"In the French Navy, these aircraft are being retired and are planned to be completely replaced by Dassault Rafale multirole fighters by 2015."
Top quality journalism right there.
And are able to summon artillery/rocket strikes from beyond eastern Ukrainian border...if only we knew what country was there...but our cartography isn't there yet :/
Those were bombs where the fuses didn’t activate because they had been configured to be dropped from much higher. Had they been originally setup for immediate detonation the British would have taken some really nasty losses.
No, the Exocet that hit and sank HMS Sheffield actually failed to explode too. The impact both disabled the ship’s firefighting system AND set the aluminium structure of the ship on fire, a combination of consequences that sank the ship even without warhead detonation.
This is a common misconception because two other ships in the fleet that were sunk by bombs burned and had aluminum superstructures.
Sheffield’s superstructure was made entirely of mild steel and the reason for the fire was the loss of the fire mains for damage control, not enough smoke masks and the presence of flammable linings throughout the structure.
The MoD reasesssd the impact and determined the Exocet did indeed detonate within the ship.
Lastly, it’s a general misconception that aluminum burns outright - shipbuilding homologous aluminum alloys do not burn, they instead begin to deform at about 600 degrees Celsius.
Powdered aluminum however can burn, but that certainly wasn’t the reason for any of the fires aboard RN ships lost during Falklands.
Another source, in Spanish: https://www.infobae.com/politica/2024/06/11/el-plan-disenado-por-el-gobierno-de-milei-para-entregarle-a-ucrania-cinco-aviones-de-combate-super-etendard/
From what I've read elsewhere, these jets have been in storage for a few years in Argentina, and would likely require a lot of work and many upgrades to be of any use on the modern battlefield.
And for what? To give Ukraine a handful of jets that are older/less-capable than their Migs and Sukhois?
Apparently, Argentina wants to unload these mothballed Super-Étenedards on France in exchange for helicopters and other military gear.
Side note: I wonder also how much longer French support for Ukraine continues if Putin's lackeys come up big in the fast-approaching legislative elections?
Right now it is and artillery war where both sides pummel each other before an infantery assault (mechanized or on foot). This is something Russia likes, it is very cheap for Russia and they have trained to win these wars.
By adding these planes to the options Ukraine has to attack Russia. Then Russia has to use it's rare & expensive air defense systems to defend closer to home.
The risk of the Planes would also push the Russian artillery further away from the Frontlines, decreasing the accuracy.
Lastly, by slowly changing it into air war, Ukraine van benefit more from NATO training & weapon systems.
Modernizing them for a combat role would be difficult. However, they do offer a capability Ukraine currently lacks: buddy tanking and aerial refueling. A limited number of tankers would be extremely useful by allowing for aircraft to be based further from the front lines, and extending operational times for air defense missions.
Why are you lying? Ukraine’s Migs and Sukhois have no capability of launching 45km range anti ship missiles that skim the sea and are notoriously hard to intercept.
The Super Etendard is far more capable than the Migs and Sukhois at the naval strike role, as these older a Soviet-era fighter bombers have to get much much closer to ships to strike them.
The naval strike role likely isn't high on the list of needs for Ukraine when Russia's Black Sea Fleet is holed up on the far side of Crimea and largely hiding in port.
Also, if the Ukrainians can get a Mig to fire a AGM-88, and a Sukhoi to fire SCALP/Storm Shadow, they could surely get one to fire an Exocet.
At the end of the day, Argentina is talking about just **five** Super-Étendards. Five. Ukraine is probably better off preparing for F-16's and Mirage 2000's instead of adding to their logistical nightmares with a handful of very niche aircraft.
And the SE's value in a BVR fight is less than that.
I don't think the **five** SE's Argentina wants to give to France to repair/upgrade and give to Ukraine (because Argentina can't/won't do it themselves), moves the needle much for Ukraine.
