Argentine to buy four KC-130s

[hunty]

Gents


Not sure if its already been reported by the Argentine AF are buying four USMC KC-130s. All four aircraft are currently stored in AMARG at Davis Monthan AFB AZ.


Hunty

[Rhino power]

Link?

-RP

[AndySmith]

https://interesestrategicoargentino.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/seleccion-de-lockheed-kc-130-hercules-en-el-amarg-para-la-fuerza-aerea-argentina/

From what I could make out, it's a "possible" adquisition of 2 aircraft from 4 identified as being suitable.

[atakacs]

4º) KC-130F 150689 C /N: 3741 Type: 282B-3B
INGRESO A AMARG JUNIO 2007
HORAS TOTALES 35881,6HS
FECHA DE FABRICACION AÑO 1962

Wow... I am sure those were well maintained birds but a 54 years old 35k hours airframe..

[MPN11]

Whichever ... it's potential air power projection in the direction of some local rocks.

I thought Kirchner had gone?

[cokecan]

the new bloke, Macri, who has so far indicated that he wants to be rather more grown about the whole thing than Kirchner was, has implimented some pretty stiff domestic economic policies, defence spending is a way of - if not sweatening the pill - then making the grim **** seem worth it.

that said, Argentina has a drug smuggling problem on its northern borders, and every Argentine government since the mid-80's has framed its requirement for a2a around combatting what it sees as this air threat.

the problem of course is that an aircraft that can deter/intercept drug running aircraft on the northern border can also cause problems off some rocks...

tankers would make the limited number of Argentine fast jets go a lot further in intercepting drug runners, and be cheaper than buying more fast jets - they would also allow Argentine fast jets to play silly buggers with the airbridge.

[Out Of Trim]

tankers would make the limited number of Argentine fast jets go a lot further in intercepting drug runners, and be cheaper than buying more fast jets - they would also allow Argentine fast jets to play silly buggers with the airbridge.
But not if they get shot down! :)


http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=9273257) http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9273257&noquote=1)

[Courtney Mil]

It obviously means they're going to invade.

[cokecan]

and how much interferance would be required to hit the ROE's?

it would, i'll wager, be an awful lot more than would be required to get the civil contractors to decide that the game wasn't worth the candle, to run the Typhoon force ragged with wild goose chases, and to force whatever aircraft did the airbridge to fly much further to the east meaning more time and less cargo/pax...

[mopardave]

.....and I was lead to believe we had a "special relationship" with the Americans? Why am I surprised.....certain congressman even refer to the FI as the Malvinas!
MD

[Two's in]

.....and I was lead to believe we had a "special relationship" with the Americans?

You keep bending and we'll keep giving. Very special.

[West Coast]

certain congressman even refer to the FI as the Malvinas!

And that means what?

Nothing is the answer you're searching for.

I grew up knowing them as the Malvinas yet I recognize them as properly being your lots.

We went through this about a decade ago. Was chastised by a Brit saying I should call them the Falklands as I'm white and that's the way it is. Of course no though given that I live a short drive from Mexico, I speak Spanish somewhat, vacation (fish) in Mexico, live on a road that has a Spanish name, so the hell with the Spanish language, its the Falklands.

[Jimlad1]

Argentina is currently minus a fast jet fleet of any type. Its armed forces still have roughly the same equipment as 1982. Its navy has less days at sea collectively per year than a single RN ship. Its submarine forces averages less than 1 day per year dived at sea.

Perhaps we would do well to realise that 34 years later, the Argentines are not in a position, nor likely to be for several decades, where they pose a threat to the islands.

[Davef68]

Didn't they already have Hercules tankers anyway? These are just replacements?

[teeteringhead]

But as SofS has just said, there is a bigger threat closer to home ....

http://armstrongeconomics-wp.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/09/corbyn-Jeremy.jpg

[Basil]

Wearing his Comrade Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov outfit.

[SWBKCB]

Now that's what you call thread drift...

[Biggus]

Thread drift..... or threat drift? :ok:

[melmothtw]

Back on thread, Argentina to receive upgraded KC-130H | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/58114/argentina-to-receive-upgraded-kc-130h)

[Martin the Martian]

The article suggests that the 'new' C-130s will not be used for inflight refuelling.

[melmothtw]

The article suggests that the 'new' C-130s will not be used for inflight refuelling.

Perhaps, but "search and rescue-support" could be taken to include that, no?

[mopardave]

You keep bending and we'll keep giving. Very special.

So it would seem.

[Heathrow Harry]

TBH the British Govt would probably like to sell them something.. anything TBH

Some clapped out Frigates maybe?? A few Tornadoes??? Certainly Sir......

[Wageslave]

Perhaps it's more pertinent to ask if they are coming equipped for refuelling?

If the gear is present why would they want to haul it around if they have no intention of using it?

If it is not present it would pose quite a challenge to reinstate it, even assuming they could get hold of the parts.

[kenparry]

The article suggests that the 'new' C-130s will not be used for inflight refuelling.

Surely there is a cue in the designation? "KC-130"

[Martin the Martian]

It wouldn't be the first time somebody has bought used KC-130s and removed the IFR gubbins.

[cokecan]

i suppose the obvious reason that a tanker C-130 will probably have been treated like a tanker - take off, fly to altitude, pootle about for a few hours and land. a cargo/pax C-130 however will probably have been treated like a farm pick-up, lots short journies, lots of landing cycles per flying hour, with rough field landings and not a few bumps and scrapes.

of course, they may just want a tanker capability...

they don't have the ability to mount any kind of serious challenge to the islands, and short of a WWII type lend-lease programme its difficult to see how they could gather the capability to do so in a generation or more - but a very limited programme and its use would make the islands, if no less secure, much more expensive and resource intensive to keep that way.

friendly shadowing of the airbridge, friendly shadowing of the cargo ships, the odd exploratory flight well outside the Islands and the ROE, but close enought to warrant an interception/shadow - all of these are relatively easy for the Argentines to do, and all would require a much greater escort capability to be deployed and used in order to maintain the security of the Islands.

such a 'campaign' is an political/economic tool, not a military one - while the islands cost defence almost nothing to secure they are safe, however when they cost lots in terms of the proportion of our capability we have to use in order to secure them, the calls from within the UK to let them go will increase.

[Marcantilan]

Apparently, they are going to bought a KC130T (1983) and a KC130R (1978).

In the meantime, the Hercules fleet of the AAF is currently being upgraded with new avionics, comms and another systems.

In the other hand, our masterplan is first to fight against Zika Mosquito and (only if we win) then we are going to invade the Isle of Man.

[mopardave]

Gents......help me out here. I get the feeling this is something of a non story. Now, you all know far more than I do regarding the security situation down there......NO sarcasm intended there. But does this not give the Argentinians a greater reach, and therefore does that not have implications for us in the FI? It just strikes me as being odd that the US would facilitate something like that.
If I'm asking something that conflicts with opsec, accept my apologies and please delete.
MD

[FOG]

Being medically retired it is not a violation of article 86 UCMJ to state the obvious in how the current USA Commander in Chief treats long (and currently suffering) allies while doing everything he can to help the enemies of the US.