New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Looking at the Argentine air force, there are 63 outdated fighters, interceptors and ground attack aircraft to replace. These are split over various types that make maintenance extremely expensive and the best course to replace them with something that uses the same airframe and engines for all 60 replacements. The 30 modernized Pucaras are the element best suited to fighting under these conditions and should be modernized and retained.
The JF-17 doesn't appear to be development beyond the A-4 except for some tweaks and it most certainly is in no way a development that outclasses the Tejas despite being in the same price range.
Looking at the history of this programm you see the evident troubles of such weapon imports from China. The European avionics suit was impossible to get and airframe and avionics had to be separated in development. US companies left existing development contracts because of the embargo on China and Russia did join to provide special know-how. All the development was done by the PAC with Chinese help at the costs of 500 million dollars. For the current 50 aircrafts this is 10 million dollars development per airframe. The delivery was second choice because the avionics were not state of the art European nor was the engine that makes this fighter very weak in thrust to weight ratio. The development costs were mostly for a normal light fighter airframe without US cooperation as promised.
I mentioned that before, you can go for China as a military hardware supply source, but then you need a more complete range of deliveries t pay off for the political costs of that move. JF-17 highlights a botched attempt at that as it was not clear to Pakistan what trade-offs they would have to face.
You don't need the Tejas airframe, but it highlights a very important development of reduced number of components by a factor of 90% and light composite construction. That's exactly what can be best maintained under these rough environmental conditions. Same goes for the engine, Gripen made some modifications to the F404 (the standard for light fighters) for simplicity in order to keep it better operational.

Argentina can make a choice: India+Russia (plus Israel) or China (minus Israel) as Russia seems increasingly unlikely to have the same cooperation level with China as with India. Russia alone has a lower cooperation level with Western military technology suppliers than India that due to longstanding and stable political tradition is allowed to combine Russian and Western derived technology. Israel has a US alignment and has been reminded of the implications that limit cooperation with China, especially on US-sensitive issues like fighter avionics.
Complete reliance on Western military supply sources is simply a bad idea for Argentina because they are locked in a conflict with Chile and the UK that can go violent with each and in alliance.

I don't know what complete package China can offer at a bargain price that is about more than fighters. It would most certainly include the next aircraft carrier and amphibious warfare ships/ferries complete with escorts, a range of area denial technology(missiles, surveillance) and the amphibious assault equipment for the ground forces.

Going for India by contrast offers a solution that makes the military supply less hostage/aligned to one partner. As mentioned before, doing business with the Indians is very tricky with lots of well-hidden problems. The best option is to only import know-how and some prototypes. Argentina is on an economic and technological level not inferior to Pakistan or Sweden and I have little doubt that they can modify the air inlets of the Tejas and add good vertical thrust vectoring. It's always been easy to get India and Israel to cooperate on something and Israel is pretty much the top avionics source, except China, for Argentina. The JF-17 and the Tejas offer themselves for a direct comparison of the development of two countries that are almost identical in their problems of making promises that can't be kept and hiding problems. More than twice as much investment went into the Tejas airframe than into the JF-17 airframe with the JF-17 representing a solution of past technology for a light fighter and the Tejas taking the lead into the future. The JF-17 has no carrier component and will need modifications for naval operations unnecessary for Pakistan. Livefist: "LCA Far Ahead Of JF-17 In Contemporary Technology": IAF Western Commander is a blog post with interesting comments on JF-17 and Tejas worth reading.

The true potential of the Tejas needs some more tweaks for the thrust vectoring it is designed for in order to fully outclass the F-16, the other specific design requirement. I'm not sure about the air intakes, but if you look at the HAL Marut(indigenous development by exiled German team) and the HAL Ajeet(license production and development), there might be some established Indian tradition to it that is slowly changing (just like Americans using trapezoidal wings or the Euro-canards).
marut-1.jpgAIR_LCA_Tejas_2_Views_lg.jpg56-BMTC_Flight_cropped.JPG


I have no doubt that China can deliver Argentina something like the Tejas reliable on time at the same costs as the rather dated JF-17 or a weaponized L-15 design that can be shot in droves by the F-16, but what are the political consequences, how will these affect Argentina and what are actual total costs due to repercussions?