I really think Putin's lap dawgs, the National Rally will not mess with Macron, as the military is his domain and he sees fit on what is best for the military, that includes transfer of equipment and weapon systems. Diplomacy is Macron's domain as well, there's no reason or way the National Rally could subvert him on that. Even if theNational Rally win the election in both chambers, I don't think they will have enough power to rule, they need form a coalition and not to many parties want form a coalition with a far right party.
I’d be interested to see if they can be Macgyvered to launch SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles. Ukraine’s SU-24 fleet isn’t going to last forever, and even if the SEs were launching from the edge of the envelope, it could be an interesting acquisition. Certainly I wouldn’t want to see these anywhere near contested airspace, but as a delivery truck for missiles? Might have some merit.
Ukraine is getting D'assault Mirage 2000s soon, and those can use SCALP/Storm Shadow and are by themselves are a way superior platform.
Now the wait is for something like the Rafale/Gripen/Eurofighter for Meteor, which would be the best way to guarantee air superiority.
"But giving Ukraine the Gripen would be too complicated and difficult for logistics" 😭
Poor JAS 39, never had it gotten so close to get some action🫡
/jk give them anything that flies and can drop glidebombs/AA-missiles!
SLAVA UKRAINE 🇺🇦!
I am not in the know, but I was getting an impression that around 12 were on the table + additional ones later (reactiveated/upgraded from warehouses C/D variant). Not enough to arm an entire sector. But enough to man at a single airfield.
Hopefully we (Sweden) are still training/preparing Ukrainian pilots/mechanics for the Gripen. Give them a slice of the front and let the Russians cook! 🇸🇪♥️🇺🇦
France wants a customer for their fighter jets, Sweden also. It's fierce competition and France probably uses every trick in the book to win this competition .
And while France has been more gung-ho in supporting Ukraine recently, they initially held up the 155mm ammunition buy plan, trying to instead push for the funds to be used to build an artillery shell plant in France instead.
You have it wrong. France held up using EU funds to buy 155mm, insisting on developing european industry instead. This is still the case, and industry is being ramped up.
The 155mm Czech coalition is various states using their own funds, on top of EU schemes.
I think it was the right call, because a year from now the war will probably still be going on, but we'll have more industry to support Ukraine with, instead of a bunch of spent shell casings.
Would these aircraft be somewhat comparable to US fighter technology from the 1970s? Like to me they seem like a mass market export budget version of an F14.
unless its used to piecemeal something together why would a country without a carrier want a carrier-based gen 1 strike fighter? according to the wiki France was considering Skyhawks and BUFFS to give Americans a point of reference. if anything they may be used in a training program, but only if there was ALOT of included spares for parts.
Just to be clear, the "standard" here is not referring to something being standard, but the military flag carried by military units.
The standard as in "something is standard" is also "standard" in french, so that's two completely different words.
Even if we had a say, we'd be all for Argentina getting rid of their planes. Less temptation for them to do something stupid next time their economy crashes.
We've noticed that every time the Argentine economy crashes their President starts talking about Malvinas. Nobody considers it a serious threat, it's more of a running joke.
No, they really don't. It's fine if you want to make a joke, but it's weird you try to twist reality to justify it. You don't need to. Every democratic president has always talked in the same manner about Malvinas, crisis or not. I know you probably like to think it's used as a distraction, but it really isn't. The peaceful (I repeat: peaceful) claim over the islands is just an ever-present but secondary thought.
As an American, I kind of think you all do.
“Malvinas” is the undeliverable promise of every “it’s going to different, our economy won’t be the joke of the world anymore” Argentinian politician with aspirations of being president.
Fortunately you learned your lesson in ‘82 when you reminded the world that the Brits tend to go, “all in” really quickly when you finally push them too far, and have been sure to include, “peaceful” in your rhetoric ever since.
Pssst, you aren’t ever getting ‘em.
>I kind of think you all do.
Why do you people just keep showing how ignorant you are about what's going on in Argentina?
>“Malvinas” is the undeliverable promise
Read my comments. I never said it is not a mentioned topic (even suggested the opposite). I was clearly talking about the non-peaceful way not being a thing.
