It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Argentina to buy or lease Su24's?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

The farmers get actual Argentinian pesos. The Russian government and/or Sukhoi is going to get rubles. It's still real money. It just isn't considered a hard currency like a dollar or euro. Argentine pesos used to be pegged against the dollar, but they aren't anymore. It's considered soft... The ruble is still too volatile and is soft. That doesn't mean they aren't "actual money". It just means the countries aren't depleting their foreign-currency reserves in a deal such as this one, and the local exchange rate(s) against a hard currency gets negotiated like everything else. They are simply stroking their own economies.
International offsets like this aren't uncommon. You buy X amount of Y from your economy, and we'll buy A amount of B from your economy.




posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
Personally I'd rather hear about Argentina getting long range ship destroying missiles in enough quantities to take down some top of the line destroyers. The Exocet's are great but only in close.


Why would Argentina, who no one is threatening need long range ship destroying missiles?

Or are you going to claim this is off topic and claim you are not going to respond, except then post a response with some thinly veiled inflammatory comment about murdering innocent men by bombing their ships whilst defending their own sovereign territory from an aggressor?



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I wonder if UK will have F-35 and carriers by the time Argentina can field an operational squadron?

Insomuch as saber rattling, all the UK has to do is deploy a few more Typhoon and surface a Trident Sub near buenos aires.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky
Ok I'll bite.

Surely you're not suggesting Russia can't afford to pay cash for meat and grain? Any sources to support that? Of course not, because it's absurd.
Its not absurd and it is for two reasons. Firstly due to Russia's Current imperialist aggression and expansion into Ukraine and bullying of neighbor states in recent years it has got itself into an embargo and trade sanction war which Putin has stupidly made worse to feed nationalism dogma locally. They need grain because he rather shortsightedly banned grain imports and meat from places like Australia merely for stating the obvious that destabilizing neighbors through direct military intervention is not ok. What else do you call sending a task group to sit in the Coral Sea just off Australia's EEZ boundary right as the G20 meeting is held in Brisbane, "pssst! that's called imperialism too".

Secondly and partly as a direct consequence of the first reason, there is a crisis in the value of the Russian Rouble's value, it has fallen well over 40% over the last few months. Mostly though it is because they have borrowed far too much (a lot of which has been directed to fund military expansion) and have far too little to back it in currency (and the yields on these debts have risen dramatically), let alone be able to service the debt. In this they are not unlike Argentina, and surprise, surprise both Governments have been stirring their own nationalism pots. In Russia's case by trying to reinstate its former Soviet imperialist ways, albeit covered up by claims they are merely trying to "stop the West". Yeah right, just as gangsters and thugs now rule the Kremlin and usurp the rights of ordinary Russians.

And now too you,

As the topic isn't the Falklands and Argentina's legitimate claims to them I won't continue on it, unlike other posters.
First you say this and attempt to take the faux moral high ground and deflecting the argument to "other posters", which given YOU started this argument smacks of classic trolling behavior. Then immediately begin laying a bait trail in your next paragraph by stating

Personally I'd rather hear about Argentina getting long range ship destroying missiles in enough quantities to take down some top of the line destroyers
Of course there could only be ONE operator of "top of the line destroyers" you could be referring to so you haven't left the argument alone at all.

Actually though from a strategic footprint and value for money point of view I agree with you. Long range supersonic AshM make more sense than barely a squadrons worth of second hand SU-24's. BrahMos for longer range engagement or the terminal supersonic variants of the 3M54 Sizzler for short range would prove deadly in sufficient numbers to even a USN CBG.

And finally will you please do some research on the whole Falklands ownership debate. If you look you will see that from a timeline point of view France had first claim for a very short time, followed by Britain, then Spain and only then Argentina. And only by the fact that the Falklands were run by the Spaniards for about 30 years from Buenos Aires until it was forced to withdraw by calls for independence by Argentina. Between 1811 till 1833 Argentina claimed the islands until Britain which had never given up ownership when it had decided to avoid war with Spain and left the islands in 1776 took them back. So from 1833 onwards Britain reestablished its ownership and has been there ever since. That puts Argentina fourth on the list for ownership rights in chronological order. So in a nutshell Argentina's claim is based on its former imperialist owner running it from one of its cities for 30 years, followed by it then taking advantage of the opportunity created by the power vacuum when Spain left by claiming them for 20 years. Sort of a mini imperialist island grabbing expansion by Argentina itself really. Nobody cared until a military dictatorship desperate for a diversion from its economic mismanagement and corruption stirred the pot in the early 80's. Just as Kirchner currently is.

Now can we please leave it alone and get back on track?

LEE.


edit on 7-1-2015 by thebozeian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: thebozeian
They need grain because he rather shortsightedly banned grain imports and meat from places like Australia merely for stating the obvious that destabilizing neighbors through direct military intervention is not ok.

They can buy grain and meat from many countries with no current sanctions. They don't 'need it' from Argentina, it's just something Argentina exports and Russia imports so it works.



