Which begs the question, why do they need to build more of them, instead of upgrading the airframes they all ready have?

I suppose nothing lasts forever.

Armoured vehicles have got bigger/heavier across the board.
The Illyushin was designed to a set of criteria, and those criteria may no longer be valid.

Modern design practices could save millions of litres a year in fuel.
I remember my father telling me that every 3 years, we would go on a road trip totalling about 4500km. We’d wind our way up to my cousins in the neighbouring country, then a few weeks later, wind our way back again.
In the early 70’s, he told me that fuel was not an important cost consideration in the grand scheme of things of the trips.

The fuel crisis in 73 and 74 changed that completely.

There will no longer be cheap oil fuels from now on.

Efficiency. Whether it’s refined modern aerodynamics, greater load area, lighter airframe…. etc…

Then, there’s also the design bureau’s, factories, and, importantly, the export market to think of….

Can china improve D-30 at its own. In the engine-making business do the big vendors (e.g. RR, PW or GE) provide consultancy services to 2nd-tier makers. I suppose India hired some consultants for its kaveri.

Or Russia may buy Y-20 fuselage from China, and China may buy engines from Russia resulting in a win-win situation.

Russia will not be buying the Y-20.

It has designed, under the guise of being by far and away the largest, most powerful entity in the Soviet Union, some of the most successful transports in history, including jet transports.

Yes, I’m including Antonov here, as although based in Ukraine, much of the staff was Russian.

Apart from the USA, no other nation comes close.

The problem perhaps is that they have plenty of airframes, such as over 100 Il-76’s.

There is not a purpose designed jet airlifter that comes close to the numbers of around 1000 Il-76’s built. It has been operated by about 40 countries globally, in civil and military guise.

The oldest is under 40 years old, with most probably about 30 years old and younger. This is not old for a transporter.

The closest I think is the C-141, with about 280 built.

The Il-76 is head and shoulders the most successful purpose-designed jet transporter/freighter in history.

And I think this is also part of the problem, from a replacement point-of-view.

It seems to me at this time the one thing the Argentinean navy needs is time at sea to conduct training. Has there navy under taken any exercises with other countries in the last few years. I just think they need to have one destroyer and one corvette and two OPV at sea every day stopping fishing boats and keeping an eye on all shipping of interest

The Argentine Navy does conduct excercises with other countries.
It exercises quite a bit With the Chilean navy.

It also partakes in the ATLASUR exercise, which happens every 2 years, for the last 20 years.
ATLASUR is a training exercise involving naval units from Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and South Africa.
It seems to happen most often in Brazilian and South African waters.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlasur

The link is in Spanish, but you can translate it.
It shows where the excercise was held, and which vessels took place from which country.
It doesn’t show the most recent ATLASUR, which has just been held in South Africa.
During this exercise, the Argentine corvette ARA Espora had generator trouble, and was in Simonstown pending repairs.

A vulture fund tried with a court interdict to impound the vessel, like the sailing training ship in Ghana.
This was unsuccessful.
Vulture fund legal actions do not have a high success rate in South African courts, and rightly so IMHO.

A couple of links below, with some pictures, of the most recent ATLASUR IX.

http://www.navy.mil.za/archive/1210/121004_ATLASUR_IX/article.htm

http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4996&hilit=atlasur+IX

The reason is simple and the motive behind it clearer still. Sea denial…just what our fleet boats did to them in 82.

Cutting an SSK in two and welding in a reactor section is, as I’m sure the erudite posters discussing it are aware, is about 10% of the work towards developing an SSN capability. Putting together the infrastructure to support nuke berthing, developing and maturing at sea support procedures and simply learning how to deploy and handle SSNs in operational conditions, without a clear ‘mentor’, will take a generation from the kickoff if they had the money to do it today…even if they get a ‘me too’ from the Brazil programme its still a decade or more work just getting the support set up.