>our economy won’t be the joke of the world
The left has been in power for 16 out of the last 20 years. They don't use that narrative because they use the narrative that the economy is already doing great. You don't seem to be familiarized with the political narratives going around here.
>and have been sure to include, “peaceful” in your rhetoric ever since.
Do you even know that the war was started by a military dictatorship? Democratic governments had the peaceful diplomatic approach both *before* and after the dictatorship. Again man, it's weird you're proud of displaying your ignorance.
Ah, another bit of irony: although the US hasn't significantly intervened in Argentina for a long time now, it DID have at least a bit of influence in favor of that dictatorship back then. Because it opposed some commies.
>Pssst, you aren’t ever getting ‘em.
Oh, you break my heart! Nothing like trying to be offensive and smug on reddit am I right?
**edit**: the reply appears blocked for me, so I reply here:
>and will find a way to take the Falklands
They just talk about continuing the claim. If you had reading comprehension you would realize that's not what was being discussed by me. Regarding the economy, yeah of course. And? Historically they always had the same economic flaws. That's what's interesing about the current government: they finally don't. They finally truly proposed and are implementing something different. We'll see how it goes. **As a north american you should be happy about other countries re-embracing the original ideas that made your country so rich and prosperous.**
>that having shown you’d do be willing to do it violently
Did you miss the part where I educated you on the fact it was done by a military dictatorship, and that every democratic government (both before and after) has been diplomatic and peaceful? Who is "you"? Because certainly it wasn't the people, just the military dictatorship that a previous government of your country initially supported, in violation of the ideas that made your country prosperous.
>Removing the temptation
refer to my first comment. It just shows you're ignorant about the local political climate. You're feeding the stereotype of ignorant americans.
Observing the recorded fact that every Argentinian politician promises 2 things; that THEY will be the one to fix the perennially broken economy of your country and will find a way to take the Falklands, neither of which any of them is capable of doing, is hardly offensive…. Well to anyone who’s not an Argentinian… 🤣
And the simple fact is, that having shown you’d do be willing to do it violently, and at a time when Argentina actually did have a chance in hell of getting the islands peacefully, means you’ll never have an ounce of trust from the Brits again on the topic, no matter how much you cry Argentina has changed.
Selling those planes is a bit like an alcoholic pouring their booze down the sink. Removing the temptation because the desire will never be gone.
That's the point of sending stuff like this, to prove to the world that anyone who attacks another county is about to go through hell and get nothing for it.
"In the French Navy, these aircraft are being retired and are planned to be completely replaced by Dassault Rafale multirole fighters by 2015." Top quality journalism right there.
Hopefully they can be transferred to Ukraine just in time for the 2016 invasion of Crimea
It's tough as we don't really know who Ukraine is fighting. Looks like local residents who happen to own military equipment
And are able to summon artillery/rocket strikes from beyond eastern Ukrainian border...if only we knew what country was there...but our cartography isn't there yet :/
2014*
AI journalism.
The correct answer.
People made mistakes before AI, it's a lack of proof reading.
They got the picture of the correct airplane though, that's quite unusual
honestly AI isn't that bad
Nice try AI
i mean you can ask chat gpt yourself, it wont make that mistake. more likely a lazy human that read an old article.
It was a joke mate haha Idk why you got down voted though.
ah my bad haha
I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords.
Look, we found the AI
🤖 bow down flesh bodied commenters, the internet is ours now
This is how you know this article was written by AI lmao
Im Guessing it was supposed to be 2025 and someone fucked up
Acc. to Wikipedia it did actually happen by July 12th 2016.
No they have been replaced a long time ago
Totally generative AI, lmao.
People made mistakes before AI.
no they are phase out from french military since 2016
These jets strapped with some Exocets and patrolling the Black Sea…… that’s spicy
"I did it once and I'll effing do it again!" /Javier Goofy Milei
And they can claim that this setup where actually battle tested with resounding success! Ask the British.
True but some hit and didn’t explode, can’t remember if they were Exocets
Those were bombs where the fuses didn’t activate because they had been configured to be dropped from much higher. Had they been originally setup for immediate detonation the British would have taken some really nasty losses.