What else do you call sending a task group to sit in the Coral Sea just off Australia's EEZ boundary right as the G20 meeting is held in Brisbane, "pssst! that's called imperialism too".

Given the leader of Australia publicly stated he was going to 'shirtfront' the Russian leader, an action that would be considered assault, I can't really blame Russia for bringing some warships. It's unheard of for a leader to be threatened with assault. By the way, the US has stationed a task force close to the President on many foreign meetings.


Secondly and partly as a direct consequence of the first reason, there is a crisis in the value of the Russian Rouble's value, it has fallen well over 40% over the last few months. Mostly though it is because they have borrowed far too much (a lot of which has been directed to fund military expansion) and have far too little to back it in currency (and the yields on these debts have risen dramatically), let alone be able to service the debt.

Russia has one of the lowest debt levels on Earth.
www.tradingeconomics.com...
Lower than Canada, Australia, China, France, Germany...pretty much everyone except a few. Of course it's lower than the US debt level as well. You are 100% wrong about why the ruble has fallen so much. The main reason is in fact the steep drop in the price of Oil and resulting loss of investor confidence that the Russian economy will perform well.



And now too you,

As the topic isn't the Falklands and Argentina's legitimate claims to them I won't continue on it, unlike other posters.
First you say this and attempt to take the faux moral high ground and deflecting the argument to "other posters", which given YOU started this argument smacks of classic trolling behavior.

No attempt to take faux moral high ground, simply keeping the thread about the OP topic. There were posts previous to mine about the Falklands invasion so I sure didn't start that aspect of discussion. You're false again.



Then immediately begin laying a bait trail in your next paragraph by stating

Personally I'd rather hear about Argentina getting long range ship destroying missiles in enough quantities to take down some top of the line destroyers
Of course there could only be ONE operator of "top of the line destroyers" you could be referring to so you haven't left the argument alone at all.

Not a bail trail, but a discussion of defense needs of Argentina, which pretty closely follows the OP. Long range warplanes or Long range ship destroying missiles...which serves Argentina better? The missiles in my mind.



And finally will you please do some research on the whole Falklands ownership debate. If you look you will see ...sniped as off topic...

Not going into that topic despite others and your efforts. I maintain there are many valid and legal arguments that the Islands should belong to Argentina.

Asking to get back on topic after you post that long winded and well off topic post is funny. Reminds me that actions speak louder than words.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick
Why would Argentina, who no one is threatening need long range ship destroying missiles?

Why would China, or India, or a dozen other countries need anti-ship missiles because no one is CURRENTLY threatening them either??? Amazingly enough countries have to plan military defense with a little more thought than current threats.



Or are you going to claim this is off topic and claim you are not going to respond, except then post a response with some thinly veiled inflammatory comment about murdering innocent men by bombing their ships whilst defending their own sovereign territory from an aggressor?

The anti-ship missile topic is much closer to the OP than the Falklands ownership issue and seems acceptable to me personally. Further, I never made any 'thinly veiled inflammatory comment about murdering innocent men'. Where in the world did you get that from? I mentioned a defense system that Argentina might find more useful than the SU-24's they have now leased. If people can't even talk about weapons systems without others getting upset because they have been used in the past to 'murder innocent men' then the rules at ATS need some rather large changes.

Care to share why you took offense to the simple discussion of anti-ship missiles?



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
As the topic isn't the Falklands and Argentina's legitimate claims to them I won't continue on it, unlike other posters.

Sure the SU 24's are older, but I didn't hear what variant they are leasing and regardless, the plane has excellent bombing capabilities for a country like Argentina. It's all relative of course. Personally I'd rather hear about Argentina getting long range ship destroying missiles in enough quantities to take down some top of the line destroyers. The Exocet's are great but only in close.


So you have been shown to be wrong on the subject you brought up in thwe first place and now refuse to talk about your claims?.
Lol.
They can get all the planes they want....not one would get past our Destroyer...best in the world they are.
Tell you what make a thread with your claims that the islands should belong to the Argies.....I dare you.
edit on 7-1-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick
I wonder if UK will have F-35 and carriers by the time Argentina can field an operational squadron?


"Queen Elizabeth was christened on 4 July 2014[9] and floated out on 17 July 2014.[88] Fitting out will take until the end of 2015[88] and the crew will move aboard in May 2016[9] ahead of sea trials beginning in August 2016[88] and delivery in May 2017.[88] Flight trials with helicopters will begin in 2017 and F-35B flight trials towards the end of 2018.[88] An "operational military capability" will be declared in 2020.[9]"
en.wikipedia.org...

And you've hit on the reason I'd suggest Argentina be buying long range anti-ship missiles instead of SU-24's. Russia has in fact recently sold some of their most advanced anti-ship missiles to Syria.
theeconomiccollapseblog.com...
Thus it wouldn't be out of the question to hear of a sale to Argentina at some point as well.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

start a thread about the Falklands if that's what you want to talk about.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

You made the claims It is your job.
Back up your claims or remain silent and accept the falklands belong to the people living there and have done for hundreds of years and have chosen to be with us not the argies.
Sorry dude I lost kin in the war due to our islands being invaded.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
They can get all the planes they want....not one would get past our Destroyer...best in the world they are.

