F-16's for Argentina

[exdraken]

1 hour ago, Fukuryu said:

 

. That's the story at least.

And it keep holding for 40+ years already.

I'd assume one of 1000s of F-16 pilots would have told us by now if this would be impossible?

Wikipedia states a ferry range of 2500 miles plus... ...

[Fukuryu]

19 minutes ago, exdraken said:

And it keep holding for 40+ years already.

I'd assume one of 1000s of F-16 pilots would have told us by now if this would be impossible?

Wikipedia states a ferry range of 2500 miles plus... ...

 

The part that I'd like to see confirmed for good is the "refueling to the very last second", because I don't know how easy or secure that would be. The rest I am convinced is true. After all, these were part of the initial batches of F-16A, so probably the lightest these aircraft ever were and the most fuel-efficient (assumptions on my part since I know next to nothing about the F-16, I would gladly be schooled if wrong).

[Head in the clouds.]

I had seen reported somewhere (sorry, memeory fails as to where) that the F16 is a known quantity to the RAF, the Chinese hardware was(is) not so therefore the F16 was a better option from the RAF's side of the fence.

But as stated earlier this is probably all incidental, all they want is a capable ADF force.

[Slater]

I wonder how many hours are left in these airframes? The aircraft would seem to be rather old.

[Iceman11]

I`m just asking the obvious question - why Argentina and not Ukraine?

 

The F-16 MLU is quite capable and those who have flown it ,know how to beat the Flanker family(what to do and what not to do). Also quite capable is the air to ground/ strike role and air to air against drones/ cruise missiles. If Ukranie could muster 100+ F-16 MLUs that could make the defence and control over airspace and battlefield rather solid.

 

Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway (even Romania, if they coulkd be offered new F-16Vs as a compensation) have a lot of MLUs just waiting for Ukrainian roundels. Sure it would require a bit of service, but with ample supply of AIM-120D it could give the Ukrainia air superiority. Those who have studied modern warfare know what that can lead to.....

 

To me this deal with Argentina does not make much sense.

 

Just say`in

 

Wouldbeiceman

 

[Duncan B]

2 hours ago, Iceman11 said:

I`m just asking the obvious question - why Argentina and not Ukraine?

 

The F-16 MLU is quite capable and those who have flown it ,know how to beat the Flanker family(what to do and what not to do). Also quite capable is the air to ground/ strike role and air to air against drones/ cruise missiles. If Ukranie could muster 100+ F-16 MLUs that could make the defence and control over airspace and battlefield rather solid.

 

Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway (even Romania, if they coulkd be offered new F-16Vs as a compensation) have a lot of MLUs just waiting for Ukrainian roundels. Sure it would require a bit of service, but with ample supply of AIM-120D it could give the Ukrainia air superiority. Those who have studied modern warfare know what that can lead to.....

 

To me this deal with Argentina does not make much sense.

 

Just say`in

 

Wouldbeiceman

 

I think the answer to that one lies in the Senate in Washington. Currently they are arguing over giving Ukraine more aid at all! At the same time the U.S. is trying to keep China from having any influence in South America so would rather see the F-16s go to Argentina. If the U.S. didn't have a say in where Belgium, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands sell their F-16s to then the destination might well be east rather than south west but the U.S. does have the final say.

 

Duncan B

[GiampieroSilvestri]

10 hours ago, Pajarito said:

Not as old as the A-4Ms, I hope. 

The Danish F-16 were built by Sabca in Belgium from 1980 to 1987 so the aircraft are between 37 and 44 years old.

 

Saluti

 

Giampiero

[Stephen]

3 hours ago, Iceman11 said:

I`m just asking the obvious question - why Argentina and not Ukraine?

 

The F-16 MLU is quite capable and those who have flown it ,know how to beat the Flanker family(what to do and what not to do). Also quite capable is the air to ground/ strike role and air to air against drones/ cruise missiles. If Ukranie could muster 100+ F-16 MLUs that could make the defence and control over airspace and battlefield rather solid.

 

Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway (even Romania, if they coulkd be offered new F-16Vs as a compensation) have a lot of MLUs just waiting for Ukrainian roundels. Sure it would require a bit of service, but with ample supply of AIM-120D it could give the Ukrainia air superiority. Those who have studied modern warfare know what that can lead to.....

 

To me this deal with Argentina does not make much sense.

 

Just say`in

 

Wouldbeiceman

 

Even with a 100 F-16s I don't think air superiority would be possible in the current SAM environment.  