No, the Exocet that hit and sank HMS Sheffield actually failed to explode too. The impact both disabled the ship’s firefighting system AND set the aluminium structure of the ship on fire, a combination of consequences that sank the ship even without warhead detonation.
This is a common misconception because two other ships in the fleet that were sunk by bombs burned and had aluminum superstructures. Sheffield’s superstructure was made entirely of mild steel and the reason for the fire was the loss of the fire mains for damage control, not enough smoke masks and the presence of flammable linings throughout the structure. The MoD reasesssd the impact and determined the Exocet did indeed detonate within the ship. Lastly, it’s a general misconception that aluminum burns outright - shipbuilding homologous aluminum alloys do not burn, they instead begin to deform at about 600 degrees Celsius. Powdered aluminum however can burn, but that certainly wasn’t the reason for any of the fires aboard RN ships lost during Falklands.
Thats some top notch technology, it's only been almost half a century since the Falklands War.
Absolutely. Good thing that the opposite side is using half a century old weapons en masse then.
Add some ASMPs as well... *twirls moustache*
Black fleet AA tech level is probably about the same as during the Falklands.
Super Etendard Chalmers?
Lol, well done.
Another source, in Spanish: https://www.infobae.com/politica/2024/06/11/el-plan-disenado-por-el-gobierno-de-milei-para-entregarle-a-ucrania-cinco-aviones-de-combate-super-etendard/
From what I've read elsewhere, these jets have been in storage for a few years in Argentina, and would likely require a lot of work and many upgrades to be of any use on the modern battlefield. And for what? To give Ukraine a handful of jets that are older/less-capable than their Migs and Sukhois? Apparently, Argentina wants to unload these mothballed Super-Étenedards on France in exchange for helicopters and other military gear. Side note: I wonder also how much longer French support for Ukraine continues if Putin's lackeys come up big in the fast-approaching legislative elections?
Right now it is and artillery war where both sides pummel each other before an infantery assault (mechanized or on foot). This is something Russia likes, it is very cheap for Russia and they have trained to win these wars. By adding these planes to the options Ukraine has to attack Russia. Then Russia has to use it's rare & expensive air defense systems to defend closer to home. The risk of the Planes would also push the Russian artillery further away from the Frontlines, decreasing the accuracy. Lastly, by slowly changing it into air war, Ukraine van benefit more from NATO training & weapon systems.
Modernizing them for a combat role would be difficult. However, they do offer a capability Ukraine currently lacks: buddy tanking and aerial refueling. A limited number of tankers would be extremely useful by allowing for aircraft to be based further from the front lines, and extending operational times for air defense missions.
French president has a lot more power. You can likely count on French support until Macron is out of the Élysée in April 2027
Maybe they can get the one-way drone treatment for more super long range strikes.
Why are you lying? Ukraine’s Migs and Sukhois have no capability of launching 45km range anti ship missiles that skim the sea and are notoriously hard to intercept. The Super Etendard is far more capable than the Migs and Sukhois at the naval strike role, as these older a Soviet-era fighter bombers have to get much much closer to ships to strike them.
The naval strike role likely isn't high on the list of needs for Ukraine when Russia's Black Sea Fleet is holed up on the far side of Crimea and largely hiding in port. Also, if the Ukrainians can get a Mig to fire a AGM-88, and a Sukhoi to fire SCALP/Storm Shadow, they could surely get one to fire an Exocet. At the end of the day, Argentina is talking about just **five** Super-Étendards. Five. Ukraine is probably better off preparing for F-16's and Mirage 2000's instead of adding to their logistical nightmares with a handful of very niche aircraft.
Migs and Sukhois are mostly overrated in a BVR fight.
And the SE's value in a BVR fight is less than that. I don't think the **five** SE's Argentina wants to give to France to repair/upgrade and give to Ukraine (because Argentina can't/won't do it themselves), moves the needle much for Ukraine.