Kurt thank you again for taking the time to connect the dots, for me, with respect to the raptor issue. We can now put that topic to rest. I would like to retouch two previous topics we talked about earlier; the carrier issue and the Tejas.

In regards to the carrier I agree with you that there are certain elements in the Navy that still dream of the grand fleet with an aircraft carrier as the flagship/center piece of the armada, and then there is the rest of the military that sees a vessel of that size as a target to sink and therefore a liability. I can see the advantage of having a carrier to project airpower into the South Atlantic and the Pacific, and I believe we talked about the possibility of acquiring a refurbished US Tarawa Class amphibious assault ship as an inexpensive option, or tag along with South Korea’s carrier program. The acquisition of a carrier would require the Navy to invest in more support ships to protect the asset. However in weighing the advantage between a carrier and submarines I will lean more on the side of the submersible. The submersible is a great force multiplier (there is currently a submarine arms race occurring in Asia) and the lessons are still being learned by the sinking of the South Korean frigate a few years ago. Submarines can be used to deny the enemies invasion force the needed supplies to advance and divert their resources to locating them. Submarines do require a very well trained crew to function properly. However, a carrier also requires a very well trained crew all choreographed to perform the additional task of aircraft launch and recovery. They also require a substantially larger crew, supplies, maintenance and payroll. Granted you will not be able to project power beyond the coast with submarines, but you will deny the enemy access to your coast and make him pay dearly within your territorial waters. One last note, the last carrier Argentine operated was the Veinticinco de Mayo. The carrier was seldom used due to its high operational cost and extensive engine problems, and had its last real usage during the 1982 war.

I still have trepidation over the Tejas on several levels. I do however understand your comment that nothing is ever as good or as bad as advertised. With that in mind please let me express my concerns and we can review the items in questions individually. The first in the long time frame that the aircraft has undergone in development and the numerous setbacks that have popped up along the way some of which include: the development of the indigenous radar system which has caused delays (started in June 1991, with a probable date of completion of 7-years, and now 15-years in development) and was eventually scraped in favor of the of the EL/M-2032. The unresolved issue of the Kaveri engine and the use of the GE F414 turbofan for the initial production run. If the Kaveri engine is eventually refined it will cause additional delays in the rework for the engine refit; The Fly-by-wire system went through several designs and required assistance for Lockheed, and after the embargo, from Dassault.
I do NOT want to say that this is a bad aircraft, or not capable as a 4+ generation aircraft. It is just disconcerting to have and aircraft with so many difficulties placed in front of it. It makes you consider possible difficulties in obtaining parts, timely resolution to design flaws, support, and acquisition cost due to delays and most critical; the actual quality of the construction of the aircraft is the workmanship. Russian technician assisting HAL in the construction of the MiG-27s where appalled at the poor quality of workmanship, including the tools and part that where inadvertently left in the aircraft after construction. This caused the parts/tools to fall and find their way into the engine compartment and cause catastrophic engine failure. One way to prevent some of these short comings is to obtain a license to co-produce, or assemble from knock down parts. However, then the reliability of the supply pipeline comes into question. The Yugoslavians and the Romanians developed the J-22 relatively quickly and in secrecy from the Soviet Union (granted it was a simple aircraft, but still a remarkable feat). The Taiwanese developed the AIDC-FCK quickly with help from Lockheed, but then again the Tejas obtained design assistance from Dasault.

The Tejas is a good aircraft as you say, but it appears to be heading in the same direction as the Maurt, or will near an obsolete design by the time it enters full scale production. In addition to all this the estimated cost has risen from $US20 million to $US31 million (still low compared to the Gripen) and could leave India with an unaffordable solution to its MiG-21 replacement. All this feeds back into the overall programs lifetime costs and overall viability.

okay, I'm going to have to address this one. And I'm saying all of this as not a big fan of JF-17.

