According to Forecast International, recent reports indicating Argentina plans to purchase $2 billion worth of military equipment are unrealistic.
The group say that for the time being, Argentina will have to rely on donations from other countries to fill the gaps in its military capabilities.
In a letter leaked to El Destape, Argentine ambassador to the U.S. Martin Lousteau listed equipment needed by the Argentine Army and Air Force to conduct peacekeeping missions, combat terrorism, and counter illegal trafficking.
The list, which would be the envy of even the best-equipped militaries, included F-16 fighter jets, Stryker armored vehicles, air surveillance radar systems, AH-1 Cobra Helicopters, UH-60 and CH-47 transport helicopters, and anti-tank weaponry.
The list has become a scandal in Argentina, as political opponents of President Mauricio Macri have attacked him over its contents.
Since his election in 2015, President Macri has drastically cut government spending and subsidies. And, while these measures will improve the government’s finances and help the economy become more sustainable in the long-term, they are causing short-term hardships for many Argentine citizens who have been accustomed to receiving government subsidies.
Rumors that the Argentine military is purchasing advanced, and expensive, weaponry during a time of government austerity has angered those who are now suffering. It would be callous, to say the least, if the Argentine government were to spend $2 billion on advanced weaponry while cutting back on popular social services.
Argentina is not, however, planning to purchase this equipment. In February, former Minister of Defense Julio Martinez ruled out a purchase of fighter jets. So, that takes at least one item off the list.
Furthermore, Forecast International conducted an analysis of the letter between Ambassador Lousteau and US Representative Pete Visclosky. Based on that analysis, Forecast International does not believe that Argentina’s government has any intention of purchasing the listed equipment.
The group say that Argentina just doesn’t have the means to purchase the equipment it listed. In 2016, Argentina’s defence budget was about $4.6 billion. And, with 73.9 percent of that funding going towards personnel expenses, there is little left over to acquire expensive equipment.
Instead, Argentina will have to make due with purchasing less expensive equipment, such as T-6 Texan II trainer aircraft, and upgrading current equipment such as its IA-63 Pampa III.
Forecast International is a major provider of ‘Market Intelligence and Consulting in the areas of aerospace, defence, power systems and military electronics’.
Meh…. so what if they did?
That doesn’t mean they are going to have another go.
Overwhelming the Island’s defences isn’t an easy a task as it was 35 years ago.
And while Britain is much weaker now, Britain could still assemble a force to eject them again.
Why do you say Britain is much weaker now. Different certainly, but weaker?
During the Falklands war we mustered 2 carriers, 2 LPDs, 8 destroyers, 15 frigates, 3 patrol ships, 6 submarines, 3 survey vessels, 5 minesweepers, 10 tankers and 12 logistic ships.
Not that it ever will, but if it started again today, what could we muster? 2 destroyers, 4 frigates and maybe a couple minesweepers and 2-3 supply ships? They sink one ship and we are screwed. This is why having a smaller navy is bad, we have no replacements or room to conduct operations outside of our regular commitments.
1 type 45 is more capable than 8 type 42’s we just need 2 of them in case on breaks down. The albion and bay class lpd’s are also vastly superior. Pretty sure if push came to shove we could send the qe down with some borrowed f35s and the war would be won.
Is that BAE talking?
What possible metric were you able to assertain an 8-fold improvement?
The Type-45 does one job, air defence & apparently it will do it well to the ability of the Aster missile.
…… you hope.
People buy into the government BS of ‘X times better’ with nothing to back it up and zero chance of understanding that a 6 ships can’t replace what its 12 predecessors did.
As I said above, Britain could probably at a pinch rush the 10-odd Lightnings and get Queen Liz down there with a couple of (commercial standard) LHDs
But we shouldn’t pretend the RN are anything but a shadow of their former selves.
1 type 45 is more capable than 8 type 42’s we just need 2 of them in case on breaks down. The albion and bay class lpd’s are also vastly superior.
But 1 Type 45 can only be in one place at a time. the Bay class are a lot better than the round table ships (of which I have spent lot of time on) but they and the Aibion class don’t have an enclosed hanger (Which the Dutch and Spanish ensured they did ) meaning that carrying a Helicopter would be risky on a trip down to the Falklands. (I’ve done the Roaring Forties 4 times) Which means at this moment in time, other than the QE we have no means to transport aircraft down to the Falklands.
Very true but we must remember we should not have won ’82 had the Argentinians worked together and not been led by politicians and actual generals they would have won easily, it was a foolish venture to send a task force, pure lunacy but it worked not because of what we had but what they didn’t in terms of cooperation and ability
Ben,
I did 2 tours from 82-84 down there. My first on the East Island, my second on the West one. I was down again 3 years ago on a Battle field tour, huge difference. However there is a salient point regards the air bridge at Ascension as the runway is out of order until 2019 at the earliest (did a six month tour there too) Now as the UK only maintains a company/squadron level infantry trip wire, the ability to reinforce the island by air will be restricted. At the moment Argentina currently doesn’t have the means to transport any troops across the water. That said, British Intel got it so wrong in 1982.
I was talking purely in regards to our ability to deploy ships and have replacements available, this could apply to any future conflict.
There is not a doubt in my mind that Argentinian could not possibly retake the islands with the current state of their armed forces. Between our air defense battery and based typhoons we could dominate the air and the sea, making it impossible to invade.
Ben,
Don’t get me wrong, I totally agree with your stance. Our current cop of MPs are a disgrace and are only concerned about those who hate us and wish us ill.
What Ben said.
The Falklands taskforce was quite a powerful armada.
