Royal Air Force: the way to the bottom

101
There is a saying from those times when Britain was an empire over which the sun did not set, and the British fleet was many times stronger than any opponent. Now it sounds like a mockery, but in those days it was completely natural. One version of the saying sounded something like this. "There are many fleets in countries led by kings, but there is only one Royal Navy, which does not need to be clarified whose it is." So the British Royal Air Force (RAF) for a long time did not need clarification - among the other largest air forces in the world they were in a worthy position. But everything flows, everything changes, and especially the remnants of power flow between the fingers of the rulers of the former empire, which is now tank industry killed, being the inventor of the tank, and does not have its own nuclear carriers, but it can come up with an idiotic history with Scripal poisoning "Novice", and burn the unfortunate cat from a flamethrower. With the RAF, everything happens the same as with the other symbols of past glory.

News is good and bad


Recently, the Daily Mail published Joel Adams material on the disastrous state of the Royal Air Force, including the reduction of the fleet of combat aircraft. More precisely, fighter and strike aviation (now these two concepts in RAF have become a single whole - there are no more percussion machines). First telling the seed "good news"that for the first time RAF carried out combat missions against terrorists of the ISIL banned in Russia in Syria and Iraq on new F-35 aircraft, performing as many 14 sorties in 10 days.



And then the author goes to the bad news. He reports that the favorite pilots, but already completely outdated Tornado planes, in the RAF, were modified by the F.3 interceptor fighter, GR.4 fighter-bomber and reconnaissance aircraft, were removed from service earlier this year. As a result of this action, caused both by financial reasons and by the obsolescence of the fleet, the British Air Force remained with 119 fighters listed on the list - 102 Eurofighter Typhoon FGR.4 (it should be clarified that 22 training and combat aircraft are not included in this list ) and 17 F-35В "Lightning-2". At the same time, out of these 17 new 8 aircraft are constantly in the USA, they are used there for training pilots, and the RAF cannot count on them in combat operations or combat duty.

Royal Air Force: the way to the bottom

Situation on 2007 and 2019 years

The comparison is not in favor of the present.


While just recently, in 2007, 210 fighters were in service, the main aircraft was the Tornado, but the first Typhoons, the 32 aircraft, appeared (again, without regard to combat training vehicles). There were also the last Jaguar fighter-bombers, but already in 2008 this simple and reliable car was taken off, as they had already said goodbye to the land variants of the Harrier short-takeoff and landing.

At the same time, the command of the Air Force and the Defense Ministry of Britain declare that the difference in the numbers of aircraft does not correspond to the difference in capabilities, recalling that the current aircraft have great capabilities, and believe that the current number is sufficient for them. Of course, this is nothing more than a good mine in a bad game and bad maps. And Lightning itself, in general, is not just not a masterpiece, but one big endless problem, and even the level of the 5 generation corresponds to avionics and the possibility of internal placement of a limited set of weapons. “Typhoon” only in the last series turned into something similar to what customers and creators saw in it many years ago. But not all planes of this type are reduced to the technical appearance of the latest series. And the reliability of the "Typhoon", that "Lightning" is such that this fleet of a hundred and a few fighters can be easily divided into two. But the author of the article in the Daily Mail prefers not to talk about this.


RAF Combat Strength Comparison on 1989, 2007 and 2019 Years

He, however, refers to the recent past. At the end of the Cold War, in 1989 g ,. The RAF list consisted of 850 fighters and strike vehicles in service. Of these, about 400 were Tornadoes (mostly F.1 and GR.1), about a hundred more American-made Phantom fighters, more than a hundred Jaguars, more than 170 Harriers (modifications of GR.3), and more fifty Bukanir bombers. The author does not let up and refers to the times of the Second World War, when the British industry produced more than 35 thousand different fighters, in particular, "Spitfires" (which they could be proud of) and "Hurricanes" (which it would be better not to recall) . But why compare piston aircraft and wartime with modernity? Here is an obvious search.

Glorious story


If we turn to history, the Royal Flying Corps (Royal Flying Corps, RFC) with a whole "air battalion" composed of 1912 in April. It happened after the successful actions of the Italians against the Turks in the autumn of 1911 using aircraft in these operations. Although much more material for reflection was provided by the First Balkan War that happened in the fall of 1912, in which Russian volunteer pilots also participated. By the beginning of World War I, the RFC consisted of 5 squadrons and numbered 63 machines, far behind the leaders, among which were Germany and Russia, which had air fleets in more than 200 aircraft each. At the same time, the British could well become the first owners of fighter aircraft - such an aircraft was created as an experimental Vickers firm as early as 1912-1913, but inertia of thinking won out.


RFC Officer at his Sopwick Snipe, World War I

Realizing the value of aviation during the war, the British, thanks to the developed industry, quickly became leaders. When in 1918 the RFC became the RAF and the first Air Force in the world as an independent Air Force, and not just a “flying appendage” of the army or fleet, like many countries had in World War II (for example, the Americans and the Japanese). Then there were already 150 squadrons and 3300 aircraft in the RAF, and these were the largest air forces in the world at that time. However, the RAF also included more than 20000 aircraft - there were such times.