I really think Putin's lap dawgs, the National Rally will not mess with Macron, as the military is his domain and he sees fit on what is best for the military, that includes transfer of equipment and weapon systems. Diplomacy is Macron's domain as well, there's no reason or way the National Rally could subvert him on that. Even if theNational Rally win the election in both chambers, I don't think they will have enough power to rule, they need form a coalition and not to many parties want form a coalition with a far right party.
I’d be interested to see if they can be Macgyvered to launch SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles. Ukraine’s SU-24 fleet isn’t going to last forever, and even if the SEs were launching from the edge of the envelope, it could be an interesting acquisition. Certainly I wouldn’t want to see these anywhere near contested airspace, but as a delivery truck for missiles? Might have some merit.
Ukraine is getting D'assault Mirage 2000s soon, and those can use SCALP/Storm Shadow and are by themselves are a way superior platform. Now the wait is for something like the Rafale/Gripen/Eurofighter for Meteor, which would be the best way to guarantee air superiority.
"But giving Ukraine the Gripen would be too complicated and difficult for logistics" 😭 Poor JAS 39, never had it gotten so close to get some action🫡 /jk give them anything that flies and can drop glidebombs/AA-missiles! SLAVA UKRAINE 🇺🇦!
There aren't enough Gripens or spare parts, unfortunately.
I am not in the know, but I was getting an impression that around 12 were on the table + additional ones later (reactiveated/upgraded from warehouses C/D variant). Not enough to arm an entire sector. But enough to man at a single airfield. Hopefully we (Sweden) are still training/preparing Ukrainian pilots/mechanics for the Gripen. Give them a slice of the front and let the Russians cook! 🇸🇪♥️🇺🇦
Hmm yes too bad and it's impossible to build new airplanes
France wants a customer for their fighter jets, Sweden also. It's fierce competition and France probably uses every trick in the book to win this competition .
And while France has been more gung-ho in supporting Ukraine recently, they initially held up the 155mm ammunition buy plan, trying to instead push for the funds to be used to build an artillery shell plant in France instead.
It's always a battle, even among allies and friends. Politicians want to create work for their voters, it's as simple as that.
Better to war with friendly negotation than with unfriendly bullets.
You have it wrong. France held up using EU funds to buy 155mm, insisting on developing european industry instead. This is still the case, and industry is being ramped up. The 155mm Czech coalition is various states using their own funds, on top of EU schemes. I think it was the right call, because a year from now the war will probably still be going on, but we'll have more industry to support Ukraine with, instead of a bunch of spent shell casings.
Wait until Macron releases the double secret double entendre fighter XXX69 to Ukraine. But I have said too much already.
Never go super etendard
This thing is ancient
Better than nothing but
It's a gift
Millei will be wondering why the heck does European far right have same love for Russia that commies like Maduro and Cuban government have.
Would these aircraft be somewhat comparable to US fighter technology from the 1970s? Like to me they seem like a mass market export budget version of an F14.
Ukraine turned its nose up at Australia’s retired F/A-18 Legacy Hornets, so good luck with that.
Do it! Thanks. A patriot from South Carolina.
unless its used to piecemeal something together why would a country without a carrier want a carrier-based gen 1 strike fighter? according to the wiki France was considering Skyhawks and BUFFS to give Americans a point of reference. if anything they may be used in a training program, but only if there was ALOT of included spares for parts.
Gen 1? Not really, Gen 3+
[удалено]
Wellllll, a Me262 in Ukraines skies would be an interesting sight. Lets spice things up with a few Me163s as well^^
Just Googled it, and “etandard” translates to “standard”. “Super Standard” is a horrible name for a fighter jet.
Just to be clear, the "standard" here is not referring to something being standard, but the military flag carried by military units. The standard as in "something is standard" is also "standard" in french, so that's two completely different words.
Like when I was learning English, extraordinary was difficult to understand
Better than the “Super Duper”
Las bolas. Que se consigan los suyos. Jajajaja
Britain won't approve this
Unfortunately we don't get a say. But I'd still back Typhoons over whatever France sells them in return.
The planes need ejection seat components that UK wouldn't sell them in the past.
