Argentina plans to increase Defence Spending by 50%

#2
I hope this gets pushed in the press, add in some more concrete Falkland's oil finds and Dr Fox can let out a huge sigh of relief.

That said 50% increase isnt going to buy them a new airforce nor a new navy. Which is what they are going to need to threaten typhoon, t45 and astute....
 
#3
I think the key point to note here is this:

Garre told a university audience the government would increase the defense budget in the coming years from 0.9 percent to 1.5 percent of Argentina's gross domestic product to help overcome effects of the post-Falklands period

basing that on current projections of $344 billion dollars, that would mean that roughly $34.6 million will be spent on defence per annum.

On this, id there really any threat to the UK or FI based on the regeneration work that they need to do on both upgrades and training?

Another point to note would be this quote:

Successive governments ignored the military's requests for funds to keep the armed forces in fighting form, with the result that many in Argentina rate their forces as one of the least battle-ready outfits in Latin America, with obsolete weapons, demoralized or ill-paid service personnel and little or no clout in the political spectrum.

Now, compare that to the UK's projected spending of £36.9Bn in 2010/11, surely it is a not starter of a story and just someone out for a bit of scaremongering?
 
#4
basing that on current projections of $344 billion dollars, that would mean that roughly $34.6 million will be spent on defence per annum.
In other words, if the spicks spend their ENTIRE defence budget for the next 24 years on their air force, they will be able to buy a whole 12 fighters by 2034!
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
I think the key point to note here is this:

Garre told a university audience the government would increase the defense budget in the coming years from 0.9 percent to 1.5 percent of Argentina's gross domestic product to help overcome effects of the post-Falklands period

basing that on current projections of $344 billion dollars, that would mean that roughly $34.6 million will be spent on defence per annum.

On this, id there really any threat to the UK or FI based on the regeneration work that they need to do on both upgrades and training?

Another point to note would be this quote:

Successive governments ignored the military's requests for funds to keep the armed forces in fighting form, with the result that many in Argentina rate their forces as one of the least battle-ready outfits in Latin America, with obsolete weapons, demoralized or ill-paid service personnel and little or no clout in the political spectrum.

Now, compare that to the UK's projected spending of £36.9Bn in 2010/11, surely it is a not starter of a story and just someone out for a bit of scaremongering?
I think you have your sums wrong. 1.5% of $344 billion is not $34m its $4.5 billion, give or take. Still nothing compared to us but sufficient to rearm an expeditionary force and air force
 
#8
Also, don't forget that the vast majority of the costs in the Argentinean budget go on personnel related costs like wages and not capital equipment procurement.

To get to the point where they could take the islands, you'd need to see investment in several landing ships, a revived airforce and a credible SSK capability. Then you'd need to train and work up on this to ensure everyone knows what they're doing, which could be a challenge! The lead time from saying 'lets recapture the Falklands' to actually doing it could be measured in decades at current progress.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
Also, don't forget that the vast majority of the costs in the Argentinean budget go on personnel related costs like wages and not capital equipment procurement.

To get to the point where they could take the islands, you'd need to see investment in several landing ships, a revived airforce and a credible SSK capability. Then you'd need to train and work up on this to ensure everyone knows what they're doing, which could be a challenge! The lead time from saying 'lets recapture the Falklands' to actually doing it could be measured in decades at current progress.
You're basing that on starting from scratch. The Argentinians have most of the knowhow they just need more modern equipment, more training budget and a military focused on the amphibious requirement. Firtsly, that's going to be damned obvious to us and will mean a beefed up FI defence and it also means they would have to sacrifice protection against other potential threats - Chile, Brazil
 
#11
If anyone wants to look for potential reasons why we require capable and readily deployable forces I suggest they look no further than the various nations of North Africa. Considerably unstable, laden with economic migrants from further South and just over the very rickety garden fence from our back yard.
 
#12
"You're basing that on starting from scratch. The Argentinians have most of the knowhow they just need more modern equipment, more training budget and a military focused on the amphibious requirement."

Going to disagree there - the Argentines have not had any credible capability in some of these areas for decades - what knowledge is there is utterly out of date, and related to equipment which is completely obsolete. Its like saying that we can go fight a war somewhere with new kit, using our skills and experience gained in the BAOR ORBAT of 1982 - its a different world out there.