Originally Posted by Kurt

Looking at the Argentine air force, there are 63 outdated fighters, interceptors and ground attack aircraft to replace. These are split over various types that make maintenance extremely expensive and the best course to replace them with something that uses the same airframe and engines for all 60 replacements. The 30 modernized Pucaras are the element best suited to fighting under these conditions and should be modernized and retained.
The JF-17 doesn't appear to be development beyond the A-4 except for some tweaks and it most certainly is in no way a development that outclasses the Tejas despite being in the same price range.

JF-17 is quite a bit cheaper than Tejas and is in PAF at much large number than Tejas in IAF (which has yet to achieve FOC). JF-17 is 25 million each at most. China can get that cost down to $15 to 20 million if it goes with domestic engine and strip down a couple of things. You can't get cheaper than that for a plane of its class.

Looking at the history of this programm you see the evident troubles of such weapon imports from China. The European avionics suit was impossible to get and airframe and avionics had to be separated in development. US companies left existing development contracts because of the embargo on China and Russia did join to provide special know-how. All the development was done by the PAC with Chinese help at the costs of 500 million dollars. For the current 50 aircrafts this is 10 million dollars development per airframe. The delivery was second choice because the avionics were not state of the art European nor was the engine that makes this fighter very weak in thrust to weight ratio. The development costs were mostly for a normal light fighter airframe without US cooperation as promised.

That's nonsense. The development cost is already paid for and it's not going to be on new units, since it will get spread over hundreds of orders from PAF and other air forces. The avionics have never been a problem. The original one fit all of PAF's requirement and the following radars are only going to get better. The cockpit for JF-17 looks more modern than that of LCA. As for engine, it's not JF-17's fault that it has more talented designers and can get better aerodynamic performance out of a less thrust engine than the one LCA has.

I mentioned that before, you can go for China as a military hardware supply source, but then you need a more complete range of deliveries t pay off for the political costs of that move. JF-17 highlights a botched attempt at that as it was not clear to Pakistan what trade-offs they would have to face.

What political cost, there hasn't been any delays in delivery. Where is LCA?

You don't need the Tejas airframe, but it highlights a very important development of reduced number of components by a factor of 90% and light composite construction. That's exactly what can be best maintained under these rough environmental conditions. Same goes for the engine, Gripen made some modifications to the F404 (the standard for light fighters) for simplicity in order to keep it better operational.

Argentina can make a choice: India+Russia (plus Israel) or China (minus Israel) as Russia seems increasingly unlikely to have the same cooperation level with China as with India. Russia alone has a lower cooperation level with Western military technology suppliers than India that due to longstanding and stable political tradition is allowed to combine Russian and Western derived technology. Israel has a US alignment and has been reminded of the implications that limit cooperation with China, especially on US-sensitive issues like fighter avionics.
Complete reliance on Western military supply sources is simply a bad idea for Argentina because they are locked in a conflict with Chile and the UK that can go violent with each and in alliance.

There is no political issues with JF-17.

I don't know what complete package China can offer at a bargain price that is about more than fighters. It would most certainly include the next aircraft carrier and amphibious warfare ships/ferries complete with escorts, a range of area denial technology(missiles, surveillance) and the amphibious assault equipment for the ground forces.

Let's just talk about aerial weaponry for JF-17. China can offer SD-10A, PL-9C, PL-10, C-802A, CM-802AKG, LT-2, LS-6, FT-1 to 5. There is no shortage of A2A, A2G and A2S weapons that can be offered with JF-17.