[exdraken]

Of course they oulf be helpful to Ukraine as well. But some (Dutch, Danish, Belgian  Norwegian) are already promised and training is ongoing already. Do not think Ukraine can absorb them quickly anyways without "Lawndarting" them too quickly and inefficiently...

[Iceman11]

5 hours ago, Stephen said:

Even with a 100 F-16s I don't think air superiority would be possible in the current SAM environment.  

I would challenge that view. Certainly the SAM environment over the theatre is quite intense and very challenging. But Ukraine has been able to operate in the SEAD role with SU-24 and MIG-29s. Combined operations is the key competence to succeed in this environment.  Use of drones, jamming and larger combined packages of aircraft will mitigate the SAM threat somewhat.

 

One factor that many who comment fail to acknowledge, is the fact that Ukraine (and Russian) pilots have extensive combat experience. In a combat environment very different (much more intense and full of advanced adversaries) than NATO and the US has fought in the last 4 decades. That also goes for the whole military system - this intense fighting is a steep learning curve and will pay dividens and increase tactical knowledge. It seems that Russian C4 is not able to have overview and capable to combined operations. The number of Russian aircraft supposedly shot down by Russia is an example that points to that.

 

So the lack of C4 is something that the Ukrainian military has to exploit (and I`m sure they`re working hard on that one). 100 + F-16 MLU will in my opinion be essential for them to take the initiative in C4 and air interdiction. The intel and knowledge that has shaped NATOs tactics versus Russian air defences using the F-16 MLU, combined with what appears to be a Russian C4 vacuum gives an opportunity. I would advocate that NATO gives Ukraine the right tools to use that opportunity.

 

But the most influencial single action is providing Ukraine with sufficient ammo to counter the present Russian initiative (especially artillery and SAMs/ Amraams).

 

The are quite a number of F-16 MLUs avalable now - even the US senate has to understand that the moments is now....or never.

 

Check Six!

 

Wouldbeiceman

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Any ideas as to what camouflage the Argentinian A.F. will opt for ? Any kind of artists conceptual art. 

[wellsprop]

12 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Any ideas as to what camouflage the Argentinian A.F. will opt for ? Any kind of artists conceptual art. 

 

I'm going to go for grey with some more grey.

[11bravo]

23 hours ago, wellsprop said:

 

I'm going to go for grey with some more grey.

To paraphrase H. Ford - they can have any color they want, as long as it's grey. 

[11bravo]

On 4/2/2024 at 1:33 PM, Iceman11 said:

I would challenge that view. Certainly the SAM environment over the theatre is quite intense and very challenging. But Ukraine has been able to operate in the SEAD role with SU-24 and MIG-29s. Combined operations is the key competence to succeed in this environment.  Use of drones, jamming and larger combined packages of aircraft will mitigate the SAM threat somewhat.

 

One factor that many who comment fail to acknowledge, is the fact that Ukraine (and Russian) pilots have extensive combat experience. In a combat environment very different (much more intense and full of advanced adversaries) than NATO and the US has fought in the last 4 decades. That also goes for the whole military system - this intense fighting is a steep learning curve and will pay dividens and increase tactical knowledge. It seems that Russian C4 is not able to have overview and capable to combined operations. The number of Russian aircraft supposedly shot down by Russia is an example that points to that.

 

So the lack of C4 is something that the Ukrainian military has to exploit (and I`m sure they`re working hard on that one). 100 + F-16 MLU will in my opinion be essential for them to take the initiative in C4 and air interdiction. The intel and knowledge that has shaped NATOs tactics versus Russian air defences using the F-16 MLU, combined with what appears to be a Russian C4 vacuum gives an opportunity. I would advocate that NATO gives Ukraine the right tools to use that opportunity.

 

But the most influencial single action is providing Ukraine with sufficient ammo to counter the present Russian initiative (especially artillery and SAMs/ Amraams).

 

The are quite a number of F-16 MLUs avalable now - even the US senate has to understand that the moments is now....or never.

 

Check Six!

 

Wouldbeiceman

I would suggest that only the US has a dedicated force of jets / pilots used for SAM suppression.     The F-16CJ (and the other airborne assets that are part of a typical Wild Weasel package) is vastly superior to what Ukraine or Russia is flying.   In the case of Ukraine, they are probably shooting the HARMS in a very basic mode, compared to what the missile is actually capable of.   No question that Ukrainian pilots have the most experience on the planet flying against a very high-level threat but the west has been following this conflict closely and I'd be shocked if they aren't rapidly adjusting their tactics and incorporating the data into current Red / Green flag events.     Also note the continued presence of RC-135 Rivet Joints in the area.   The electronic "take" from monitoring all of those top line Russian SAM's, radars and EW system is invaluable.   

