Argentina’s recent purchase of F-16 fighter jets may sound like a big step forward for its military, but it doesn’t significantly alter the situation in the South Atlantic.
While the acquisition boosts the country’s air force on paper, Argentina is still far from posing a serious threat to the Falkland Islands.
A combination of outdated equipment, limited resources, and diplomatic restrictions continues to hold it back.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
For decades, Argentina’s military has been in decline. Before this F-16 deal, the air force struggled to keep even a handful of its planes operational. Its fleet of Mirage fighters was retired, and the A-4 Skyhawks, once the backbone of its air power, were grounded.
Argentina’s broader military remains in a difficult position even with the new jets. The country’s ground forces are underfunded, poorly equipped, and rarely have the resources to train properly. Much of their kit is from the 1970s, and maintenance problems frequently ground aircraft and disabled naval vessels.
Argentina’s defence budget, heavily skewed towards personnel costs, leaves little room for major new purchases. In fact, while there’s been talk of buying $2 billion worth of modern equipment, such plans seem highly unrealistic given the economic constraints.
Instead, the Argentine military has often relied on foreign donations to fill the gaps. Previous attempts to buy fighter jets from Sweden and China were either blocked or fell through due to costs.
Even with F-16s in their arsenal, Argentina doesn’t have the budget to maintain or modernise its military to the extent needed for a credible regional challenge.
In addition to financial issues, Argentina faces significant diplomatic limitations. Since the F-16s are American-made, any meaningful use of the jets would require U.S. approval, especially for maintenance and parts. This dependence makes it highly unlikely that Argentina could deploy them against British forces without facing major hurdles.
Then, there’s the practical side. The Falklands are located roughly 300 miles from the Argentine mainland, across unpredictable South Atlantic waters. Any attempt to stage a military operation over such a distance would be logistically challenging, especially with Argentina’s navy and air force in their current state.
The UK, meanwhile, maintains a robust defence set-up in the Falklands. With its Typhoon jets, RAF Mount Pleasant ensures British air superiority, while a Royal Navy patrol vessel and ground troops offer additional security. Approximately 1,500 military personnel are permanently stationed on the islands, providing a formidable deterrent.
Britain can reinforce its position quickly if necessary, with attack submarines and other assets ready to deploy. The Falklands remain secure given the UK’s current strength and the challenges facing Argentina.
In short, while Argentina’s purchase of F-16 jets might sound impressive, it doesn’t change the bigger picture. The country’s military is still grappling with outdated equipment, financial constraints, and logistical issues. In addition, the diplomatic dependencies around its new jets and any real threat to the Falklands seem to be distant prospects.
The UK’s defences are more than adequate to ensure the islands’ safety, making it clear that Argentina, despite its recent upgrades, poses little threat at this time.
Long term decline also describes the British armed forces…
We take 2 years to plan a carrier group deployment. We couldn’t put one into the Red Sea in January this year, or even deploy one in April after the USS Eisenhower completed 8 months on station. We are hollowed out all over without any depth left; it’s tragic, and our service personel have to work so much harder to cover if any crisis comes along.
Why did we need to put a very big and expensive asset in the Red Sea? We had typhoons flying from the unsinkable carrier called Cyprus!
the tug would cost more than than a CSG to operate there and in the meantime Pompey harbour would be in chaos
which is too far from anywhere..
Obviously not as they managed to fly down there and back at considerably less cost and risk to a carrier and they seem to be in reach of Syria too👍
Of course they did, and much cheaper too. But only worth doing if all we wanted to do is show support to the US, which is in reality all we did. Physically we dropped two Paveways on a small dirt runway in Yemen which had been used to launch a few drones, but those dirt holes would have been filled in a few hours later so physically it was pointless. A carrier group in the Red Sea can operate drones 24/7 and get fast jets on station quick enough to take out time sensitive mobile targets and actually make a… Read more »
meanwhile countries like turkey, India, Japan, have greatly increased their fleet numbers at an impressive rate that we are unable to match, with all the lack of industrial infrastructure we have, or rather don’t have.
It takes 2 years to plan any major deployment in peacetime. In wartime it takes a fraction of the time.
But I take your point. Little to no depth almost wherever you look.
US carrier deployment cycles are also planned over a couple of years, maybe longer. They don’t happen overnight.
In 1982 we despatched a CSG in a week or so. Mind you it was planned RN cuts that triggered the Junta to try an invasion in the first place.
True, but we have still maintained the same level of deterrent force in the Falklands over many decades, and the kit has improved.
Sadly, at the moment the RN couldn’t even deploy one SSN to the South Atlantic… Yes the Argentine armed forces are incapable of mounting any sort of realistic invasion, but at the same time if Mount Pleasant became unusable, the current status of the RN/RFA is hard pressed to offer a credible deterrent option.
In peacetime conditions our SSNs are tied up,however any bets in a wartime scenario all peacetime regulations are binned.
Whilst true, it’s the peace time deterance that prevents the necessity for the wartime mobilisation.
Well we’ve no idea why the entire Astute Class is currently in port, but the crews aren’t gaining much experience whilst tied up alongside, which doesn’t really help the fleet deploy them operationally if a wartime situation suddenly developed.
🤔👍
you could say the same for half of the entire navy.some of the fanny boats(archers).are struggling with wear and tear issues. all the spilt gin and tonics are rotting parts of them.
🍸🍸🍸😭😁😁😁
If there is a hint of something wrong in the engineering department I can’t see a nuclear submarine putting to sea. Regardless of the situation.
if our SSN’S WEREN’T SO RIDICULOUSLY priced or take less time to produce, we’d have more 19 nuclear submarines clogging up Devon port and rosyth. is a testament to bad management and incompetence at the MOD.a survey of the retired boats should be done with the emphasis on whether any can be reactivated surely the last Trafalgar that retired wouldn’t be beyond reactivation.
my spelling and grammar are poor today apologies.
Where do we get the niche crew to man them, like the nuclear engineers?
ND at Sultan can only produce so many.
And your shouting at me because?
Is that question in the English language?
Our SSNs are actually pretty cheap..simply put any SSN costs a fortune. 1.6 billion pounds each and a Virginia class 4.6 billion dollars, the suffern class costs France 1.73 billion euros each…
so no our SSNs are not expensive..considering there is anecdotal evidence that they may be better ASW platforms than a Virginia 1.6 billion pounds is profoundly good value.
There is literally no chance what soever of reactivity a decommissioned nuclear submarine. You cannot flicm a switch and turn a deactivated nuclear reactor on..you cannot rebuild it, you cannot replace it…there is a reason they are all just sat rotting…even fully decommissioning the reactors is hard risky work.
theRN is a tier v3 organisation, but we were won’t accept itt global Britain ? global embarrassment is far more apt.
Who are Tier 2 in your view?
Well tier one are US and china
tier two are France and UK…who else is their with a globally deployable blue water navy.
You know this. I know this. Seems Andy and many others who ONLY ever see the problems don’t.
India, Japan, S Korea, Italy.
India is not a blue water navy, it does not have the ability at present to deploy task groups outside of the Indian occean. It’s only SSN is a leased very rubbish Russia boat. Japan a navy designed to deploy in in the western pacific and again does not have the enablers to deploy in all the worlds occeans..it does not have SSNs and as yet still does not have have fixed wing navel avation. s Korea is essentially a frigate navy with no ability to deploy beyond its own region. Does not have SSNs does not have carriers. Italy… Read more »
I would agree with that ranking, but also with the caveat that I think we are probably more globally deployable than even China. In their back yard though, China are certainly potent.
Argentina is waiting, They are in no hurry, the decline will follow in the next years and more with an anti british government
More pro british than any of the previous 3 governments of the last few years.
Argentina isn’t waiting for any decline tbh, they’d have to wait another century or 2 if that was there game
and we’d still be waiting for the T26s to be completed and in service I’m fed up of being fed up.
and soon the rate of our own decline will see us having armed forces similar in size. And bloody GLASGOW STILL WON’T BE IN THE FLEET.
Much of the same could be said of our forces!
Lacks finances to modernise. Check.
Outdated equipment and limited resources. Check.
Ground forces are underfunded, poorly equipped. Check.
Military has often relied on foreign donations. Substitute “cover for capability gaps” with “donations”. Check.
We shouldn’t be too smug that a minnow like Argentina isn’t a threat. For now at least.
minnow like Argentina? it’ll soon be a minnow like Britain.
There will be less money for MOD in future, the 1.6 million unemployed migrants are costing 8 billion , with millions more coming over the next 10 years soldiers will back to using weapons like Webley Mk2 service air rifle for shooting training to save money .
Lack finances to modernise? Did you forgot about the £288Bn 10 year equipment plan.
Awfully decent of Argentina to decline at a similar rate to ourselves.
Er……what ‘attack’ submarines would they be then?? Underfunded military. Empathise with that!!
if they hadn’t been so long to build, or madly priced, we’d have more of them. but then the old chestnut argument over nuclear v conventional raises it’s head again how many conventional submarines could we have fire the price of one astute?
And lose the operational range and endurance, capability, and it wouldn’t matter anyway because there’s no way we’d have got 3-4 DE boats for each Astute, so more like the RN might have got a few extra slower, smaller, less capable attack subs.
Andy isnt interested in the fact the SSN is a strategic asset Ryan, and vastly outmatches an SSK in most areas.
It is a recurring theme here.
I like Andy, he’s entertaining.
Don’t mention Archers or the Gosport Ferry either!
They are totally different platforms and capabilities..you may as well ask how many patrol frigates we could purchase….it’s irrelevant electric boats are essentially green water vessels that have profoundly limited strategic mobility and to get anywhere fast ….as an example a type 12A will transit at 8 knots or 9 miles an hour..with an 8000 mile range..taking around 40 days to cover that 8000 miles..it’s also required to snorkel..which means it’s open to various forms of long range detection. Because of the slow transit speed and need to snorkel electric boats are essentially local area denial weapons or used for… Read more »
A lot of resource involved in protecting the Falklands from threat. Apart from the principal of it what are the advantages of retaining UK control?
Because the Falklanders want to remain?
It is called self determination.
Look at the location of British overseas bases. Gibraltar chokes off the Med, Cyprus chokes off the Suez Canal, Diego Garcia chokes off the Indian ocean and approach to Asia – the Falklands do likewise for the Strait of Magellan. Should there be a war, particularly a large one between the West and China, China is effectively sealed out of the Atlantic by the US closing off Panama, and a hastily garrisoned Mount Pleasant preventing access round the tip of South America. Perfectly valid points about self-defermination of the islanders aside, that is why it is worth the cost to… Read more »
The self-determination of the islanders is the paramount reason for British military presence here.
First because the people, the first people to fully settle the island are British and want to be British. Secondly who gives away their territory? Thirdly there are a lot of untapped resources in the and around the EEZ of the UK south Atlantic territories that a lot of expansionist powers would just love to have.
oil and fish !
With or without the astute submarines been readily available for combat. Even with the poor funding of the armed forces. Come on guys just 1 of our aircraft carriers 2 destroyers 1 sub couple of frigates would pretty much cripple Argentinas armed forces for decades to come. Do you really think they would risk everything they have to gain control of some islands they never owned.
Argentinians would be far better off focussing on decolonizing Argentina and returning Argentina back to its native inhabitants. This is unlike the Falklands that was never owned by Argentina and never had an indigenous people. The native people of the Falklands (of British origin) want to remain under British jurisdiction and we should focus on protecting them from invading forces like the Argentinians.
That.
With bells on.
Funny the Argentines never think about your first point.
The Argentinians nearly went to war with Chile over other disputed islands in 1978 lol.
That’s lucky, ‘cos the Falklanders are on their own.