RAF airfield in 1939


The famous "Spitfire" needs no introduction. In the photo, most likely, the aircraft modification Mk.V

After World War II and the transition to jet aircraft, the number of RAFs was continuously decreasing. If you look at the staff, then with 300 thous. by the end of 50-s decreased to 150 thousand, and by 1985 and to 90 thousand, and at the end of 90-x - and to 50 thousand people. Accordingly, the fleet also decreased.

It may not be any better.


At the same time, Adams rightly draws attention to the fact that the Typhoon deliveries did not have time to cut out the old types of aircraft, in particular, the Tornado, and the situation with the F-35B supplies would be even worse. 138 aircraft of this type have been ordered, but even the first batch of 48 aircraft will not be delivered fully until 2024, costing at least 9 billion pounds. At the same time, even the new "Typhoons" were already partially cut by the British - for financial reasons and technical (modernization was either difficult and expensive or even impossible), they were already removed from service and sent for recycling of the XRUMX "Tranche-16" ( first series). Who knows, all of a sudden, waiting for the Lightnings to decide to cut the part of Tranche-1? And then the promises of the MO leadership that "the park will fall a little more, and then even grow up," will not cost the paper on which they can be printed.

Of course, the British are not the only ones who drastically reduced their air forces over the 90s and the new millennium. They reduced everything and at times - both the Americans, and the Chinese, and we, but there is nothing to say about European NATO. In the “old evronatovtsy” the state did not disintegrate into parts, and looking at the evolution of their armed forces, one cannot say so. But the British have always been a country with ambitions, and had the opportunity, and now there are, in fact, only ambitions. Even if F-35B (which is objectively worse than the other two options, for obvious reasons) would justify those advertising tales that manufacturers tell about it, it cannot be in many places at the same time. And when your air force is weaker at times than, say, Turkish - well, what ambitions can there be? More precisely, ambitions can be - with the implementation of problems arise. One "phantom pain" for the lost power and remains. It is strange that for the time being the poor state of the national armed forces of Great Britain has not blamed Russia and Putin personally V.V. Moreover, the slogan "the British Armed Forces never lived as badly as under Putin" and you would not call a lie. And really, never. But if someone like Boris Johnson or an IQ-like character becomes the prime minister, then we may not hear that.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    4 July 2019 18: 13
    Yes, let him. The economy must be economical!
    Under the umbrella of the cousins ​​they do not live badly ... the former colony covers the former metropolis as ... VZhR (expressive hand gesture) ... since it’s impossible in words!
    1. +1
      5 July 2019 08: 58
      I agree why they need to inflate the army, if there are no enemies nearby, and in case of anything, there is such a chain dog as the United States.
      1. +1
        5 July 2019 09: 04
        Quote: maxim947
        there is such a chain dog as the USA

        I would not say that in their case the tail steers the dog .... there is either explicit consensus, or undercover.
        Insolent from the islands, taxiing experience, to everyone and everything, have a hefty! So everything can be sho!
        "Poor" Yankees !!! And the Zionists rule them and their cousins ​​direct .... "Poor Mowgli !!!"
        1. +3
          5 July 2019 09: 17
          Nobody steers them, but they will always stand up for the British. And no matter how strong the mattresses are, allies are still needed.
          ZY Only we, unfortunately, historically had no luck with the allies ... And it was said - "It is bad to have an enemy England, but even worse to be her ally ..
          1. +1
            5 July 2019 09: 38
            Quote: maxim947
            Nobody steers them, but they will always stand up for the British.

            In fact, there is a whole Euro-Atlantic alliance! What are they afraid of by and large?
            Yes, of course, if they want to steer somewhere, really, they can also rake it! But it is usually far from the islands.
    2. +2
      5 July 2019 11: 20
      The point of spending money on the army, if you can just pay godfather for the roof?
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 11: 32
        Quote: Clever man
        pay godfather for the roof

        So it is in fact! Only godfather .... for a newcomer and he has his own plans for a bunch, which, not all, his wards like!
        The tail is a dog .... who is who?
  2. +1
    4 July 2019 18: 16
    On the one hand, the British can only be envied. Looks like they have no real enemies, if they can afford to launch the aircraft in this way. And on the other, a little more and some Argentina-Jamaica there will take them and pile them on. Another ten years in this vein and will have to catch up with Zimbabwe.
    1. +2
      4 July 2019 18: 28
      They launched the same fleet, and when they were lords of the seas.
    2. -4
      4 July 2019 20: 29
      And on the other, a little more and some Argentina-Jamaica there will take them and pile them

      Is it blocking NATO? I doubt that
      1. +7
        5 July 2019 01: 16
        Last time, when the small-shavens piled on Argentina, the NATO bloc sat and did not tweet. Correspondingly, a certain colonial war is easily extrapolated, where small-brits are piled on, and NATO will not intervene. With Spain, for example, for Gibraltar.
      2. 0
        5 July 2019 11: 13
        Is it blocking NATO?