Going for India by contrast offers a solution that makes the military supply less hostage/aligned to one partner. As mentioned before, doing business with the Indians is very tricky with lots of well-hidden problems. The best option is to only import know-how and some prototypes. Argentina is on an economic and technological level not inferior to Pakistan or Sweden and I have little doubt that they can modify the air inlets of the Tejas and add good vertical thrust vectoring. It's always been easy to get India and Israel to cooperate on something and Israel is pretty much the top avionics source, except China, for Argentina. The JF-17 and the Tejas offer themselves for a direct comparison of the development of two countries that are almost identical in their problems of making promises that can't be kept and hiding problems. More than twice as much investment went into the Tejas airframe than into the JF-17 airframe with the JF-17 representing a solution of past technology for a light fighter and the Tejas taking the lead into the future. The JF-17 has no carrier component and will need modifications for naval operations unnecessary for Pakistan. Livefist: "LCA Far Ahead Of JF-17 In Contemporary Technology": IAF Western Commander is a blog post with interesting comments on JF-17 and Tejas worth reading.

Why would Argentina need a carrier? And how is livefist, an Indian military blog, proof that JF-17 si better than LCA. PAF chief can say the same thing. Have you read about all of the trouble they've had in getting Tejas achieve its design flight performance? What do you think the actual tested maximum g and speed that LCA have reached? Go through some of the threads on LCA in AFM and DT and take a look.

The true potential of the Tejas needs some more tweaks for the thrust vectoring it is designed for in order to fully outclass the F-16, the other specific design requirement. I'm not sure about the air intakes, but if you look at the HAL Marut(indigenous development by exiled German team) and the HAL Ajeet(license production and development), there might be some established Indian tradition to it that is slowly changing (just like Americans using trapezoidal wings or the Euro-canards).
marut-1.jpgAIR_LCA_Tejas_2_Views_lg.jpg56-BMTC_Flight_cropped.JPG

Great, now TVC is a magical pill that will fix all of Tejas' problems. And developing a couple of low level trainers means you can develop a world class fighter jet?

I have no doubt that China can deliver Argentina something like the Tejas reliable on time at the same costs as the rather dated JF-17 or a weaponized L-15 design that can be shot in droves by the F-16, but what are the political consequences, how will these affect Argentina and what are actual total costs due to repercussions?

You know absolutely nothing about what China can develop. This is the among the most ignorant posts related to Chinese aircraft platform I've seen on this forum.

By this point the EU/US military embargoes are utterly irrelevant to Chinese military exports, as Chinese companies are perfectly capable of providing the entire spectrum of modern AA and AG weapons along with avionics et al on par with whatever the west can provide. To claim otherwise betrays far too much ignorance about fundamentally self-sufficient capability of Chinese arms procurement.

Originally Posted by montyp165

By this point the EU/US military embargoes are utterly irrelevant to Chinese military exports, as Chinese companies are perfectly capable of providing the entire spectrum of modern AA and AG weapons along with avionics et al on par with whatever the west can provide. To claim otherwise betrays far too much ignorance about fundamentally self-sufficient capability of Chinese arms procurement.

However, can the Chinese provide full product support throughout the life of the product, assuming good political relations? The Chinese haven't really exported advanced military hardware until very, very recently.

Originally Posted by Pointblank

However, can the Chinese provide full product support throughout the life of the product, assuming good political relations? The Chinese haven't really exported advanced military hardware until very, very recently.

Chinese product support is already better than what the Russians have been doing for the past 20 years, and the Pakistanis (and Iranians for that matter) certainly aren't complaining about the support issue with their latest purchases either.

To answer all these statements about Chinese capability. I have no doubt that China is a very capable arms manufacturer. The problem is that they are under an embargo by the US and Europe. Pakistan wanted to fuse European, US and Chinese technology in the JF-17, but due to the embargo was left with only Chinese and little Russian support.
It's irrelevant how long the development of the Tejas takes as it is in no relation to the JF-17 development timeframe. India does a major research on modern fighters and the resulting airframe is good. The Indians are also quite ambitious with this aircraft, just like Rafale, Raptor, Eurofighter, JSF and so on (seems like there's no good aircraft outside China this century). Many news reports about India are written by people with a poor understanding of this country, just like many reports you read about China. The linked blog highlighted a number of opinions and some were worth reading.