Unless dozens of vessels can appear from thin air, no such force could be assembled today.
Just like the Iraq invasion in 2003.
Even if it wanted to, Britain hasn’t the capability to mount that endeavour again.
it’s impossible to compare. yes for sure the t45 is way more powerful at air defence but a vaguely modern jet is miles more capable, for starters they would be super sonic and would have active targeted missiles.
go back pre war and anyone on this forum would have said the sea darts would wipe the floor with the attacking force and yet they provided pretty ineffective. Anyone would say after years of tracking Soviet subs the outdated Argentina subs would be easily countered and yet they weren’t and it was luck Hermes wasn’t sunk.
Strength in depth to counter problems and provided layered defence is important and it’s now gone.
If Argentina for vaguely modern weapons and someone afforded to train it’s armed forces and decided to attack, who knows how it would go. Luckily their finances can’t afford it and it is not in their interests to do so as the oil is not there as was hoped in the 80s.
In 82:
-Our sole T81 was deployed to the Falklands
-Of 9 T42s in service, 5 were deployed to the Falklands
-Of 4 County class, 2 were deployed to the Falklands
-Of 8 T21s, 7 were deployed to the Falklands
-Of 4 T22s, 2 were deployed to the Falklands
Is it therefore impossible, that in a similar situation today, the Navy could not surge 3 or 4 T45s, and 8 or so T23s if we really needed?
TH, at least you are not linking a daily mail or telegraph article today. Do you have any opinions of your own or are you a copy paste robot?
Well said Ben. I have now invited TH on three separate occasions to come up with views of his own. He doesn’t feel able to reply to me and/or appears to be unwilling or incapable of doing anything apart from paste up. Perhaps he doesn’t have any opinions?
So, you’re now advocating for leaving people to either die or be occupied — good to know. A government either does its duty and provides for the common defense or they are catilinian characters who should be hanged for dereliction.
On your note. Me thinks the lady doth protest to much.
Farouk;
I hesitate to cross swords with you again but you really do say some outlandish things. In a few lines you have written off 650 people who have been elected. One example of what I mean is that my own M.P. did three tours of Afghanistan amongst other things prior and now works hard for the care of ex service personnel.
I think he is referring more to the current government, mainly the last couple defense ministers we have had.
Maybe, and I note what you say. It may be just me but I I do believe that Michael Fallon is getting beaten over the head for a lot of things he had no control over. Thirteen years of Labour followed by a really hard defence cuts. He has only been in the job three years and I think he’s doing pretty well.
He could at the very least be honest about our current defence woes rather than repeating that same old £178bn adage, taunting Russia about the carriers and making poorly costed procurement deals.
Hey Farouk … Don’t forget there is also the Falkland Island defence force some 200 personnel. I should think if needed the UK could send a battle group size force of troops plus a sub and type 45 Destroyer and of course extra Typhoon jet’s but agreed a little bit more complicated to do until 2019/2020… will be good when Land Ceptor is based down there.
70,600 tonnes of carrier capability will be a very good deterrent for many years to come too.
Are people seriously suggesting any comparison between the UK and Argentina when it comes to defence ? Argentina has no FJ cover at all and is left with a few prop planes and ancient trainers. Their navy is based around a handful of 40 year old surface vessels with expired ordinance. Their subs are equally ancient and as they never go to sea would be death traps if they went on ops.
The Argentines have nothing to invade anywhere with for a generation even if they start rebuilding their military now. And there’s no sign that’s happening.
The UK is building impressive new SSN/SSBN’s, new generation frigates, is bringing into service new, large multi role carriers with 5th gen fighters to fly off them and has recapitalised the naval rotary capacity with Merlin HM2/HC4 & Wildcats.
The RAF has one of the strongest heavy lift capabilities, is gaining additional Typhoon squadrons, updated UAV’s new MPA’s and state of the art weaponry. The four Typhoon’s on MPA would be able to destroy anything the Argentine airforce could put in the air.
Falklands War two is not happening.
Jack is utterly right. As time moves on the gulf in capability and firepower grows ever larger between UK and Argentina. The only way Argentina can recapitalise and arm themselves to even threaten the Falklands would be if China or Russia gave them the weapons to do so.
I cannot see that happening, China does genuinely value its trade relationship with the UK too much, whilst Russia due to sanctions is a basket case and technically in recession.
Once IOC for QE comes online in 2020 and then we have type 26 and 31 frigates in build the Argies have literally no chance. I would also think an air bridge to the Falklands from South Africa using Voyager aircraft and typhoons could bridge the 3000+ mile gap pretty effectively or a massive shuttle run flight direct from the UK.
The bigger risk to the Falklands would be some sort of spoiling attack to destroy infrastructure and future industry on the islands such as oil and gas using small special forces teams.
Such an attack however would probably be countered by some tomahawks landing on Argentina.
Agree with you jack..
indeed, as everybody here has said, the idea that Argentina is going to buy any of this defence kit is a nonsense. Politically it is domestically unacceptable given the suffering of people there right now and serves no defensive need.
The way Argentina will try to resolve the issue in its favour is going to be political, via the OAS and UN. What is interesting is that neither the UK or Argentina has taken the Falklands/Malvinas issue to international arbitration – because neither side is sure that they would win.
So the current diplomatic impasse seems the most likely long-term outcome. Although one could also argue that it also depends on how the competition for resources in the Antarctic pan out in the later 21st C. And whether as part of that process the US backs the UK or not.
If they were smart all Argentina has to do is buy everything from China and Pakistan. They would be able to get everything they want at much lower prices. They could get products at less than half the cost of American products.