The ‘then what’ is the issue though?. Argentina goes through the challenge of developing and fielding an SSN and gets out of it a gen1 SSN potentially similar to a French Amethyste class boat albeit with later gen sensors.

Without meaning to sound flippant that buys the RN Astute hulls 8, 9 and probably 10. It then sets the Argentine submarine service against one of the top SSN operators on the world with an augmented fleet of state of the art boats!.

Tough call that one.

Jonesy, I doubt the Argies are going to cut their 2 SSK’s in 2 and weld in a reactor.
They may have had plans to do this, but I suspect it would have been a prototype.

The inference is that the TR1700 was a strange SSK design to start with, a design that lends itself to an SSN as a newbuild, which I think was the plan.

I agree about the nuclear infrastructure.

They should stick to SSK’s. The Argentinians have no need to deploy their subs across to the other side of the globe.
They’re quieter than nukes in any event, as I know you are aware.:D

A new build TR1700, suitably updated, has the capability to be a formiddable foe.

Politicians are the ones that make decisions on what is bought.

They are the ones holding the purse strings.

They will listen to the military off course, but ultimately, they decide where the taxpayers money goes.

In real terms, an OPV can be cheaply built in comparison to a warship designed to naval architectural standards, with all it’s electronics/weapon systems.

The Argentine fleet needs to be replaced, not refurbished.
Their most recent destroyer is 30 years old.
Their most recent corvette was launched down almost 30 years ago, although it as only finally commissioned 8 years ago. Nevertheless, it is a design of the early 1980’s.
It’s newest submarine is 28 years old.
It’s newest patrol vessel is 39 years old.

How they’re going to replace these vessels is important.
They’re not going to just be a service equipped with OPV’s armed with a 30mm gun.
They will need to start replacing their fleet, and it seems to me that if they want to replace the vessels that need replacing, then they will have to buy from South Korea or China, for affordability.

Hence the reason for the Argentine politicians remarks.

I do agree with you that a start should be made beginning with an OPV.
The Fassmer 80 seems to be a good platform, and is a logical step to replace the older corvettes, as Buitreaux intimates.
Reports suggest that construction has started in Argentina on the first 4, which is a step in the right direction.
The MEKO destroyers probably have some life left in them, but a replacement will need to be looked at starting now.

I also agree with you on much of what comes out of politicians mouths being useless hot air too.

I mentioned that fact in my post, and that they also operate the Su-29 as part of their aerobatic team.

So they are already operating Russian airframes.

Some very interesting things in this report.

A lot of it mirrors what was said by various posters on this, and the other thread.

Some clever or perhaps more accurately, logical people on this forum.:diablo:

Arturo Puricelli, Argentina’s defense minister, has told the Global Times that his government of Argentina supports China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea. Puricelli spoke to the nationalistic tabloid, a title published by the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily, during a six-day visit to China.

Puricelli said China is considered an important economic, political and military partner by the government of Argentina and it is the policy of Buenos Aires to oppose any intervention from a third party in disputes concerning the South China Sea. His words are considered a response to the support expressed last week by the Chinese premier, Wen Jiaobao, for the Argentine claim to the Falkland islands, known as the Malvinas in Argentina, during his visit to the country last week.

The minister said several contracts were signed during his meeting with Guo Boxiong, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission and Liang Guanglie, the Chinese defense minister, on military cooperation. China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation and China North Industries Corp have also agreed to provide technical support for the development of CZ-11 helicopters. Puricelli also said Argentina is interested in purchasing the J-20, China’s fifth-generation stealth fighter, which is still in its development phase.

To face the challenge of Britain’s Royal Navy over the Falklands, Puricelli also said Argentina’s navy will need to import advanced combat ships as he inspected a flotilla of PLA Navy ships in Shanghai.

China claims the islands and reefs of the South China Sea as the country’s territory, though Beijing faces competing claims from Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. The maritime region is believed to contain rich resources of oil and gas.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120706000005&cid=1101