I mentioned the arms embargo on China by the US and Europe, with Israel "convinced" to align, as well as the increasingly competitive relationsship between China's MIC and Russia's MIC. The problem due to the arms embargo is that major weapon imports from China can put a country at political risk of a US-European arms embargo that leaves them in a similar situation such as Iran with major weapon systems from these contries hardly functional. Argentina is in conflict with UK and Chile and this is the most welcome excuse to curb any of their military ambitions by embargo due to "strong alignment with a hostile great power that uses them for espionage" (how this would be sold to the public). Iran highlights the disastrous effects and the JF-17 highlights how this works as expensive insecurities. Going for major Chinese weapon systems requires a rather complete determination to take the whole package of defense systems from this very country as even Russia is not too reliable a partner with their attitude towards the Chinese MIC. The fallout from this situation should be quite clear if you look at the current international structure of Argentine military hardware that would have to be altered.
For imports of weapons from China you are either economically powerful enough to not face an embargo or underdeveloped enough to shrug your shoulders when threatened with such a strange thing that doesn't affect your pick up trucks. Argentina fits in neither role and needs Brazil to bolster any such major contract with China if they don't want to commit totally to made in China.

Argentina is determined to operate a carrier and keeps training for this purpose. Carriers are available at less than 500 million$ as sea control ships like the HTMS Chakri Naruebet, Príncipe de Asturias, Giuseppe Garibaldi or the Dokdo class(with stripped down electronics). Even the Endurance-class can be modified to operate light STOL or STOVL aircrafts. There's no shortage of affordable rumps for a few flying aircrafts. and Argentina is unlikely to ever put more than 12 fighters and 5 fixed wing surveillance and tanker aircraft on a carrier with about 8 helicopters, making the Asturias already quite large for their purpose. Their amphibious component best operates via large fast ferries from friendly shores and China, New Zealand&Australia are the sources for these ships.
Argentina can buy a giant old rump from the US. I have no idea how they want to operate it. It best serves as an integrated carrier, supply ship for the escorts and amphibious assault ship that garners good vibes by participating in costly international interventions under US leadership.

I consider the Tejas to be a study about the conformation of future Indian fighter aircraft design of the 21st century that is ongoing, not dissimilar to the Korean fleet programm that moves on to ever bigger and complicated structures. It doesn't matter that some components take longer, because India, unlike China, is under no embargo and not limited to Russia under such circumstances. You really have to look at the achievements and not the newsbites on a military programm with a decent level of secrecy.

Originally Posted by montyp165

Chinese product support is already better than what the Russians have been doing for the past 20 years, and the Pakistanis (and Iranians for that matter) certainly aren't complaining about the support issue with their latest purchases either.

However, does the Iranians have a choice? The Pakistani's have some choice, and they have predominantly chosen Western systems when possible or feasible and when local concerns aren't a matter.

Originally Posted by Kurt

To answer all these statements about Chinese capability. I have no doubt that China is a very capable arms manufacturer. The problem is that they are under an embargo by the US and Europe. Pakistan wanted to fuse European, US and Chinese technology in the JF-17, but due to the embargo was left with only Chinese and little Russian support.

Why does it matter that China has an embargo against it when the weapons it developed met all of PAF's requirements? Looking at SIPRI data, China has been doing plenty of military export recently to other countries. Embargo has no relevance in this discussion.

It's irrelevant how long the development of the Tejas takes as it is in no relation to the JF-17 development timeframe. India does a major research on modern fighters and the resulting airframe is good. The Indians are also quite ambitious with this aircraft, just like Rafale, Raptor, Eurofighter, JSF and so on (seems like there's no good aircraft outside China this century). Many news reports about India are written by people with a poor understanding of this country, just like many reports you read about China. The linked blog highlighted a number of opinions and some were worth reading.

I didn't mention anything about the length of Tejas development. My point is that it's not in service yet. Why would you want to buy an aircraft from an unproven manufacturer when it hasn't even achieved FOC? It's IAF that does all of the bad mouth for Tejas. The reason is that the aircraft is simply not achieving its design objectives.