Don't underestimate how damaging the last 28 years have been for the Argentine military - if they're requipping then they will be starting from scratch in terms of knowledge to relearn and experience. They may well get there, but it will take a long time to put together a credible threat.
 
#13
I think the chances of Argentina trying Falklands Round 2 are very slim indeed. The only way it will happen is if another coup occurs and yet another crazed dictator tries it on.
 
#14
I think the chances of Argentina trying Falklands Round 2 are very slim indeed. The only way it will happen is if another coup occurs and yet another crazed dictator tries it on.
You're missing the point! We need to worry the politico's into thinking that the Argies are a real threat, and they may let us keep the aircraft carriers, fighters, bombers, tanks, artillery etc...that they are thinking of 'down-sizing' in the SDSR.

The CGS needs to burst in on the next cabinet meeting shouting: "The Argies, Huns, Frogs, Commies* are invading!", to emphasize that Afghanistan isn't the only threat to this country.


*Delete as required!
 
#16
You're missing the point! We need to worry the politico's into thinking that the Argies are a real threat, and they may let us keep the aircraft carriers, fighters, bombers, tanks, artillery etc...that they are thinking of 'down-sizing' in the SDSR.

The CGS needs to burst in on the next cabinet meeting shouting: "The Argies, Huns, Frogs, Commies* are invading!", to emphasize that Afghanistan isn't the only threat to this country.


*Delete as required!
Fair point. It might actually do us some good if the Argies tried it on again (At least in terms of giving politicians a kick up the backside). Obviously not so good for the Falklanders though (I have family living on that god-forsaken penguin sanctury)
 
#17
"You're basing that on starting from scratch. The Argentinians have most of the knowhow they just need more modern equipment, more training budget and a military focused on the amphibious requirement."

Going to disagree there - the Argentines have not had any credible capability in some of these areas for decades - what knowledge is there is utterly out of date, and related to equipment which is completely obsolete. Its like saying that we can go fight a war somewhere with new kit, using our skills and experience gained in the BAOR ORBAT of 1982 - its a different world out there.

Don't underestimate how damaging the last 28 years have been for the Argentine military - if they're requipping then they will be starting from scratch in terms of knowledge to relearn and experience. They may well get there, but it will take a long time to put together a credible threat.
It's pretentious ********** like you who put us in danger. Civies who think they know what they are talking about. Are you seriously saying the British Army of 1982 were shit, you know that army that won the falklands war? Likewise for Argentinian core skills. Think about it.

Soldiering doesn't change, yes kit does, but the core remains. Something you as a civvy will never understand.

Sure soldiers of 1982 might not exploit wimiks or bulldog to their best, but it's tits like you who think systems win wars, no they ****ing don't. Soldiers win wars.

Flash kit does not triumph soldiering, something you really don't grasp, I hope to hell you are never given anything more important than a naafi break. You really don't understand it.
 
#18
He was talking about doctrinal slippage, something that has affected the British Army in the past leading to us getting completely****ed no matter how good we were at soldiery (1940 and the total lapse of combined arms training from 1926).

If you ignore the BAOR bit (if only because systems and doctrine have not actually changed so much as to be unrecognisable) he has a rather good point. I highly doubt you could take the 1914 BEF, possibly the finest British Army to ever take the field and expect them to be able to conduct an effective amphibious operation against a very well trained 21st century defender in a short period of time with a small budget.
 
#19
He was talking about doctrinal slippage, something that has affected the British Army in the past leading to us getting completely****ed no matter how good we were at soldiery (1940 and the total lapse of combined arms training from 1926).

If you ignore the BAOR bit (if only because systems and doctrine have not actually changed so much as to be unrecognisable) he has a rather good point. I highly doubt you could take the 1914 BEF, possibly the finest British Army to ever take the field and expect them to be able to conduct an effective amphibious operation against a very well trained 21st century defender in a short period of time with a small budget.

You are an idiot. The army of 1914 was professional in the sense that it was paid is acceptable, it wasn't good, as 1915 proved. The best Army was of 1918, you know those that kicked arse with combined arms and won the Great War.

As an aside what do you know of BAOR?
 
#20
I highly doubt you could take the 1914 BEF, possibly the finest British Army to ever take the field and expect them to be able to conduct an effective amphibious operation against a very well trained 21st century defender in a short period of time with a small budget.
Ah, but the WWI Army did do some amphibiosity and much of the fighting in the Falklands bore a striking resemblance to the fighting on the Western Front, right down to the trench foot.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts