The US State Department has approved a $78 million deal with Argentina for P-3C Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

The aircraft are being purchased to replace six P-3B Maritime Patrol Aircraft, none of which are currently operational.

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency on Thursday notified Congress of the deal, the notification is as follows.

“The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Argentina of equipment, support and services in support of Argentina’s EDA purchase of four (4) P-3C aircraft and related equipment for an estimated cost of $78.032 million.  The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Argentina has requested a possible sale of equipment, support and services in support of Argentina’s EDA purchase of four (4) P-3C aircraft, including four (4) turboprop engines on each airframe and an additional four (4) turboprop engines. 

The proposed sale will include communications equipment; radar equipment; Infrared /Electro-optic  equipment; aircraft depot maintenance; depopulation and repopulation; supply support/spares and repair of repairables; support equipment; publications; training; aviation life support systems; aircraft transportation; logistical and other technical assistance, and other related elements of logistical and program support.  The total estimated program cost is $78.032 million.”

The notification also explains that Argentina’s existing P-3B patrol aircraft have reached the end of their operational service life.

“To maintain maritime security, Argentina acquired four EDA P-3C aircraft to replace its older aircraft. These EDA aircraft need this refurbishment and equipment to be fully operational.  It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist Argentina in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense maritime patrol aircraft capability.  Argentina will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.”

21
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
18 Thread replies
7 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Fedaykinmd_pepaNeil o'Neillandy reevesNick Connolly Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Nick Bowman
Guest
Nick Bowman

I wonder what they will be armed with. Harpoon missiles?

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

spuds

md_pepa
Guest
md_pepa

I doth my cap…one of the funniest comments I’ve seen!

Nick Connolly
Guest

They will let thos go to rack and ruin too!

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

what will they use to buy them? cornrd beef?!!

Fedaykin
Guest
Fedaykin

Maybe, at $78.032 million for four active airframes that is pretty cheap, then again as an EDA purchase the price is subsidised by the US.

md_pepa
Guest
md_pepa

Why would the US subsidise this? Analysis elsewhere on here has stated that Argentina has no real enemies, and I’m unsure on their anti-ship/sub capabilities.

So hypotheses: A) Reciprocal agreement to share the data with the US, adding improved detection for anything getting into the western Pacific from the Atlantic or vis versa. B) Above and they have no ability to detect modern subs, such as Astute. C) US consolidation of puppet states continues and looks to head off any competition from BRIC.

Fedaykin
Guest
Fedaykin

Argentina has regional rivals like Chile so it is perfectly reasonable for them to be able to patrol their territory, economic areas and borders. I hate to say it but your hypotheses are a bit silly so I am not going to engage with them. You need to put the whole Falklands situation to one side, Argentina has a huge area of sea to patrol and a pressing need for a long range MPA. The P-3C isn’t just an ASW/ASuW platform and it will fill the long range patrol capability well for them. In particular there is a serious problem… Read more »

Neil o'Neill
Guest
Neil o'Neill

Both of you are right…neither is a silly theory

Fedaykin
Guest
Fedaykin

No I am the one who is right and md_pepa is wrong, his analysis is silly.

md_pepa
Guest
md_pepa

wow, you are a 1st class t1t!

md_pepa
Guest
md_pepa

All I was doing was creating a reasonable discussion which didnt exhaust all angles. All I could see you doing was to shut any discussion down with mild aggression, and like many of your posts, try to flash reasonable but flawed knowledge. More interesting would just be open discussion which is what I believe a journal is about.

Oh and a bit or respect, which you might have to listen again on spotify to 🙂

Fedaykin
Guest
Fedaykin

Well if you had come in a bit better informed I would have gone easier on you. I have no patience for jingoistic prattle

md_pepa
Guest
md_pepa

Is that because the warden restricts your internet access?

Fedaykin
Guest
Fedaykin

I am the warden, now grow up and learn to take criticism.

Fedaykin
Guest
Fedaykin

My heart bleeds

md_pepa
Guest
md_pepa

You basically agreed with some of the silly hypotheses :). I wasnt really interested in why Agentina need these assets, more why a close ally chooses to arm a known enemy, with the same happening with Exocet back in the day.

Obviously being the Global hegemon means the US can do anything they want, but it must somewhat damage the relationship so there must be a benefit other than C) as surely that can be accomplished by other means. Unless A and B come into play, is there other hypotheses?

Fedaykin
Guest
Fedaykin

Argentina is not a known enemy of the USA or the UK, peaceful diplomatic relations and even limited defence cooperation between Argentina and the UK many years ago.

That you think Argentina is was the main thrust of why I think your ramblings are silly.

As for Exocet Argentina purchased them prior to the Falklands conflict whilst the UK and Argentina were allies. The main defence supplier to Argentina after the US in the 1970’s was the UK. Where do you think they got those Type 42 Destroyers from?

md_pepa
Guest
md_pepa

So why does the UK spend over £100m on military for the island, there are plenty of other islands UK protect; surely it stands that they are a threat which justifies a decent percentage of spending in the age of austerity. I think the problem here is that you are tarring me with the usual Falklands nationalist discourse that’s occurs here, when in fact I’m trying to understand why the US allows the purchase and how their Foreign Policy takes into account NATO allies, etc. How much would these assets normally cost, and why is there a discount? It can’t… Read more »

Fedaykin
Guest
Fedaykin

“So why does the UK spend over £100m on military for the island” Because it is a prudent deterrent. “surely it stands that they are a threat which justifies a decent percentage of spending in the age of austerity.” The bulk of money was sunk over thirty years ago on build MPA and maintaining a military presence in the South Atlantic, as a share of the current defence budget it is modest. “I think the problem here is that you are tarring me with the usual Falklands nationalist discourse that’s occurs here” You are the one here coming up with… Read more »

md_pepa
Guest
md_pepa

Bet you’re the life and soul of a party!