        MoON answered you absolutely correctly.
        Why would NATO even intervene?
        The fifth article talks about collective defense in the event of an attack on a NATO member.
      3. 0
        6 July 2019 07: 47
        Tried in 1982. How it all ended is well known.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  3. 0
    4 July 2019 18: 17
    The author, is it easy for you to evaluate someone else's IQ level as a person who, in theory, will never be able to pretend to be the prime minister?)
    PS and the article of norms, criticism (and their self-criticism) on the issue of reducing the number of the Air Force are well founded.
    1. +5
      5 July 2019 01: 18
      In order to approximately evaluate the level of IQ of Mr. Johnson, it is not at all necessary to apply for his place. It is enough to be a sane person with honest 8 classes of education.
      1. -5
        5 July 2019 05: 49
        Well, and what is this level, at least approximately? You are a sane person, with 8 classes of education?
  4. +11
    4 July 2019 18: 25
    In my opinion, they just got rid of a motley junk, that's all.
    1. +16
      4 July 2019 18: 42
      Quote: Malkavianin
      In my opinion, they just got rid of motley junk.

      Your thought is sound, but with Britts it’s more complicated. As always: he who pays for the music dances to the girl. The Britons signed up for two very expensive projects, very controversial in their effectiveness: two ships with airplanes and f-35. Saving these projects, they began to shred everything: right after the next modernization, Harrier was written off; Threw off Tornado F.3 and take off GR.4; they hacked a very successful project of their Apache aka WAH-64, the warriors liked it very much; there are problems with tanks ... It’s on a large scale, on the little things no less typed. With the personnel, too, not everything is safe: they pull for reservist missions. The country is undoubtedly wealthy, but the problems there have accumulated above the roof, and they themselves will not understand how they will decide. Yes, and figs would be with them, if only to find specialists to service nuclear plants - different things happen ...
      1. +1
        4 July 2019 18: 59
        The Britons are not fools. Surely there were good reasons to sacrifice other projects, for the sake of aircraft carriers with modern aircraft. For example, they cut the defense budget in favor of increasing social spending. I also read somewhere that with the production of modern weapons they are all very sad. Lost competencies.
        1. +7
          4 July 2019 19: 10
          Quote: Malkavianin
          ... have lost competency.