On their own? What? How? This article talks of the British forces there to defend the islanders against Argentine threat.
It’s just about the most well defended small island on the planet.
“Attack submarines ready to deploy”. If only.
Meant to add- deploying some land launched Tomahawks able to hit strategic targets in Argentina would be a powerful and low cost deterrent.
The value of F-16 supply is to tie Argentina to the US MIC and frustrate CCP expansionary trade. Providing easy commercial terms to the cash strapped Argentine state is economic power via the diplomatic channel. Value for US taxpayers to restrain CCP expansion without force deployment. No blood, just a little treasure, mainly for Lockheed Martin who’s profits are taxed.
Considering the lead time for training and logistics for Ukraine F-16s, it’s obvious that Argentina will not achieve combat readiness for many years and their mission sets won’t include supporting invasion of remote islands.
That remains a political fantasy.
I’m sure it will be managed very, very slowly and in stages…these things take time…also parts will be on a just-in-time basis as they won’t be able to afford a stockpile…so if they misbehave then…
While I agree with the overall assessment it must be remembered that Argentina still claims the Falklands and is committed to its recovery. Last time it invaded the islands it did not ask the US permission to use its US built A4s. Last time the US armed Argentina to Stop Russia arming it (we know how that turned out). Now the US is arming Argentina to stop the Chinese doing so… I cannot help but think we have seen this before. The idea that the F16 are no threat to the UK interests and security in the area is not… Read more »
The F16 is a known adversary to the RAF, they will know its capabilities and what it can and cannot do if the time comes. I’m not sure what Block they are getting but it is not the latest viper configuration. Remember last time the Falklands had nothing to defend itself apart from some Royal Marines. There is now a well established Military base with all 3 services well integrated and practice on a regular basis to defend the Islands. Should Argentina attempt to invade they would be be met with a lot more force.
The Argentinian’s also can’t refuel F-16….
They have 2 tankers, both KC-130, both of which actually served in the Falklands War…42 years ago….and they, like all KC-130 are probe and drogue tankers….F-16 needs a boom….
People tend to overlook such things like lack of force multipliers and the fact the F16 they are getting are not anywhere near the block 70. Not saying that they are not a good aircraft but it will be down to training, availability of aircraft for training, spares and maintenance. I’m not going into details about the Typhoon but its a very capable aircraft in a seasoned pilots hands, that along wit the integrated air defence on MPA and weapons available, the F16 would be up against it.
V good point indeed.
The Argentinians are aslo spending money on their Navy. Argentine companies are to build a new landing ship and floating dock, modernise their navy’s six MEKO-140 multi-purpose corvettes and develop a naval surveillance radar.
Probably simply to have the capability of intercepting & ID-ing any unidentified aircraft in their territory. They can’t do that until the F16s arrive.That’s the level of force, rather than an air wing capable of asserting air superiority over the Falklands. Maybe Ireland should buy a few reconditioned F16s?
Yes Ireland should get F16s that way they can stop getting the UK to do its air defence. I can see your point about boarder defence but the problem is that given the extra capability a future hunta may get tempted to conduct more aggressive interventions.
is Argentina still hung up on the Falklands, i mean it never once in its history belonged to them
Yes. It’s in their constitution to “recover” them. Not just that, but it is a constant topic in political discourse, there are statues everywhere, they’re taught about it in schools, they hold up maps of the Falklands before football matches…. it’s a mad house
Seems like a settled delusion based on indoctrination and misinformation with a bit of machismo thrown in.
So lots in common with the maga movement replete with alternative facts (lies) and conspiracy theories to feed the divisive group think of the cult.
Hybrid warfare is part of the contemporary battle space, and as ever, follow the money (value) to see who benefits. BRICS?
Where are you from Tullzter? Yes. Argentina still wishes to colonise the Falkland Islands.
You’d think they would have learned the lesson (of history and warfare) that it never belonged to them and never will. They should concentrate on their economic woes
Argentina has always been an expansionist nation, it’s spent most of its history suffering from the poison of “Argentine irredentism” which basically means it spent most of its existence either invading or In territorial dispute with someone.
