina probably would now be in posession of the Malvinas, just like China with Hong Kong and Macao.

In any case you would be stepping on my toes if your analysis would be closer tied to reality, but by brushpainting the issue and hence Argentinas policy and recent history as “expansionist dreams” you are simply flaming…

Your reaction shows that it can’t be far from the truth, I guess 😀

Something I learned in another forum is that if you know better, but still stick to childish oversimplification, then its your own fault if you get treated like an idiot.

Sorry, I didn’t notice anybody treating me like an idiot, did you?

If you look close, you’ll find that sources like scramble or naval-history use the same sort of retoric (invasion, offensive) and “childish oversimplification” as you call it. You sure haven’t convinced me of your version, why should I change my opinion?

Now you also are going to teach me about how my own backyard should look, or what?
So, in your words, the region is safer cause no regional player is able to protect it anymore and the biggest (I should say strongest) military presence is a non-regional, non-hemispheric former colonnial power? Sort of PAX ROMANA, hum?

Oh my god, you really got a big backyard! Am I talking to the new King of South America, Jester I. ? :D:rolleyes:

Protect it from what? Marsians?
You still haven’t understood: It’s not the presence of the mighty British in the South Atlantic nor of any hegemonial power that makes the region more peacefull today than 20 years ago.
It’s the fact that Argenina, Brazil, Chile, South Africa and its neighbours finally get along better with eachother.
There’s no need for a military build up. It could be seen as a wrong signal again. After all there’s plenty of socio-economic difficulties around again to divert attention from.

This one’s sort of hard to tell, but should be western type, too:

😀

There’s no need to become emotional or offensive. Comments like:

I’m not going to start any debatte with somebody who has obviusly NO IDEA about the past and current colonnial status of the Falklands/Malvinas islands

or

maybe the concept of over 4000km Atlantic coast line and nearly 1.2 million km2 territorrial and EEZ waters is beyond your grasp

don’t really contribute to a good conversation and come across as rather arrogant. You’re not in a position to judge my knowledge.

True- the British were not invited in 1833 either. I’m not here to defend colonial attitudes. But this doesn’t justify the procedure of the Argentine military dictatorship in 1982.
Nobody asked Galtieri to distract the peoples attention form the economic problems and bad government by invading the Falkland Islands. The inhabitants were opposed to Argentine rule. The Argentine military dictatorship gambled and lost. It didn’t follow what the UN suggested as you’re implying. Concerning the use of words like “invasion” or “conquer”: Well, I’m going to stick to them.

Let’s see what “Naval history” sais:

“British Colonisation – Britain later starts to settle the islands and formally declares a colonial administration in 1842, although Argentina continues to press her claim and from the 1960’s on, with increasing vigour. Stanley is established in 1845. By this time, Britain’s right to ownership rests mainly on her peaceful and continuous possession over a long period of time, and when serious negotiations begin, they become dominated by the islander’s desire to remain British.

Argentine Claims – After a period of Argentine lobbying, the United Nations passes Resolution 2065 in 1965 specifying the Falklands/Malvinas as a colonial problem, and calling on Britain and Argentina to find a peaceful solution. Talks continue on and off for the next seventeen years under both British Labour and Conservative Governments. Britain initially appears flexible over the question of sovereignty, and by 1971 the Argentines are agreeing to concentrate on economic development and support, but thereafter, both side’s position hardens. The Argentines will accept nothing less than full sovereignty and in late 1980 the islanders reject the one remaining solution of lease-back for a fixed period.

On the road to war, Argentina sets up a scientific base on Southern Thule in the South Sandwich Islands in 1976 and stays put, and in 1982 her forces find themselves about to land on South Georgia and to invade and hold the Falklands themselves.”
http://www.naval-history.net/F13history.htm

Now to the role of the carrier. It seems rather logical to me that a carrier wouldn’t partake in the landing operation itself. After all it’s not a landing craft, or is it? Nevertheless it was at the heart of the (offensive) operation that was meant to take and hold the Malvinas. It was there as a command base, to secure, and its airplanes probably performed Recce- missions.

“Scramble” also puts emphasis on its offensive use in the Falkland conflict:

“The successor to the first carrier had arrived in 1969 as well in the shape of the former Royal Netherlands Navy HrMs Karel Doorman named ARA 25 de Mayo in Argentinean naval service. However, this material was no longer solely used for the defence of the country but for offensive actions also. In April 1982 the Malvinas campaign was started entailing the capture of the Falkland Islands controlled by Britain… “

http://www.scramble.nl/mil/1/argentina/navy-main.htm

It proved rather useless as a defensive asset however once the Britsh fleet arrived. No matter if it played some “hide and seek” with the British fleet first as you pointed out, it turned tail. It couldn’t contribute at all to the defense of the Argentine forces on the islands anymore.
Its airplanes operated from the mainland and from the Malvinas henceforth.

Interesting: You claim that carriers are essential for peace and stability in the South Atlantic region:

May be the concept of over 4000km Atlantic coast line and nearly 1.2 million km2 territorrial and EEZ waters is beyond your grasp. The escort carrier with her ASW and ASuW assets is a necessary tool (but costly to run) to effectively control and protect the sea-routes and the countries best economic interests on the South Atlantic….

The region looks a lot more stable to me now than at the time of the introduction of the ARA 25 de Mayo with neither Argentina nor South Africa wielding a “carrier stick”. There are better ways to preserve peace and stability in the region. Try opting for a democratic government that is respected worldwide, “getting along with your neighbours”, and international cooperation. Could this be beyond your grasp?

mention China and India in one sentense to start a flame war….
Ok, that wasn’t very funny. 😀