          So many call centers are handed down to India. Exactly so: not just Indians work, but moved to India
          Quote: Malkavianin
          Britons are not fools ...
          After five years spent on Her Majesty’s island, doubts prevail: generations brought up by the discovery channel
          1. +1
            5 July 2019 01: 24
            Call center is one thing, and BAE is completely different. I don’t know how it is with competencies, but they have a very engineering school. If the personnel are not lost, then theoretically, with sufficient funding, they can do a lot. Another thing is that they no longer want to.
            1. +1
              5 July 2019 05: 40
              Probably they can, and they are preparing design engineers, only among the children of the discovery channel 'there are few real violent ones, and there are no leaders.'
      2. +2
        4 July 2019 19: 04
        That's right: you have to leave two types - Typhoon and F-35, and get rid of junk.
        The more types of aircraft in service, the lower the combat readiness of the Air Force.
        Because it is necessary to purchase a lot of spare parts for all these types, to cook
        different technicians, etc.
        1. +8
          4 July 2019 19: 26
          Yes, what is there. leave pieces 5.
          This is as much as possible on spare parts with ekonomit!
    2. +4
      4 July 2019 19: 53
      How to say. Tornadoes and Jaguars are good, suitable letadls with the best price-quality indicators in RAF. We cut them solely for the sake of economy, although, of course, the obsolescence of gliders takes place. The typhoon is a strange machine - the project in torment was literally born and, as for me, did not justify itself (it took me a very long time to get into condition, and when they nevertheless accepted the armament, problems with the airframe came to light, the machine was so reliable). The rest is yes - objectively old.
  5. +2
    4 July 2019 18: 51
    Well, thank God. One less headache.
  6. +2
    4 July 2019 19: 03
    There they are dear.
  7. +3
    4 July 2019 19: 15
    Do we think that only Russia lost its military power in the 90s? Nothing of the kind: the same thing happened in the West. If there is no enemy, then why the hell is it necessary to maintain such an army, the Navy and the Air Force, bloated to hypertrophic proportions? In the 90s, the States "cut" their fleet, comparable only to the end of WWII. And I'm not talking about France and Great Britain. And for those who like to ponder on this topic, I recommend to climb into my mezzanine and get the dusty files of the magazine "Foreign Military Review" (and I am sure that many of them have survived) for the 70-80s and compare the number of warships and planes then and now in the USA, France, Great Britain.
    1. 0
      4 July 2019 19: 28
      Well, is that normal?
      It’s just that some people groan that there are few airplanes and ships in Russia.
      And it turns out to be normal.
      Or is it just their normal, but how are we, so everything is gone?
      1. 0
        4 July 2019 19: 37
        This is normal! Who is trying to plunge everyone and everything into the process of the "arms race" again?
        1. +3
          4 July 2019 20: 28
          So "upset" for the Royal Air Force that the cutlet does not fit in your mouth ...
          1. +1
            4 July 2019 21: 07
            Yes, I was upset because the RAF and the Navy helped us fight and survive in this monstrous war. And in the fact that my Grandfather reached Berlin in his self-propelled gun, there are also theirs, albeit a small part, of merits, and that my Grandmother, who throughout the war in the rear hospital helped many soldiers to return to the ranks and stay alive, thanks to medicines, which also came from the UK. And about the "polar convoys" to remind you? Or better not? Therefore, your "cutlets", eat it yourself, if they get into your mouth ...
            1. +2
              4 July 2019 23: 04
              And about the "polar convoys" to remind you? Or, better not?
              Half of the convoys are at the bottom. This is me for objectivity.
              1. 0
                5 July 2019 10: 51
                And what does this have to do with it? Lie at the bottom, yes. For a second: these convoys did not go in peacetime along the Gurzuf-Batumi route. Therefore, they lie. You want to say that only the British are to blame for this? This is me too for objectivity.
                1. +2
                  5 July 2019 13: 56
                  And what does this have to do with it? Lie at the bottom, yes. For a second: these convoys did not go in peacetime along the Gurzuf-Batumi route. Therefore, they lie. You want to say that only the British are to blame for this? This is me too for objectivity.
                  In fact, most of the way was accompanied by the British themselves (well, this is a remark). The main thing is that these convoys came with a load of certain goods, and exported in exchange timber, gold, platinum, etc. not at all for free. In addition, who set the Germans against the USSR? Anglo-Saxons. And then they profit from it themselves. The goal was to set, and then finish. It did not work, however. The blame for the outbreak of this war lies entirely with the Western world, which includes all the Anglo-Saxon creatures.
                  1. -3
                    5 July 2019 14: 12
                    Typical patriot. The USSR did not attack Poland, the Finns themselves attacked the scoop, the Anglo-Saxons were to blame for the deaths of 30 million Soviet citizens ... well, the Germans probably ... well, let the Ukrainians, they were occupied for 2 years, they don’t know anything about the war ...
                    1. +2
                      5 July 2019 14: 21
                      Typical patriot. The USSR did not attack Poland, the Finns themselves attacked the scoop, the Anglo-Saxons were to blame for the deaths of 30 million Soviet citizens ... well, the Germans probably ... well, let the Ukrainians, they were occupied for 2 years, they don’t know anything about the war ...
                      Learn the story, and only then try to scatter the garbage of consciousness according to the comments, unless of course after this a desire arises and conscience allows.
                      P.S. typical - "I know everything better than you"
                      1. -3
                        5 July 2019 15: 54
                        And in my commentary, I hinted at well-known facts that no one will deny (if he or she read the story, of course). And your arguments about the fact that the British set the Germans against the USSR remind me of the so-called. Lunar conspiracy, which you probably also take for "history". It is possible that the West was interested in the transition of hostilities to the territory of the USSR, but in order to finish off someone there ... In general, study the facts, and do not consider poor Russia a victim of the West's conspiracy)
                      2. +1
                        5 July 2019 16: 05
                        And in my commentary, I hinted at well-known facts that no one will deny (if he or she read the story, of course). And your arguments about the fact that the British set the Germans against the USSR remind me of the so-called. Lunar conspiracy, which you probably also take for "history". It is possible that the West was interested in the transition of hostilities to the territory of the USSR, but in order to finish off someone there ... In general, study the facts, and do not consider poor Russia a victim of the West's conspiracy)
                        You hinted at well-known myths, did you seriously decide to show off your knowledge of history? "Shine", especially about how the British decided. In general, I spoke about the Anglo-Saxon world. Everyone understood everything except you. And the confrontation between two civilizations, eastern and western, is a well-known reality. Good morning.
                      3. +4
                        6 July 2019 11: 46
                        Well, since you're talking about history, let me ask you too.
                        Who oversaw the limitations of Germany in the development of the navy?
                        Who was the initiator of the Munich agreement?
                        Who threw the French without providing them with the promised air cover?
                        Who did not respond to the remilitarization of the Rhine zone?
                        Who did not react to the months-long screams of Polish intelligence (already from the spring of 1939) about Germany's preparations for an invasion, and after the defeat of the Poles, who spent almost a year in the trenches of the "strange war"?
                        By the way, who welcomed the occupation of the territory of the formerly at that time Poland parts of the Red Army? Isn't Churchill?


                        And how did it work to tell the war?
                        Removing the restrictions on the fleet from Germany forced the French to hastily launch a fleet reinforcement program and did not allow them to saturate the troops with modern fighters in time.

                        The remilitarization of the Rhine zone fundamentally changed the position of Belgium on the issue of collective defense. If earlier it allowed the Allied forces to enter its territory in the event of a threat of war, that is, in advance, then after it agreed to the admission of troops AFTER THE BEGINNING of the war, that is, in fact. What this led to is known.

                        The surrender of Czechoslovakia led to the fact that just before the invasion of Poland, the Wehrmacht received more than 800 tanks, a lot of heavy artillery, huge stocks of ammunition and explosives, and a developed military industry.

                        And the strange policy towards Poland leaves no doubt at all that it was written off immediately, so as not to interfere with the Russian-German war. Since, on the one hand, the requests of the Poles for military assistance were harshly ignored, there was no massive supply of tanks and aircraft, and on the other hand, the Poles were suspiciously mildly persuaded to accept military assistance from the USSR. Why not give Poland an ultimatum like the Munich one? Either you accept the terms of the "new Entente" or there will be no guarantees at all.

                        Well, how the English threw the French in 1940 is not necessary to tell. This is common knowledge.

