Sohu: One title left from UK title “mistress of the seas”

In China, they comment on the statement of the main military department of Great Britain about the need to optimize the costs of the needs of the Royal Navy. The British defense department intends to reduce the number of surface warships by 2027. It is also noted that it will be necessary to adjust the national shipbuilding strategy in terms of building Type 31 frigates. The first of these frigates was originally planned to be put into service with the British Navy in 2027, but now they are planning to postpone the deadlines for a number of reasons, including financial ones.

Problems are allegedly arising with the order by the United Kingdom Navy of the latest Type26 frigates.

The military section of the Chinese publication Sohu decided that these plans of London are not worthy of a great naval power. In the Sohu material, they openly scoff at the fact that Britain decides to optimize its navy.

From the article:

Once upon a time, Great Britain called itself the mistress of the seas and an empire over which the sun never sets. What now? From the title "mistress of the seas" there is only one name left, and with it, apparently, problems. All this looks like humiliation for Britain. She has always advocated expanding her fleetbut not now.

These ridicule in China is also related to the fact that recently in London they announced their readiness to send their latest aircraft carrier to the shores of China. The British Ministry of Defense attributed this to the need to "prevent the PRC from expanding in the South China Sea."

It is noteworthy that the plans of the Ministry of Defense of the United Kingdom to "optimize" the Navy are criticized in Britain itself. And Sohu recalls this, pointing to statements by representatives of the retired admiral corps:

With this approach, the UK will move into the second tier of countries with a navy.

Comments

[svp67]

Sohu: One title left from UK title “mistress of the seas”

That is the rare case when I agree with Sohu.

[Spektr]

She is mistress overseas, as she was and remained. Nigvinostan unconditionally fulfills all the requirements of the queen.

[mvg]

when i agree with sohu

Are they going to fight? Or is she threatened from the sea? Are there colonies that need to be protected?
The brazen have a very decent, balanced fleet. Maybe the Russian Navy has an aircraft carrier of the Elizabeth level? Or a destroyer, level type 45, or a frigate worthy of type 26?
MAPL Astyut level? Or the Mace reached TTX Trident II.
They easily give the countries of the 3rd world, the former flagships of their fleets (Ocean). Really look at things, the brazen fleet is stronger than the Russian Navy. Despite the tonnage. And this is not considering the closest ally ...

[Grigory_45]

Quote: mvg

The brazen have a very decent, balanced fleet.

alas, few people understand this. Yes, the British fleet at one time was in a deep peak, but those days are gone.

And it’s all the more strange to hear derogatory statements from the Chinese, who are completely zero at sea compared to the British.

[Foxnova]

Pike used a pot liner with destroyers, but it’s difficult to build a hypertrophied ship

[mvg]

Pike used pot liner with destroyers

Calm down, pr 971 is already old for a long time, they are 30-35 years old, 3M-14 has not hit anyone yet, GAK and torpedoes, I do not even say, pr 22350, the newest thing that is, does not reach Daring in air defense, to type 26 in terms of versatility, and it took 11 years to build. The liner appeared not from a good life, but because of problems with the BARK and Bulava. Tident does not hold out, and even liquid. Excuse me, but what kind of destroyers are there in the Russian Navy? Can they swim in a separate flock so that no one can see?

[Foxnova]

Astyutes are 10 years younger than the pikers and so could not catch them
I don’t even want to compare with ash trees

By what characteristics does the liner fall short of the trident?

And who didn’t get into 3m 14?

Until type 26, which does not have a normal PCR, and you are talking about universality ??
And the frigate which is not ... by

[svp67]

Quote: mvg

Maybe the Russian Navy has an aircraft carrier of the Elizabeth level?

There is no level ... because another level is not clear

Quote: mvg

Or a destroyer, type 45 level

Honestly, after reading its characteristics, I am generally surprised that this ship was assigned to the "Destroyers", this is an air defense ship ...

Quote: mvg

frigate worthy type 26

And is he, at least one already in service? What to be worthy of?

Quote: mvg

Or the Mace reached TTX Trident II.

If I am not mistaken, then it was the British who had problems with the US missile? As far as I know that we still have sea-based missiles, unlike the English fleet, why should we envy that?

Quote: mvg

They easily give the countries of the 3rd world, the former flagships of their fleets (Ocean).

And we gave and give thousands of tanks, and so what? Than rich.

Quote: mvg

Really look at things, the brazen fleet is stronger than the Russian Navy.