Well, they did sink a carrier so the RN had to fly aircraft off a cardboard cutout afterwards…
Yes. We have a better claim on France than Argentina has on the Falklands. From memory we had permanant control over the falklands prior the Argentina existing as a country. Also in international law nowadays the people residing in the Falklands have a massive say in their sovereignty. They haven’t really got a leg to stand on.
Yes their clam comes from the idea they have inherited the Spanish claim. Also they have the old papa decree that splits the New World between Spain and Portugal. The final argument is that the islands are on ‘their’ continental shelf. All these arguments are nonsense. You are right all these things predate the existence of Argentina.
Yes and even if by some miracle they managed to negotiate their way through that lot they would still have the UN anti-colonial bit to sort out which gives the islanders the ability to gain control of the islands themselves and even join the UK on their own terms assuming they don’t want to embrace Argentina (which might be a silly question as they have had one vote on it already).
If they want it they can take it and there’s nothing the UK can do to take it back if they don’t surge the garrison in time.
Starmer doesn’t have the conviction to take them back because the EU won’t let him.
So you’re saying the reason is political will, or, no military ability?
I’m on the fence with the first, and disagree on the second.
Matem, I don’t understand any of that.
They do want it. They can’t easily take it. There’s plenty the UK could do to take it back.
Starmer is not under control of the EU. We left. Even when we were in the EU (or EEC) they did not and could not prevent our 1982 action to recover the islands..
Indeed, and why would EU have any interest in a sovereign democratic nation not defending its borders.
Given how the war in Ukraine is going, nobody in the EU can be complacent about state sponsored terrorism.
EU nations probably remember who successfully defeated invasion and provided the deployment solution for the USA UK and Canada to launch the D-Day landings into Europe to restore their freedom.
Hard to see why NATO member states would be against self defence…
Umm there is a bit of misconception between the UK not having the forces to really constantly show maximum deterrent and not having the forces to put together a meaningful task force..you must remember in the 1980s the RN had a vital task in ensuring a deterrent to Russia and being ready at all times to fight world war three…at present in really if the RN had to bring at taskforce together it could drop almost all its tastings or send none combat vessels to cover.. In reality the RN could have 1-2 60,000 ton carriers with 2 squadrons of… Read more »
The ‘EU’ won’t let him ? Rubbish.
I’m afraid there are people suffering from severe brain rot these days….
They mainly get their news from Facebook…I suspect Dave C is one of those…
The EU don’t care about the Falklands, if anything they would be rubbing their hands for another conflict, in war money is to be made. The typhoon’s would squash any threat.
Actually members of the EU would be very concerned…including France, Netherlands and Spain. All of whom have islands off the coast of other countries that have claim on them…
The airbase and 1500 service personnel are the big deterrent. Even if the Argentines had 30 Typhoons and used special forces to disable the aircraft on the ground and the CAAM missile system they can’t put in an opposed landing against that many people.
They also can’t stop the RAF from flying in reinforcements.
The biggest issue is that it’s unlikely that Argentina could raise an invasion force without being noticed at which point the airbase let’s you rapidly fly in thousands of soldiers and force multipliers like drones and GMLRS, which would cover the whole island from Mt Pleasant.
Pretty much. It should be noted that only a portion of those 1500 are combat troops though. I think they lack to will, professionalism, training, logistics, and know to land SF, dispose of 3 RRH and a CRC, the Typhoons, the AD FireGroup that may itself be dispersed, and occupy a large airfield. All while having to come ashore over open terrain that the world’s finest struggled with in 82 while doing CTR, then bring up a follow up force, all without us not getting wind of it and flying reinforcements in. We were not blind in 1982, we are… Read more »
I agree that Argentina is in no condition to mount a full scale invasion of the Falklands, but we should not be complacent as they could still stage a propaganda stunt of some kind.
Hi John.
What did you have in mind? Land a small group and put the flag up and film it?