                        Yes, the USSR took a series of military actions to improve its situation before the war. And as it turned out, right.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. val
                        -2
                        4 August 2019 16: 48
                        Why is that right? France, USA, England remained within their borders and with their names.
                        And look at the maps of the Ross Empire, the USSR and Russia. Compare potential, human resources, GDP.
                        How much lost territory. What is right in a strategic perspective?
                      6. 0
                        5 August 2019 12: 57
                        Well well well! That you do not bend! stop
                        Britain from a great empire turned into an island without foreign policy and navy.
                        France also lost all the colonies.
                        But the USSR, if its own citizens had not been exchanged for a piece of sausage, would differ from the borders of the imperial time only by the absence of Finland, which was already fastened as a personal union, and Poland, the loss of which was generally more useful.
                        But he controlled almost the whole of Eastern Europe and through his satellites was represented in Africa and the Middle East and South America.

                        After the war, the world was actually divided between the USSR and the USA. Well, after that, who was capable of what in terms of retaining what was received.
                    2. +3
                      5 July 2019 16: 29
                      Quote: vlados
                      ... the Finns themselves attacked ...


                      What kind of war are we talking about? Finland FIRST attacked the RSFSR and it happened in 1919. It was then that the White Finns occupied those territories (you can ask what atrocities the Finnish military did during the occupation of the Russian city of Vyborg), which they asked them to return to the USSR in the late 30s (and not just to return, but for double compensation (over the territory), but the Finns, realizing that the border passing practically along the edge of Leningrad is very useful for lightning capture of the city, they pointedly refused.
                      It was after this that the USSR was forced to take military action and only those territories were taken from Finland that were necessary for the high-quality defense of Leningrad in the event of a war with Germany and nothing more.
                      The losses of the USSR were really great, but the Red Army completely fulfilled its task and the experience gained as a result of this war was simply invaluable - this was the appearance of submachine guns, the appearance of winter gun grease and the mass training of snipers and sabotage and reconnaissance groups.
                      After the capitulation of Finland, following the results of World War II, the USSR did not occupy it, did not deprive statehood, and did not cut territory. This is the best way to show that the USSR’s intentions regarding Finland were not initially aggressive, but were determined only by considerations of ensuring the security of the USSR and nothing more.

                      PS Link to an interview with historian Bair Irincheev, discussion of the book of Lars Westerlund about the murders of Russians in Finland in 1918-1922.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=665N1ElS57c
                      1. -5
                        6 July 2019 15: 44
                        As I understand it, you will not mind if the Turks occupy Crimea with the support of NATO, because it was Turkish territory before the advent of Catherine and Suvorov? Oh, excuse me, before them it was the territory of the Tatars, it is strange that they, unlike the Russians, do not bother much ...
                        And when the Chechens slaughtered Russian motorized rifles in Grozny, didn’t they just try to regain the independence they had lost 300 years ago? No, they were recognized by terrorists, and eliminated by federal troops, like gangs.
                        And if the poor scoops WAS FORCED to attack Finland for a future war with the Germans, then how are they better than the Anglo-Saxons, probably also forced to blame the German scoops? Well, supposedly .....
                        I mean, the USSR was no better and nobler than the other participants in World War II, but for some reason considered it to be the main sufferer and martyr, although no one was to blame for the deaths of only 10 million soldiers, except for the stupid Soviet command.
                      2. +1
                        7 July 2019 02: 40
                        War is war - the work of the young.
                        What about ethnic genocide of civilians - is that acceptable?
                        Is killing of Russians in Finland in 1918-1922 acceptable?
                        https://14-sonde.livejournal.com/86845.html
                  2. +2
                    6 July 2019 11: 07
                    Quote: stalki
                    In addition, who set the Germans against the USSR? Anglo-Saxons. And then we profit from it ourselves.

                    Well, for the sake of justice, the Britons themselves were pretty hard hit. First physically in 1940. Well, then politically. Having dragged Behemoth into the war in the person of the USA, they themselves signed a sentence on themselves, as an empire. In the new system of world politics, formed around the UN and the Security Council, both hegemons allied tore the British empire. Our political, state for mercantile reasons.
                    1. +1
                      6 July 2019 15: 30
                      Well, for the sake of justice, the Britons themselves were pretty hard hit. First physically in 1940. Well, then politically. Having dragged Behemoth into the war in the person of the USA, they themselves signed a sentence on themselves, as an empire. In the new system of world politics, formed around the UN and the Security Council, both hegemons allied tore the British empire. Our political, state for mercantile reasons.
                      Well, here I will not argue, here you are right. Well, it’s their fault that they are so shortsighted.
            2. +1
              5 July 2019 00: 19
              That’s all there is to shave: first, to incite Hitler to the USSR, then to help the USSR fight against Hitler
            3. +1
              5 July 2019 14: 57
              Lendlize supplies covered less than 10% of the army’s needs, and paid them for landliz with gold and raw materials. Plus in the convoys and our ships were not enough. And by the way, the British, as a rule, threw convoys during the first schucher, unlike our amers.
              1. -2
                5 July 2019 16: 22
                Please google the number of Soviet prisoners of war in the early days of the war. It's me that everyone is afraid of death, not just the British
              2. 0
                6 July 2019 07: 57
                You have some kind of perverted stream of consciousness. I recommend that you still get acquainted in more detail with the history of Lend-Lease, now, thank God, there is enough literature on this topic.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. -1
          5 July 2019 10: 58
          For aug will come and modern frigate-corvettes. And they are not 11. In constant combat readiness now 3. Someone even says that 2,5. Such times ...
      3. +2
        5 July 2019 11: 54
        Normal for them. Because if someone decides to attack the UK (and this is nonsense, because no one), then it will not fight the enemy alone. There are the USA, which will enter the war for their ally - Great Britain. There is NATO in the end. And this is not a hundred planes and three frigates. But who will fight on the side of Russia, for example, over the Crimea, if it is attacked by NATO? Belarus? Dad not. Kazakhstan? He doesn't care. He is far away. China? Generally never will, he is not up to such frauds. Syria? Ridiculous. Iran? Right now, he rushed to fight for Russia .... That is why it does not matter how many fighters Britain has. Although 10 pcs. And like yours
        Well, is that normal?
        It’s just that some people groan that there are few airplanes and ships in Russia.
        And it turns out to be normal.
        Or is it just their normal, but how are we, so everything is gone?