So what? Do you really think that the Angles are still "lords of the seas"? No matter how balanced their fleet is, they are not the FIRST

[mvg]

but they are NOT FIRST

They are not the first for a long time, below is a comment from Andrey for this.
Elizabeth is forming an air group, there is take-off and landing, and we don’t even have a helicopter carrier.
For Daring, he didn’t say that he was a strike destroyer, but theoretically, you can stick both Harpoon and Scalpel in the VPU. And in terms of dimensions, the SAMPT-P container is quite suitable for an ax.
Etc. 26 and pr 31 will be embodied in metal, but for 1143 and 1144 I am not sure. Neither Kuznetsov nor Nakhimov will soon be.
PS: For thousands of tanks in more detail? You mean Syria and LDNR? So this is ... how to say, a necessity.
Not a single surface ship of the first rank has been built for 30 +++ years. And the Saxons have a small but very scratchy fleet. It is one of the five in the world, unlike the Russian one.

[svp67]

Quote: mvg

PS: For thousands of tanks in more detail? You mean Syria and LDNR? So this is ... how to say, a necessity.

Well, this is now, and so we often gave them all ... Even now, the same Laos, instead of the Czech T-34s of the 53rd year of production, was set up with the T-72B, partially offset. Or the same Serbia

Quote: mvg

It is one of the five in the world, unlike the Russian one.

For God's sake...

[Private-K]

Quote: mvg

For Daring, he didn’t say that he was a strike destroyer, but theoretically, you can stick both Harpoon and Scalpel in the VPU.

You would have to learn the materiel: RCC Harpoon generally can not start from the high school! Only from the good old inclined rotary launchers.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mvg

For Daring, he didn’t say that he was a strike destroyer, but theoretically, you can stick both Harpoon and Scalpel in the VPU.

Harpoon - definitely not.

Quote: mvg

And in terms of dimensions, the SAMPT-P container is quite suitable for an ax.

And for what? Dering has so-so ammunition, where is there still a fleet against the coast to implement?

Quote: mvg

Etc. 26 and pr 31 will be embodied in metal, but for 1143 and 1144 I am not sure.

It is just that pr 26 will turn into metal; one must doubt, since the British are planning another attack on cutting fleet costs. But we have at least 4 frigates including Gorshkov SF will be replenished for sure (the rest four will go to the Pacific Fleet)
What is there to doubt in 1144 - I don’t understand at all, they are modernizing Nakhimov, there is money for it, the only problem is the timing. Kuznetsov, too, will not disappear.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mvg

Maybe the Russian Navy has an aircraft carrier of the Elizabeth level?

Which is not much different from Kuznetsov

Quote: mvg

Or a destroyer, type 45 level

A ship that can’t do anything except in air defense. Not needed for nothing. And yes, our RRC is much more interesting

Quote: mvg

or frigate worthy type 26?

Gorshkov. Which we have. But the British have no type 26 - not a single one has yet been built

Quote: mvg

MAPL Astyut level?

Pike-B latest series and Ash

Quote: mvg

Or the Mace reached TTX Trident II.

Sineva and Liner. A little worse but quite comparable.

Quote: mvg

Really look at things, the brazen fleet is stronger than the Russian Navy.

It is approximately equivalent to the Northern Fleet. To one.

[mvg]

Andrei, you yourself know that everything is far-fetched.
3-4 pikes are really combat ready, not all in the Northern Fleet. On the SF from combat-ready, only Gorshkov and aviation. The rest is 30+ year old trash. Well, how do you equal him? Right now, all the holes will be plugged by Gorshkov and Kasatonov .. or do you really believe in our watchdogs and corvettes?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mvg

Andrei, you yourself know that everything is far-fetched.

Nothing pulled.

Quote: mvg

3-4 pikes are really combat ready, not all in the Northern Fleet.

On the Northern Fleet, two are really combat-ready - "Panther" and "Gepard", but "Severodvinsk" is attached to them and, very soon, "Kazan". The British have 3 Astute in the ranks, but it is not a fact that all three are combat-ready.
In addition, the British have three Trafalgars, but there were reports that they were all decommissioned due to problems with the reactors. At the Northern Fleet we have 4 more Shchuki-Bs undergoing repairs (the repairs they are leaving from).
But, besides this, the Northern Fleet has 2 Anthea in the ranks, and this is very serious. And I would not discount 4 "Halibut", which are also in service.
That is, roughly, the British have 3 on the move 3 under repair, we have 3 + 2 on the move 1 in the completion + 4 under repair + 4 diesel engines. And I still don’t remember the older 945 (one in the ranks), 9456A (two in the ranks) and ordinary Pikes (two in the ranks) As for me, there is a clear advantage over the Northern Fleet.

Quote: mvg

On the SF from combat-ready, only Gorshkov and aviation.