I mentioned the arms embargo on China by the US and Europe, with Israel "convinced" to align, as well as the increasingly competitive relationsship between China's MIC and Russia's MIC. The problem due to the arms embargo is that major weapon imports from China can put a country at political risk of a US-European arms embargo that leaves them in a similar situation such as Iran with major weapon systems from these contries hardly functional. Argentina is in conflict with UK and Chile and this is the most welcome excuse to curb any of their military ambitions by embargo due to "strong alignment with a hostile great power that uses them for espionage" (how this would be sold to the public). Iran highlights the disastrous effects and the JF-17 highlights how this works as expensive insecurities. Going for major Chinese weapon systems requires a rather complete determination to take the whole package of defense systems from this very country as even Russia is not too reliable a partner with their attitude towards the Chinese MIC. The fallout from this situation should be quite clear if you look at the current international structure of Argentine military hardware that would have to be altered.

For imports of weapons from China you are either economically powerful enough to not face an embargo or underdeveloped enough to shrug your shoulders when threatened with such a strange thing that doesn't affect your pick up trucks. Argentina fits in neither role and needs Brazil to bolster any such major contract with China if they don't want to commit totally to made in China.

Your entire argument has no basis. Pakistan has been importing weapons from China for years and have not faced any kind of embargo from west due to that. You can say the same about Egypt and many other countries. Iran faces embargo because it's Iran. It's because of their anti-Israel stance and their nuclear weapon development. Do you understand Western politics at all? There is no proof for any of the argument you are making here.

Name one country that has gotten an arms embargo from the West because it happened to buy weapons from China.

Argentina is determined to operate a carrier and keeps training for this purpose. Carriers are available at less than 500 million$ as sea control ships like the HTMS Chakri Naruebet, Príncipe de Asturias, Giuseppe Garibaldi or the Dokdo class(with stripped down electronics). Even the Endurance-class can be modified to operate light STOL or STOVL aircrafts. There's no shortage of affordable rumps for a few flying aircrafts. and Argentina is unlikely to ever put more than 12 fighters and 5 fixed wing surveillance and tanker aircraft on a carrier with about 8 helicopters, making the Asturias already quite large for their purpose. Their amphibious component best operates via large fast ferries from friendly shores and China, New Zealand&Australia are the sources for these ships.
Argentina can buy a giant old rump from the US. I have no idea how they want to operate it. It best serves as an integrated carrier, supply ship for the escorts and amphibious assault ship that garners good vibes by participating in costly international interventions under US leadership.

Why don't you show me some real evidence that Argentina is looking to operate carrier rather than just state your opinion?

Also, even if they want a carrier, why would they want to buy a naval aircraft that has not achieved IOC?

I consider the Tejas to be a study about the conformation of future Indian fighter aircraft design of the 21st century that is ongoing, not dissimilar to the Korean fleet programm that moves on to ever bigger and complicated structures. It doesn't matter that some components take longer, because India, unlike China, is under no embargo and not limited to Russia under such circumstances. You really have to look at the achievements and not the newsbites on a military programm with a decent level of secrecy.

Tejas can be the first step to future Indian fighter jet development, but why would other countries want to buy it if there are other aircraft around?

If you can show where China is not developing good weapon systems because it is under embargo, that's one thing, but you are not showing any proof. You are entire point is that because China is under an embargo, what it produces must be bad. That's not a valid argument.

Please spend more time reading up on Chinese military development. You are on a Chinese military forum after all.

tphuang you ask strange questions.

Gringo-Gaucho exercises answers the whole carrier issue, Argentina wants a carrier again (they used their old carrier in the Falklands War) and keeps training with the US and with Brazil and in the future will possibly train with China because Brazil shows China carrier operations.