 

Lastly, with regard to the US holding up sales of F-16MLU's, - that's not correct.    The US senate has not stopped any transfers of US weapons from other nations, they just object to spending US money on Ukraine.    

[Scooby]

On 1/31/2024 at 4:14 PM, JohnT said:

I gather the US Administration are assisting with funding. Quite why?  It seems to be intended in order to block China who were offering their aircraft. 

The US probably installed a kill switch if they try to invade the Falklands again.

[Scooby]

On 3/31/2024 at 2:06 PM, Pajarito said:

 

There's absolutely no need for that. It's quite a different situation right now in the country, whether or not the deal is on about those F-16s. For starters, the country is virtually broke; armed forces are not nearly as they used to be back in '82. There's only a handful of A-4M (AR in the local jargon) which are still operative.

There's a different administration who's thankfully friends with the US and Israel, instead of Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, Russia and China. 

If those F-16s ever materialise, I'll be too glad that pilots are going to be up to the high standards in performance and skills they showed during the Falkland war.

I'm quite sure those aircraft are going to be well used just to protect our country's sovereignty and to guard from outbound drug-dealing flights from the neighbouring countries in the North. 

Uses other than that are plain paranoia, I'd say.

 

Igna

Argentina was broke when they invaded the Falklands in 82, it was the main reason for the conflict, to distract the country from their economy.

[GiampieroSilvestri]

On 08/04/2024 at 01:12, Pajarito said:

 

The way I see it is that it does make a lot of sense. Judging by the fact that the Chinese are planning to establish a naval base (to harbour deep-keel vessels - that's got to be Military ship instead of Merchant/Fishing that they state), in the southernmost area of this continent (that is Tierra del Fuego, which governor happens to be of leftist-Kirchnerist orientation); if the Americas are willing to fight (or avert) the presence or settlement of the Chinese, we'd better have those F-16 to cover that area along with the Chilean F-16s.

China used to fund Mrs Kirchner's (pseudo) leftist government, for what the Chinese imposed that a "moon & space observation" base (China Satellite Launch and Tracking Control General) be settled in the province of Neuquén; a 200-hectare installation that no Argie is ever going to be able to set foot on, not one single Argie Peso will ever be paid for the lease to the Argie government.

This installation is to be there for 47 more years, which is one of Gen. Laura Richardson's, (commander of U.S. Southern Command) concerns about the region.

The least the Chinese are doing is peeping the moon.  That was Mrs Kirchner and her irrefutable view on geopolitical affairs, I guess 😁  

 

 

There's one artist conceptual art on Facebook, but I don't like it because it's in line with that on the A-4AR. I'd rather it be like that on the Chilean F-16Cs.

Cheers,

 

Igna

The station is also used by the Argentinian space organisation comision nacional de actividades espaciales for astrophysical research.I doubt that this Argentinian state organisation is run by the Chinese.

 

Saluti

 

Giampiero

 

Edited April 10, 2024 by GiampieroSilvestri

[junglierating]

7 hours ago, Scooby said:

The US probably installed a kill switch if they try to invade the Falklands again.

I dont think the USA give two hoots about the Falklands or the UK....love Americans and they love the UK if it suits them....standfast the Disney esque historic Britain bit

[JohnT]

1 hour ago, junglierating said:

I dont think the USA give two hoots about the Falklands or the UK....love Americans and they love the UK if it suits them....standfast the Disney esque historic Britain bit

 

I might add that I too am a huge fan of Americans, mostly anyway.  Some of the nicest people I have met in my life.  My sons Godmother is from the US.  That said in the world of international realpolitik @junglierating is pretty much spot on.  It goes back a long way.  One foreign policy concern shown during WW2 and since is that the US were concerned not to support the return of Britain to old colonies after WW2.  Fair enough - there was a fair amount of the UK thinking the same as well.  That trend in US thinking continues to today and the Falklands issue might not get the same support as last time from across the pond.  In 82 the Argentinian junta got it all wrong.  A democratically elected government might have a better chance in future.  US support can't be guaranteed on this particular issue.  I think I can see an increasing trend in the US policy back towards isolationism.  It is something that has never wholly gone away but has been dormant for the decades after WW2.  I think there is a change in the way the wind is blowing and certain other countries have become aware that the US might not be the forward leaning reliable security senior partner that it has been in the second half of the last century.

