Argentine to buy four KC-130s
The article suggests that the 'new' C-130s will not be used for inflight refuelling.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,237
Received 64 Likes
on
26 Posts
It wouldn't be the first time somebody has bought used KC-130s and removed the IFR gubbins.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
If I'm asking something that conflicts with opsec, accept my apologies and please delete.
MD
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