China-EU embargo is a brief overview on the embargo. With the pivot to the Pacific, it's predictable that the US, the main force behind that embargo, will become slightly more paranoid. You can fact check that good US allies like Australia, Singapore or Thailand don't by Russian or Chinese military stuff and the lower the reliability ratings of these "allies", like Pakistan due to the US pivot to India, the more opportune seem Russia and China as suppliers. The reason is mostly in little highlighted differences like available electronics and avionics systems for their batch of systems.
The development story of the JF-17 highlights the import problems and the inability to fuse different technologies due to these restrictions. Argentina is already under some weapon export constrains because of the Falkland War and switching to Chinese sources will not ease that situation. PAF got an aircraft that they say fulfills their requirements, they did not get the aircraft they originally wanted. At the development date of the avionics for example China was not yet on their sophistication level as of today and in export the L-15 has beaten the JF-17 as a weapon platform!
Iran is under an embargo ever since the Islamic Revolution realignment and prior to any formulated position regarding Israel with which they never fought a war, unlike Saudi-Arabia, Jordan or Iraq who were all good US weapon customers after these events.
Like the CoCom that due to strict US enforcement on reluctant allies broke the technological development capability of the ComeCon, the current Wassenaar Arrangement is an institution that highlights the bona fide the US puts into their lines of communication control ability. China is under a light embargo and the embargo on Argentina is very light, but both have a strong military capability focus and the US demands political compliance not defiance for lifting these. Argentina clearly intends defiance and the UK and US already use all strings attached to negate Argentina a certain level of threatening capability, while also giving them carrots.

Your statements regarding the Tejas might be informed if you read my statements again. I explicitly said that aircraft must be operational in numbers before buying it.

Originally Posted by Kurt

tphuang you ask strange questions.

Gringo-Gaucho exercises answers the whole carrier issue, Argentina wants a carrier again (they used their old carrier in the Falklands War) and keeps training with the US and with Brazil and in the future will possibly train with China because Brazil shows China carrier operations.

We generally don't like using wiki here because it's not professional and can be written by anyone. The Brazilians are using a catobar carrier that's barely operational. Where is Argentina going to get the money to maintain a carrier? What carrier could it get and at what cost? With carrier it gets, what kind of aircraft can take off from there? These are questions that you need to answer before just proclaiming Argentina needs a carrier and they will get Tejas because it's also a naval aircraft.

China-EU embargo is a brief overview on the embargo. With the pivot to the Pacific, it's predictable that the US, the main force behind that embargo, will become slightly more paranoid. You can fact check that good US allies like Australia, Singapore or Thailand don't by Russian or Chinese military stuff and the lower the reliability ratings of these "allies", like Pakistan due to the US pivot to India, the more opportune seem Russia and China as suppliers. The reason is mostly in little highlighted differences like available electronics and avionics systems for their batch of systems.

I don't need to read wiki to know the EU embargo. I've followed this stuff a lot longer than you have. And your point is just nonsensical. Thailand buys a lot of Chinese stuff. It buys OPVs, tanks, frigates, MLRs and other equipments. Numerous middle Eastern nations have bought Chinese gears and also buy American. Australia and Singapore do not buy from China because Chinese export stuff is not up to par. And in the case of Australia, they are only ever going to buy from the West because of their relationship to America.

The development story of the JF-17 highlights the import problems and the inability to fuse different technologies due to these restrictions.

There have been no problems. PAF is very happy with JF-17 and they also have block 2 coming up which are coming along as planned. Please spend sometime study the recent developments before talking here. I can understand if you are making this kind of comment on Indian military forum, because you would have no access to the Chinese discussions. But you are here and there are numerous threads on JF-17 and other projects. Please stop and actually read up on these things.

Argentina is already under some weapon export constrains because of the Falkland War and switching to Chinese sources will not ease that situation.

Argentina already buys weapon from China, so your point is quite invalid
Argentina signs deal with CATIC to develop helicopters - News - Shephard
Outside of them, Chile selected Chinese MBTs until it got too expensive for them. Bolivia and Venezuela have all purchase Chinese gears. Brazil is helping China train its naval air operation despite it's relation with the west.

PAF got an aircraft that they say fulfills their requirements, they did not get the aircraft they originally wanted. At the development date of the avionics for example China was not yet on their sophistication level as of today and in export the L-15 has beaten the JF-17 as a weapon platform!