 

All that rambling done though I'd like to think that the Falklands are not under threat just because the Argentine Air Force acquire some F-16 aircraft which they do need to modernise.  Perhaps if their navy acquired a credible and significant amphibious capability with the same for anti submarine tasking then that would present a more significant threat.

 

I recall reading that a much earlier concern about an Argentine  landing evaporated when the then Prime Minister James Callaghan sent a hunter killer sub to the South Atlantic - possibly more than one?  Or at elast he let it be known that one was there.  Whether that was true?  Who knows?

 

I suspect the main barrier to military intervention is not Typhoons or F-35's but the possibility of 1-2 submarines sending any amphibious force to the bottom of the South Atlantic.  While the sabre rattling is going on I'd have one on permanent station at all time as a reality check.

 

A better solution is that the UK buys up all the annual Argentine wine supply and creates an economic boom there so that renewed hostilities are unthinkable - I am prepared to do my bit drinking it for King and Country.

[Philly1860]

3 hours ago, JohnT said:

 

I might add that I too am a huge fan of Americans, mostly anyway.  Some of the nicest people I have met in my life.  My sons Godmother is from the US.  That said in the world of international realpolitik @junglierating is pretty much spot on.  It goes back a long way.  One foreign policy concern shown during WW2 and since is that the US were concerned not to support the return of Britain to old colonies after WW2.  Fair enough - there was a fair amount of the UK thinking the same as well.  That trend in US thinking continues to today and the Falklands issue might not get the same support as last time from across the pond.  In 82 the Argentinian junta got it all wrong.  A democratically elected government might have a better chance in future.  US support can't be guaranteed on this particular issue.  I think I can see an increasing trend in the US policy back towards isolationism.  It is something that has never wholly gone away but has been dormant for the decades after WW2.  I think there is a change in the way the wind is blowing and certain other countries have become aware that the US might not be the forward leaning reliable security senior partner that it has been in the second half of the last century.

 

All that rambling done though I'd like to think that the Falklands are not under threat just because the Argentine Air Force acquire some F-16 aircraft which they do need to modernise.  Perhaps if their navy acquired a credible and significant amphibious capability with the same for anti submarine tasking then that would present a more significant threat.

 

I recall reading that a much earlier concern about an Argentine  landing evaporated when the then Prime Minister James Callaghan sent a hunter killer sub to the South Atlantic - possibly more than one?  Or at elast he let it be known that one was there.  Whether that was true?  Who knows?

 

I suspect the main barrier to military intervention is not Typhoons or F-35's but the possibility of 1-2 submarines sending any amphibious force to the bottom of the South Atlantic.  While the sabre rattling is going on I'd have one on permanent station at all time as a reality check.

 

A better solution is that the UK buys up all the annual Argentine wine supply and creates an economic boom there so that renewed hostilities are unthinkable - I am prepared to do my bit drinking it for King and Country.

Put me down for a case of Melbac🤣

[Scooby]

16 hours ago, junglierating said:

I dont think the USA give two hoots about the Falklands or the UK....love Americans and they love the UK if it suits them....standfast the Disney esque historic Britain bit

They gave the UK new sidewinders for the original conflict, they do care.

[Scooby]

23 hours ago, Pajarito said:

 

 

The Armed Forces were armed to the teeth. For instance; don't ever forget how the French were desperately asked to embargo over 10 of the newly acquired SuEs and their respective AM-39 missiles before the outbreak of the conflict.

I wouldn’t say they were armed to the teeth with high technology weapons. And the military was not that well trained, especially the conscripts on the Falklands.

 

The war was started for one reason, to distract from the economy.

[junglierating]

Im with you on the Malbec JohnT ...also there is some terrific caving to be had.Frankly id like to just visit the argentine.

 

[junglierating]

4 hours ago, Scooby said:

They gave the UK new sidewinders for the original conflict, they do care.

AiM 9Ls indeed and a certain amount of intelligence but always in there favour.

Edited April 9, 2024 by junglierating
Sorry got bit political ...smack hand

[wellsprop]

Bringing this back on topic, before the thread gets locked (or someone gets put on the naughty step), when are the aircraft supposed to be delivered?