Land nuns or boy scouts, then stream live footage of the Imperial British throwing them off. Or variations thereof.
They have done propaganda stunts several times over the years. Nobody worried that much at the time.
Did it once before.
I had thought it was 1200 service personnel nowadays. Ground manouevre troops are limited in number and weaponry, the focus being a 110-man infantry company with light weapons.
no issue, given the Argentinian military equipment maintenance history, it’s likely that within 2 years they’ll be unable to get them off the ground.
Argentina can hire pilots from their allies.
If it was that easy don’t you think Ukraine would have done that by now?
Good to see the sane heads have arrived.
Lots of drive by shootings on this article.
No threat whatsoever! But I bet the Argie pilots are loving the fact they can get into the F16! Those lads have a great pedigree and speed and panache is their forte! They did themselves proud in the 82 conflict and respect to them.
The Argentines want to preserve their skills and have something to be proud of.
We want to prevent them being a threat to us (meaning no independent air capability of any substance), but we have a manpower problem.
We would both benefit from a mending of bridges.
Why not invite their pilots to fly as auxiliaries of the RAF and FAA?
A crazy thought, but we do have a history of inviting our enemies to join us (Marathas, Mysore, chunks of the King’s African Rifles). Also, as you say, they were very very skilled when they needed to be.
We did sell them T42 and tried to sell them Harrier in the 1970’s….look how well that worked out?
I think we are all getting a little negative about the RN. We should double the number of active type 45s by the end of the year. Plus the final two should be available by 2026. Yes we have had issues but we seem to be working through them. They are also far more lethal. The Astutes are queuing up waiting for the dry dock with the exception of the latest one which just happens to be in port awaiting deployment. Both QEC are out and active following fixes there. T26 and T31 may well contribute 4 ships over the… Read more »
Wow. Somebody saying positive things for once.
We should have you stuffed…..( only joking, I agree with you )
😂
Hmm, I agree Argentina isn’t much of a threat today & we have substantial forces garrisoning the Falklands, but just how “fast” can any of our subs get there seeing none are at sea & it’s over 8,000 miles? 2 weeks or more?
“With its Typhoon jets, RAF Mount Pleasant ensures British air superiority, while a Royal Navy patrol vessel”.
How many Typhoons? Once they are gone, they are gone for at least 24 hours. As for the RN patrol ship, with only 1 × Bushmaster 30 mm cannon, .50 calibre heavy machine guns replaced the 2 × Miniguns in 2023. It’s unarmed compared to the average coastal patrol boat.
Surely it must be time to dump all the ‘Global Britain’ guff and the pretensions that go with it. Scrap ‘East of Suez’ and the ‘China Pivot’. We’re a mid-ranking European power with an expertise in Naval capabilities that should be focused on the North (& South) Atlantic, the North Sea and over the horizon support for our NATO partners in the Baltic. We should stop deploying ships to the Caribbean as well, if support to the civil power is required we should hand that over to civilian contractors paid for from the Aid Budget (which should be done away… Read more »
Hi Phil. We must maintain a presence in the Caribbean. We still have six overseas territories in and around the Carib plus a number of Commonwealth countries. A single OPV or Bay plus an occasional visit by a Frigate cannot be too costly an item in the proverbial great scheme
Why ‘must’ we? Most of those countries resent us (for perfectly justifiable historical reasons it has to be said). It’s just more ‘pretend empire’ theatrics that does nothing for the security of the UK or for our role in NATO. If the host countries feel they want to continue the relationship then the cost must be set against the overseas aid budget.
We should and must for a few reasons. Firstly we are responsible for the Defence of these 6 territories so it is a Constitutional responsibility along with other duties of care that bind us to these islands populated by British Overseas citizens. Secondly, and less so,there are ties of history to these islands the majority of which were under the UJ for Centuries. Thirdly there are a still a number of Commonwealth Realms and Commonwealth Republics which link us to this region. Also joint Naval and anti Drug smuggling operations with our biggest ally the USA plus a certain amount… Read more »