To be fair Russia is already pretty much isolated when it comes to Syria as it appears to be just them and Iran wanting to keep Assads tyrannical dictatorship afloat and when it comes to the overall world scene Russia is not a country with many allies as it is, let alone friends though thats hardly suprising considering how they act. As much as I despise dippy Dave he’s certainly not deluded in this case.

Have you, perchance, heard of this thing called BRICS?

Beware of using PPP in this context. It’s unlikely that the PPP for military spending will be the same as that for the whole economy.

I quite agree, which is why I sort of emphasised the Nominal GDP percentage.
Just mentioned that as I was trying to see where Y-20 Bacon got the larger figure from, and it does appear to be based on PPP.

Still, it’s a worthwhile amount that can go a very long way, but I suppose the fiefdoms, inneficiencies, and above all, the current government makes it all unlikely.

Still, a new government in the future may think differently, and this mental meandering excercise of a thread may have at least some accuracy to it.

Then perhaps they should be more realistic about what their requirements are in light of their resources, lest they wind up in the Argentinean situation of spiralling towards zero capability whilst dreaming of aircraft carriers.

You’ll forgive me if I’m sceptical of a nation that can’t afford to operate a squadron of Gripens weighing the pros and cons of A400M vs. C-17.

They can afford to, just not on the current budget.
They spend well below the average global GDP on defence, about 1,2%, or only about half of the global average.

The problem is that the current criminal clowns in power don’t mind purchasing the stuff required by the SAAF (big bribes available, just like the last arms deal) but are rather less enthusiastic about giving a realistic operational budget (here, there are less bribe and kickback opportunities obviously).

An interesting article by the leading defence analyst in South Africa.
http://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/lean-budget-will-leave-sa-defenceless-1.1517905

The problem is that the UN has constantly over the last few years pressured South Africa to punch its weight with regard to peacekeeping deployments.
The current requirement for the payload and range requirements come from SA govt acceptance of that pressure, but unwillingness to fund it’s operational enablement fully.
This requires a realistic operational budget that is already being stretched by troop deployments in 2 countries (Sudan and Congo), the rotating anti-piracy patrols by the navy up the east coast of Africa, and the annual or bi-annual naval manoeuvres with Brazil and Argentina, amongst others.

The latest budget looks like it will be exactly the same fare unfortunately.
A lot of people in SA seem to be saying the UN can get stuffed, as the current ANC criminals would rather use $22 million of taxpayers money to upgrade the presidents private property and buy more VIP jets for government ministers rather than give a realistic operational funding increase for the airforce.

But then, none of this is a surprise.
It’s not like the ANC had the cleanest reputation over the last 50 years, a fact that was studiously ignored and avoided by it’s funders in western europe…

F-18Growler
Must be Aluminum-Lithium. But i guess there intending to build Aluminum to their Sukhoi products so they can have a reflection, making the enemy think that its just a pice of aluminum reflecting. Probobly it’s a new way to confuse enemies to make them think that it’s a pice of aluminum made from a building or somewhat.

Pardon???

Sexy Kirchner talks big about Falkland but her administration cut military spending to 0.5% of the GDP even though the economy has recovered from the crash in 2002 and is growing quite rapidly.

imagine if sexy Kirchner was replaced by some one pro-security which could happen after her double term is up and defense spending went up

if it was raised to 1.5% of GDP (like Brazil), they’d have an annual budget of 11 billion (bigger than Poland)
if it was raised to 2.5% of GDP (world average), they’d have an annual budget of 18 billion (same as Turkey).

with this budget and Argentinian security issues in mind and world relations, how could they modernize and rebuild their ageing fleet?

I have been informed that my earlier figures are actually incorrect, and that Y-20 Bacons are actually quite close, depending on the GDP measurement term you use.

Argentina actually spends only 0,31% of its GDP on defence, a figure lower than my earlier post of 1%, and even lower than Y-20 Bacons figure of 0,5%.

With a GDP of over $500 billion (or over $800 billion using PPP), a 2,5% defence spend actually equals $12 to $13 billion as a figure of Nominal GDP, and higher as a figure of PPP GDP measurements, which is another figure I got wrong earlier.
Y-20 Bacons upper figure of $18 billion is as a percentage of PPP GDP, as far as I can make out, and is quite accurate in that regard.

Before the usual suspects get all hot and bothered, these figures, which I’ve actually erred on the lower side of, come from a variety of sources such as the IMF, World Bank, Bloomberg, the UN, etc.

Argentina is already building, in its own shipyards (which are perfectly capable of building such vessels), the first of a planned four or five 80 metre OPVs.

Like this (click if you only see a thumbnail) – [ATTACH=CONFIG]217654[/ATTACH]
but without the Chilean flag.
Designed by Fassmer. http://www.fassmer.de/index.php?id=190

Swerve, are those going to be operated as an OPV only, or is it to replace existing naval vessels, such as the three A-69 class vessels?

From what I can gather on the net, they will be operated by the Argentine Navy, and not the coastguard or other government agencies.

I hate to sound like a scratched record Tempest414 but:

a) They couldn’t afford either types of vessel.
b) They wouldn’t be able to get credit due to their current financial pariah status.
c) Even if they did find a way to pay for them their international creditors would try and have them impounded before they ever set sail for Argentina!

Now yes.

However, the premise of the thread is a defence budget of a global average of 2 to 2,5%, or in other words, a two and a half fold increase.

Argentina is one of the lowest spenders on defence as a percentage of GDP per capita on the planet.

As the thread premise, an increase in line with the global average would make quite a few capital aquisitions feasible, and indeed, push the budget up to around $8 billion per year.

Rotated as an aquisitions budget for the Airforce, Navy, and Army in that order of priority, a lot would be acheived – indeed, the complete renewal of the armed forces.

Well I would say the SuE and Trackers are useful, certainly there is no reason they shouldn’t be retained but they should drop the costly pretence of being carrier capable. If they dropped that requirement and moved to land only operations both types are perfectly effective and affordable to operate. With France drawing down her SuE there is a bonanza of spares hitting the market soon.

I agree with Swerve’s observation that much of the Argentine armed forces woes are self inflicted, then again the government could certainly be more helpful with appropriate managed funding.

I’d also looked at the fact that there would be lot’s of Super Etendard spares coming up soon, and most likely additional airframes if they were wanted or were cheap enough.

Still, you’d wonder what sort of role the SE could have, apart from maritime strike.