        just agitating out of place.
        1. 0
          5 July 2019 16: 49
          Quote: Lapunevsky
          ... But who will fight on the side of Russia ...


          During WWII, Mongolia was on the side of the USSR - can it help again?
          1. 0
            5 July 2019 17: 50
            Who would help them laughing
    2. 0
      5 July 2019 22: 29
      Quote: Nycomed
      crawl into my mezzanine and get the dusty files of the magazine "Foreign Military Review" (and I am sure that many of them have survived) for the 70-80s and compare the number of warships and aircraft then and now in the United States,

      With regards to the United States, although the number of AUGs is the largest in the world, they spend most of their time not in military campaigns, but near the wall, while on maintenance. 85% of the time is standing in the repair and maintenance. In fact, on duty at the same time is no more than two AUG USA. And with the complication of equipment, the time for its maintenance will only increase, and the time in military campaigns will accordingly decrease.
  8. +2
    4 July 2019 20: 48
    But there were once posters on which English carriers of nuclear weapons were painted - Vulcan and Vampire. And the British had their own, and not rented from a former colony.
    The author is 100% right - slowly after the war everything was purged, but they continue to puff up and puff out their cheeks, as if they belonged to half the world.
    1. +1
      5 July 2019 11: 56
      What is right? Do they need 2000 combat aircraft? If someone decides to attack the UK (and this is nonsense, because no one), then it will not fight the enemy alone. There are the USA, which will enter the war for their ally - Great Britain. There is NATO in the end. And this is not a hundred planes and three frigates. But who will fight on the side of Russia, for example, over the Crimea, if it is attacked by NATO? Belarus? Dad not. Kazakhstan? He doesn't care. He is far away. China? Generally never will, he is not up to such frauds. Syria? Ridiculous. Iran? Right now, he rushed to fight for Russia .... That is why it does not matter how many fighters Britain has. Although 10 pcs.
    2. -2
      5 July 2019 16: 13
      Putin keeps the deposit there from your taxes) And Abramovich probably already has more than half of his assets there. Therefore, the cheeks, unlike some, they can inflate)
    3. 0
      6 July 2019 07: 58
      "Vampire" carrier of nuclear weapons? It's already funny. laughing
  9. +3
    4 July 2019 22: 13
    Quote: Nycomed
    Or is it better not?

    Necessary.
    Just, well, in almost every topic you blow about lendlize?
    "Critical deliveries", etc. Look at the statistics, how many planes (not the best), tanks (sometimes similar to museum exhibits), steam locomotives, etc. equipment was supplied under lend-lease, and how much was supplied by the domestic industry.
    How much gold, platinum, diamonds did America, England, Canada receive from Soviet Russia?

    And about medicines, radio equipment, wires and finally the real "Second Frontstew"no one forgot. My father's sister was saved by plasma from these supplies.

    Talk about Lend-Lease, and then I remember Stalin's letters to Churchill and Roosevelt with a reproach: "When will you open the second front?" These letters went into the void in 1941, 42, 43.
    Churchill came up with new excuses every month, calmly watching the Russian soldiers die in the most difficult conditions of the retreat.

    In 1942 (or 43), the United States was supposed to send the Boston party to the USSR, Churchill in one letter asked Stalin to wait with this delivery for these US planes to be sent to England.
    Stalin agreed!
    That's it.
    1. 0
      5 July 2019 07: 05
      I wonder, when did the USSR attack Japan, when did the Americans ask?
    2. 0
      5 July 2019 10: 30
      "... how many planes (not the best) ..."
      Tell about it A.I. Pokryshkin and all the pilots of his division.
      1. +1
        5 July 2019 12: 55
        But what was the only division of Pokryshkin in the Red Army?
        1. 0
          5 July 2019 16: 33
          Not the only one, of course. The best! good
      2. -1
        5 July 2019 16: 28
        And he does not know that in the early days of the war more than 500 domestic aircraft were destroyed right at the airport. And Pokryshkin and his fellow soldiers rescued our air on American Aerial Cobra
  10. +9
    4 July 2019 22: 24
    Awesome comparison. And since August Rostselmash has been stopped here. So far for two months. And then the maximum 3-day work week. Because state subsidies are being stopped. And the cuts at Rothsvertol have begun. So far 10%. From January 1, 20%. At the factory, the device is also sent on vacation forcibly. So it is not yet known who has "VNO".
    1. +1
      5 July 2019 11: 06
      Where how. In our country, vacation was halved and the working week was increased by 5 hours.
  11. +1
    4 July 2019 22: 55
    let's be objective: wars are not won at the expense of the number of aircraft. Britain has the strongest intelligence and spy network around the world. In order to win, she does not even need a sun.
    And to take the same Iraq under Saddam: the 5th army was considered to be powerful, and where did it go? I’m all for what: do not consider the British idiots. They will never fight on their own. Unless some companies in the banana republics with spears. There is NATO. If you do not even count the United States, then if you summarize all the aircraft together, you will get very serious numbers. Another thing is preparation, etc. But there is the USA ... for now. As an insurance policy and security guarantor. And all this is understood by the British with their 100 aircraft and the Germans with their two hundred tanks. But all these states are rigidly intertwined economically. And there is world greed, which has the most powerful army. so all these scribbles are interesting, but globally they don’t talk about anything.
  12. +6
    4 July 2019 23: 38
    Material from the series "What were driving, we met such."
    A certain Vyatkin "specially for the Military Review" presents an article by a certain Joel Adams, also an outstanding specialist in the field of aviation, who, before becoming a journalist, was engaged in Internet commerce for ten years out of thirty.
    The article of this "expert" was published not in the Daily Mail, but on the electronic resource MailOnline. Although this resource is a newspaper site and the most visited site for an English-language newspaper in the world, it has a tarnished reputation and is banned as a source of materials for the English-language Wikipedia.
  13. 0
    5 July 2019 01: 42
    And what size is that UK? In the absence of colonies, they do not need three hundred planes on the island.