The SU's don't have to 'get past' a destroyer. All they need to do is use their supersonic speed to get within 25km's of the ship and fire an Exocet...which I believe can be mounted with some minor adjustments. Here's what happens...

www.youtube.com...

Ah...the glory of War! The British make great documentaries. All for a rocky island 1/2 way around the world that costs millions and million to support every year.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: noeltrotsky

You made the claims It is your job.
Back up your claims or remain silent and accept the falklands belong to the people living there and have done for hundreds of years and have chosen to be with us not the argies.
Sorry dude I lost kin in the war due to our islands being invaded.

Nope, not interested in discussing the Falklands. I reviewed the legal arguments long ago and am convinced they belong to Argentina, as stated already.

Sorry for your loss by the way.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

But you first brought it all up in this thread!...
Anyhow your opinion doesn't mean anything the islanders have spoken and they remain with us.
International law backs this up so either shhhh or back up your comments.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

Wouldn't hit our type 45...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

We're still an empire. In every sense of the word.
As are our American partners.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: noeltrotsky

But you first brought it all up in this thread!...

Proof? Should be easy to find...simply read the thread. Who brought up the Falklands subject first?



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick
I wonder if UK will have F-35 and carriers by the time Argentina can field an operational squadron?

Insomuch as saber rattling, all the UK has to do is deploy a few more Typhoon and surface a Trident Sub near buenos aires.



If shooting were required, the sub, plus a type 45 destroyer, are sufficient all by themselves. The Typhoons, though more than a match for Su-24's, are merely a visible token defence. A reminder.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: JIMC5499
Trading 12 second rate attack aircraft for food makes a statement of its own. As far as putting pressure on the West goes, I think that it will take more than 12 planes to do that.

The statement being that Russia will work with any country to help them defend themselves against the West. Surely you're not suggesting Russia can't afford to pay cash for meat and grain? Any sources to support that? Of course not, because it's absurd.


Defend themselves against the West?

They don't need to do that they just need to stop trying to challenge the west by selling any Anti West Country or dictator on the planet weapons to also threaten the west with

Russia never did like the fact they lost the Cold War and failed to dominate the world

That dream is still very much alive in the kremlin which is why instead of working with the west Russia chooses to rival and throw spanners in the works so to speak


As for Argentina... Russia's new anti west lapdog no matter if they get the SU-24 or now it's cannon fodder to the royal navy's Type 45s if they use them in anger or it's a drain on there crumbling economy the longer they keep them and don't get them shot down

IMO

Best Argentina sticks to making threats and dreaming that they own the Falklands because of closer to them than the UK



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: boymonkey74
They can get all the planes they want....not one would get past our Destroyer...best in the world they are.

The SU's don't have to 'get past' a destroyer. All they need to do is use their supersonic speed to get within 25km's of the ship and fire an Exocet...which I believe can be mounted with some minor adjustments. Here's what happens...

www.youtube.com...

Ah...the glory of War! The British make great documentaries. All for a rocky island 1/2 way around the world that costs millions and million to support every year.


So how exactly is Argentina going to track and target an aircraft carrier?

Baring in mind the UK would have astute class hunter killer subs patrolling, type 45s, Thypoons, and a whole range of other platforms?

Carriers can strike well outside the range of the missiles and recon plans Argentina have and the type 45s radar tracking is amongst the best in the world, I'd say its a safe bet Argentina wouldn't get anywhere near the QE class carriers let alone a type 45

Absolutely dreaming



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Forensick
Why would Argentina, who no one is threatening need long range ship destroying missiles?

Why would China, or India, or a dozen other countries need anti-ship missiles because no one is CURRENTLY threatening them either??? Amazingly enough countries have to plan military defense with a little more thought than current threats.



Or are you going to claim this is off topic and claim you are not going to respond, except then post a response with some thinly veiled inflammatory comment about murdering innocent men by bombing their ships whilst defending their own sovereign territory from an aggressor?

The anti-ship missile topic is much closer to the OP than the Falklands ownership issue and seems acceptable to me personally. Further, I never made any 'thinly veiled inflammatory comment about murdering innocent men'. Where in the world did you get that from? I mentioned a defense system that Argentina might find more useful than the SU-24's they have now leased. If people can't even talk about weapons systems without others getting upset because they have been used in the past to 'murder innocent men' then the rules at ATS need some rather large changes.

Care to share why you took offense to the simple discussion of anti-ship missiles?


Deny it all you like but bringing up anti ship missiles is either completely random (except it isn't) or a direct reference to exorcets sinking UK task force ships in a thread which has already linked Argentine aircraft as a threat to UK (FI).

I suppose it isn't actually off topic, SU-25 sales/loans is hardly a discussion without what it may mean in terms of the economies of both countries and the threats to others.



edit on 7 1 2015 by Forensick because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join