What the heck are you talking about? Does it matter whether they use Chinese or Western radar as long as the performance level reaches what they need? The avionics on JF-17 more than satisfied the expectations of PAF officials.
Please read this article from 2010 to see where things are at
International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Report from the 2010 Chinese Defense Electronics Exhibition (CIDEX): Growing Industry – Advancing Technology
China is now advanced enough that it's trying to sell T/R modules to Russia.

As for L-15 vs JF-17, one is a fighter jet and the other is a trainer. Different kind of aircraft.

Iran is under an embargo ever since the Islamic Revolution realignment and prior to any formulated position regarding Israel with which they never fought a war, unlike Saudi-Arabia, Jordan or Iraq who were all good US weapon customers after these events.
Like the CoCom that due to strict US enforcement on reluctant allies broke the technological development capability of the ComeCon, the current Wassenaar Arrangement is an institution that highlights the bona fide the US puts into their lines of communication control ability. China is under a light embargo and the embargo on Argentina is very light, but both have a strong military capability focus and the US demands political compliance not defiance for lifting these. Argentina clearly intends defiance and the UK and US already use all strings attached to negate Argentina a certain level of threatening capability, while also giving them carrots.

Your statements regarding the Tejas might be informed if you read my statements again. I explicitly said that aircraft must be operational in numbers before buying it.

Please actually write support arguments rather than just insulting my intelligence by copying off wiki. I will let you have the last word on this, since I've wasted enough time discussing it already.

I want to clarify two points you mentioned. The Gringo-Gaucho exercises do take place whenever an American carrier rounds the cape to join the Atlantic, or Pacific fleets. The Aviacion de la Armada also operate on board the Brasilian carrier São Paulo which is the old French Clemenceau-class. I fact it is not uncommon to have the Super Etendards stationed on the Sao Paulo for extended periods. This will continue until the Etendards become unserviceable and then are eventually decommissioned. At that time the Naval Air Arm will then become a land based force dedicated to anti-shipping/coastal protection/SAR. Please understand, the dream of having a carrier still exists within the Navy, but the military as a whole and the political class (currently in power and in the last 10-years) has openly called a carrier as an expensive “toy” and are pushing forward with the submersible projects, (2), (3). The goal is to finish off two of the TR-1700 hulls, which as between 50% and 70% structurally) and construct one nuclear submarine with the remaining TR-1700 hull. The monies have been allocated, but no work has yet been visible. Argentina developed nuclear power plants on its own in the 1950’s, I know since my father was a nuclear engineer. Argentina also signed the Non-proliferation Treaty which is to ensure peaceful uses of nuclear energy. This does not exclude the use of nuclear energy for military purposes, provided that they do not involve nuclear explosives or nuclear devices for detonation.

The second item is the status of Argentina to be able to purchase military hardware from the Americans. Currently there is no embargo as to the purchase of hardware, and Argentina is considered a major non-NATO ally by the USA. It was added to the list by former president Clinton in 1998. That status still remains, however the left leaning regime in power, having allied itself with Hugo Chavez and other anti-American factions may have unofficially degraded that status and place future purchases under scrutiny. Especially with the recent purchase is Mi-17 SAR helicopters and ATGMs.

Seriously, this Kurt member is real absurd... It looks like he has brainwashed in BR and come here to sprout nonsense.

I can hardly believe, someone even give 'like' for his reply. None of his post makes sense.

Talking about Argentina need a carrier? LCA shall be acquired by AF?? HAHAHA..

Originally Posted by Lion

Seriously, this Kurt member is real absurd... It looks like he has brainwashed in BR and come here to sprout nonsense.

I can hardly believe, someone even give 'like' for his reply. None of his post makes sense.

Talking about Argentina need a carrier? LCA shall be acquired by AF?? HAHAHA..

Thanks for your input. I'm not brainwashed, but have a differing opinion from yours.
Argentina's navy does want a carrier and they do need a carrier if they want to achieve their objective of setting by means of arms the conflicts with Chile and the UK over territories with seemingly rich prospective resources. The financial resources allow only a small sea control carrier.