    Plus, we forgot about aircraft carriers. Two pieces are under construction. And then they will actually “work”.
  14. 0
    5 July 2019 05: 49
    After the collapse of the USSR and the OVD, there was no enemy who kept the entire "progressive west" in good shape. And they are all idle pragmatists, if there is no enemy, why spend money on weapons. And here the elections are coming soon and we can promise an increase in benefits. That's how it all rolled. And now no one will attack them, except that some kind of aliens. So the sturgeon is being cut. And they themselves can attack anyone and attack. So all sorts of AUG and F 35 are needed.
  15. -1
    5 July 2019 06: 08
    Given the pressure from the US on the F-35, if Britain is counting on its 5th generation project, then this can happen very soon. On the other hand, one can for a long time take off from NATO commitments, limiting oneself to a purely nominal presence in American possible adventures.
  16. 0
    5 July 2019 08: 43
    The article is good. Joyful. The less weapons the enemy has, the more calmly we sleep)))))))
  17. Quote: E.S.
    That’s all there is to shave: first, to incite Hitler to the USSR, then to help the USSR fight against Hitler

    Plow finely: everyone insisted on everyone at all.
    "The relations of the Soviet Union with the European great powers at the beginning of World War II were determined by the split of Europe into three military-political camps: Anglo-French, German-Italian and Soviet, each of which sought to achieve its own goals. The Soviet foreign policy was based on the following calculations formulated by J.V. Stalin on September 7, 1939 in a conversation with the leadership of the Comintern: “The war is going on between two groups of capitalist countries (rich and poor in terms of colonies, raw materials, etc.) for the redivision of the world, for domination over the world ! We are not averse to them having a good fight and weakening each other. It would not be bad if the position of the richest capitalist countries (especially England) was shaken by the hands of Germany. Hitler, himself not realizing this and not wanting to, upsets, undermines the capitalist system ... We can maneuver, push one side against the other in order to get torn apart better. The non-aggression pact helps Germany to some extent. The next point is to push the other side. "Thus, the Soviet leadership was going to make full use of the benefits of the position of" observer in the war of two imperialist groups "http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/07.html
    I recall that from September 3, 1939, Great Britain declared war, and hostilities at sea began immediately after the declaration of war. Already on September 3, the British passenger ship Athenia was torpedoed and sank. On September 5 and 6, the ships of Bosnia, Royal Setr and Rio Claro were sunk off the coast of Spain. Great Britain had to introduce ship escort. September 17, 1939 the German submarine U-29 sank the British aircraft carrier Koreges ... etc.
    While Great Britain was at war with Germany, the USSR maintained close political, economic, and military ties with F. Germany. The share of F. Germany in the trade of the USSR in 1939 was 6,3%, and in 1940 it was 40,4%, while the share of France and B. Britain was significantly reduced, and the United States increased slightly.
    1. 0
      5 July 2019 13: 08
      You are absolutely right! No one, at that time, could imagine: who and whom to bet on, and given the economic ties ... Here it’s just to break your head at a time. recourse
    2. +1
      5 July 2019 17: 03
      Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock
      "Relations of the Soviet Union with the European Great Powers at the Beginning of World War II ..." http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/07.html
      While Great Britain was at war with Germany, the USSR maintained close political, economic, and military ties with F. Germany. The share of F. Germany in the trade of the USSR in 1939 was 6,3%, and in 1940 it was 40,4%, while the share of France and B. Britain was significantly reduced, and the United States increased slightly.