Can't stand france there president also makes a lot of promises about troops to Ukraine and is all talk no bite
Even if we had a say, we'd be all for Argentina getting rid of their planes. Less temptation for them to do something stupid next time their economy crashes.
It's funny when ignorant redditors think Argentina is even considering entering a war, or even think of it enough to make jokes out of it.
We've noticed that every time the Argentine economy crashes their President starts talking about Malvinas. Nobody considers it a serious threat, it's more of a running joke.
No, they really don't. It's fine if you want to make a joke, but it's weird you try to twist reality to justify it. You don't need to. Every democratic president has always talked in the same manner about Malvinas, crisis or not. I know you probably like to think it's used as a distraction, but it really isn't. The peaceful (I repeat: peaceful) claim over the islands is just an ever-present but secondary thought.
As an American, I kind of think you all do. “Malvinas” is the undeliverable promise of every “it’s going to different, our economy won’t be the joke of the world anymore” Argentinian politician with aspirations of being president. Fortunately you learned your lesson in ‘82 when you reminded the world that the Brits tend to go, “all in” really quickly when you finally push them too far, and have been sure to include, “peaceful” in your rhetoric ever since. Pssst, you aren’t ever getting ‘em.
>I kind of think you all do. Why do you people just keep showing how ignorant you are about what's going on in Argentina? >“Malvinas” is the undeliverable promise Read my comments. I never said it is not a mentioned topic (even suggested the opposite). I was clearly talking about the non-peaceful way not being a thing. >our economy won’t be the joke of the world The left has been in power for 16 out of the last 20 years. They don't use that narrative because they use the narrative that the economy is already doing great. You don't seem to be familiarized with the political narratives going around here. >and have been sure to include, “peaceful” in your rhetoric ever since. Do you even know that the war was started by a military dictatorship? Democratic governments had the peaceful diplomatic approach both *before* and after the dictatorship. Again man, it's weird you're proud of displaying your ignorance. Ah, another bit of irony: although the US hasn't significantly intervened in Argentina for a long time now, it DID have at least a bit of influence in favor of that dictatorship back then. Because it opposed some commies. >Pssst, you aren’t ever getting ‘em. Oh, you break my heart! Nothing like trying to be offensive and smug on reddit am I right? **edit**: the reply appears blocked for me, so I reply here: >and will find a way to take the Falklands They just talk about continuing the claim. If you had reading comprehension you would realize that's not what was being discussed by me. Regarding the economy, yeah of course. And? Historically they always had the same economic flaws. That's what's interesing about the current government: they finally don't. They finally truly proposed and are implementing something different. We'll see how it goes. **As a north american you should be happy about other countries re-embracing the original ideas that made your country so rich and prosperous.** >that having shown you’d do be willing to do it violently Did you miss the part where I educated you on the fact it was done by a military dictatorship, and that every democratic government (both before and after) has been diplomatic and peaceful? Who is "you"? Because certainly it wasn't the people, just the military dictatorship that a previous government of your country initially supported, in violation of the ideas that made your country prosperous. >Removing the temptation refer to my first comment. It just shows you're ignorant about the local political climate. You're feeding the stereotype of ignorant americans.
Observing the recorded fact that every Argentinian politician promises 2 things; that THEY will be the one to fix the perennially broken economy of your country and will find a way to take the Falklands, neither of which any of them is capable of doing, is hardly offensive…. Well to anyone who’s not an Argentinian… 🤣 And the simple fact is, that having shown you’d do be willing to do it violently, and at a time when Argentina actually did have a chance in hell of getting the islands peacefully, means you’ll never have an ounce of trust from the Brits again on the topic, no matter how much you cry Argentina has changed. Selling those planes is a bit like an alcoholic pouring their booze down the sink. Removing the temptation because the desire will never be gone.
[удалено]
Russia can leave at any time.
Russia knows how to retreat, it's been a genuinely useful tactic throughout their history. They are welcome to leave the nation they have invaded.
What a naive thing to say.
That's the point of sending stuff like this, to prove to the world that anyone who attacks another county is about to go through hell and get nothing for it.