      Ibid.
      “... It is possible that neither Berlin nor Moscow wanted to sign an official document that would fix the division of Poland between them.
      This made it possible to show England and France that the USSR does not aspire to national Polish territories, and its actions are potentially anti-German in nature. In London and Paris, two foreign policy courses regarding Moscow were identified. One of them regarded the USSR as the main adversary of the Western Allies, for which damage all means were good, and the second proceeded from the need for the initial defeat of Germany, which required attracting Moscow to the anti-German front by any possible means. In any case, the Western allies were interested in provoking tensions in Soviet-German relations, for which they used, for example, the Soviet-Turkish negotiations on September 25 - October 17, 1939 on a mutual assistance treaty. In addition, the Anglo-French propaganda actively used the thesis about the "red danger" for Europe ... "
      1. Everyone wanted to deceive the rest, and take out as much furniture as possible for themselves from a burning house of one of the neighbors .... Politics is a dirty business.
  18. +1
    5 July 2019 10: 21
    Quote: MooH
    for example, for Gibraltar.

    Britain has a mass of possessions without any sane legal basis.
    Cypriot base, for example.
    1. 0
      5 July 2019 13: 20
      Don't you like the Britt base in Cyprus? Show your rights to it, who's stopping you?
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 13: 22
        don't worry, and the Turks and Greeks have already presented
        1. 0
          5 July 2019 13: 26
          They will deal with the Greeks next door, and no one will ask the Turks.
      2. +2
        5 July 2019 13: 24
        I was in Cyprus and saw that base. and Cypriots, by the way, are not at all opposed to having this base there.
    2. -4
      5 July 2019 13: 32
      Why should we be concerned about the fate of Gibraltar? Do we, at home, have less internal problems? Do you really think that as soon as Gibraltar comes under the jurisdiction of Spain, our standard of living will rise?
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 13: 37
        Gibltar = control of all through shipping of the Mediterranean.
        the loss of British control automatically means a much more restrained attitude towards our ships.
  19. 0
    5 July 2019 13: 28
    Quote: Nycomed
    and Cypriots, by the way, are not at all opposed to having this base there.

    no one asks cypriots
  20. -1
    5 July 2019 13: 34
    Quote: Lieutenant Colonel of the USSRF Air Force in reserve
    Plow finely: everyone insisted on everyone at all.

    the British believed that they could sit under the cover of the fleet, while others were at war, as in the PMV.
    in principle, this is what happened, but only with the great help of the USA.
    therefore, they provoked a mutual mess of all against all.
    they didn’t help Poland, they shamefully fled from France, and fled to Greece.
    1. -5
      5 July 2019 14: 18
      What a mess in your head ...
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 14: 19
        what exactly does not suit you?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  21. -3
    5 July 2019 14: 02
    Hospadi, worry about your Air Force ... Many have already produced SU-57? Have MiGs repaired everything?
    1. 0
      5 July 2019 17: 13
      Quote: vlados
      Hospadi, worry about your Air Force ... Many have already produced SU-57? Have MiGs repaired everything?


      Existing MIGs will be repaired. The production of new MIGs is in question - are the Russian Air Force MIG-29 and MIG-35 needed?
      1. 0
        6 July 2019 17: 20
        The fact is that the MiG-29s make up the majority of fighter aircraft, and their current state is deplorable.
        Whatever all sorts of su-27s, su-35s and other subjects of propaganda were super-maneuverable, they will not do anything against 1500 regularly serviced f-16s. Drying is more expensive and less universal, therefore, without the MiGs of the Air Force of the Russian Federation they do not pose a particular threat to Britain.
        1. 0
          6 July 2019 17: 57
          If it was possible to conclude a contract with India, mass production of MIGs would be established. Unfortunately, none of the government supports the migrants, unlike the state support of the Olympics in Sochi. Let the migrants write letters ...
          https://www.strategium.ru/forum/topic/20985-sozdateli-migov-napisali-otkryitoe-pismo-prezidentu

          Training aerial battle link to link Lipetsk

  22. +1
    5 July 2019 14: 51
    In today's world, a financial noose is stronger than a military threat. Why do they need airplanes and tanks when in their hands the exchanges and the largest banks + elites of most countries are quite satisfied with the current situation?
    1. 0
      5 July 2019 15: 57
      Quite adequate comment. By the way, the same "Jew-masons" and "Zionists" also, most likely, pay taxes, so to speak, to the queen)
  23. 0
    5 July 2019 22: 52
    But what about the three red buttons?
  24. Quote: vlados
    Quite adequate comment. By the way, the same "Jew-masons" and "Zionists" also, most likely, pay taxes, so to speak, to the queen)

    No, the Freemasons pay taxes to the Zionists, the Zionists to the Khabadov, the Khabad to the Illuminati, the Illuminati to the people in black, and all are ruled by Urfin Juce, who is also the pope and the Queen of England in one person.
    1. 0
      6 July 2019 16: 32
      And he’s the first deputy of Sotona)
  25. +2
    5 July 2019 23: 31
    Quote: Nycomed
    Not the only one, of course. The best! good


    Good example.
    Here is another example about your second front and lendliz so beloved:
  26. -1
    6 July 2019 07: 23
    In the modern world, a global war in the likeness of the preceding worlds is not possible. A little that nuclear weapons will be used. And here, in general, I will drum up how much you have and why. Everyone understands this very well. And to solve local problems, multimillion-strong armies are not needed. attention to the Syrian conflict, how many of our planes are involved there. Before the Britons, it’s violet to me, even if this imperial corpse decomposes further, but our army should be comparable to the size of the country, mobile and armed with the highest quality weapons.
  27. 0
    9 July 2019 00: 05
    Quote: stalki
    Half the convoys at the bottom


    Conducted 1400 vessels. Lost 85.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"