On what basis did you delete "Peter the Great" from combat readiness? Its air defense is worth at least two Daring-class destroyers :))) But besides that, it also has strike and anti-submarine weapons. What happened to the recently renovated and modernized Ustinov?
And here is Queen Elizabeth for today is really the skies.

Quote: mvg

The rest is 30+ year old trash

That is, budget frigates of type 23 built in the 90s with their Sivulfs and harpoons, without anti-submarine weapons and with one helicopter - this is it, and the BOD of project 1155 with the analogue of Sivulf Dagger, with the most powerful Polynomial, PLUR with 90 km and 533 flight mm in droves, instead of which it is not forbidden to take a waterfall - this is junk. And which of us is partial after that?

[mvg]

at the Northern Fleet in the ranks of 2 "Anthea"

Those. is there any chance that the P-700, which in 30 years, will take off? Remember the experience of Syria? This is me for Antei. There are big doubts about the successful launch of at least half. We have already passed this, for example, 1164 with their Basalts and Volcanoes.
945 Barracudas ?? Do you know good Soviet torpedoes? Only without the "Fizikoff", and that advertised in. It is unlikely that they are where they are.
For Peter the Great, and his Fort and Fort-M, well, as if by TTX, he could not intercept either the IV ax or the harpoon, he simply would not see. Yes, and the attack from 3 sides will not reflect, also due to the performance characteristics. And the old man was going to repair, not just like that.

repair and modernization "Ustinov"

And what about Ustinov? (There was no modernization, there was nothing to modernize, it is already as perfect as a Lada from 1982 to 2014) What can he do? If only GDP from his deck threatens with a finger! Neither P-1000 nor Fort are relevant. Both production of the 80s, the extreme Volcano - 83 years, will also take off? Well, for the TTX of the Fort I said, there are restrictions on the EPR of the target and channel, not to mention ... more +++ minuses.
1155, all four pieces are either being repaired or being prepared. And so from year to year, since it is with them that they plug holes. And for Pauline ... it was at 80 he was "powerful", and now
And 885, how much infa is available, has not been accepted by the fleet. Not a single military campaign. And the lack of, let's say there are no torpedoes, as on corvettes and frigates. The promised 3 years are waiting.
PS: Maybe I don’t know, probably soon, but I see the prospect like this. It is better to have 2-3 combat-ready modern units than to “feed” the “most powerful” fleet for admirals. But each has its own “boat”, well, there to raise a pennant, a cabin, a sailor, etc. Well, like a yacht, only a service one.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mvg

Those. is there any chance that the P-700, which in 30 years, will take off?

So they really fly, they periodically shoot at exercises. In 2017, for example, two Antaeus (Voronezh, Oryol) and Peter the Great were shooting. Type in the search engine "Diverse forces of the Northern Fleet during the exercise successfully hit targets in the Barents Sea with cruise missiles"

Quote: mvg

There are big doubts about the successful launch of at least half. We have already passed this, for example, 1164 with their Basalts and Volcanoes.

And what is wrong with the Volcanoes? :)))) In October 2019, the Varyag blasted a Volcano near Kamchatka, the Americans even had to interrupt their teachings, so as not to accidentally hit.

Quote: mvg

Do you know good Soviet torpedoes? Only without “fizikoff”, and that advertised in. It is unlikely that they are where they are.

The Americans know them well. I remember when the American admiral was asked back in the last century how he was going to protect aircraft carriers from Soviet torpedoes that were guided along the wake trail, the answer was: "I will put each aircraft carrier on Ticonderoga in the wake."
As for underwater battles in the North, I would not underestimate even the USET-80. Yes, she has a short range, but the real detection distance in the northern seas is unlikely to be more than 10 km.
In addition, do you seriously think that the KVMF is littered with modern torpedoes? :))) They did not hesitate to send frigates with 4 missiles to combat services.

Quote: mvg

For Peter the Great, and his Fort and Fort-M, well, as if by TTX, he could not intercept either the IV ax or the harpoon, he simply would not see.

??? Maxim, the S-300V could quite successfully fight cruise missiles, after which the S-300P appeared on the basis of which the first "Fort" was made. So it will both see and destroy. I don’t even remember about "Dagger" or "Tackle" ...
Here we take the radar. Daring, which you are so enthusiastic about, has 1 (ONE) radar, which a priori cannot hold 360 degrees (it rotates). Dering’s radar is very high quality, as it can work in both the decimeter and centimeter ranges (two in one), that is, it sees well both in the distance and near above water.
Peter the Great has EMNIP (I write from memory) two survey decimeter radars (the rest are sanitimeter and millimeter ones), two low-flying target detection radars Podkat, two fire control radars "Fort" and "Fort-M", one for the Dagger, and more there are 6 daggers, each of which also has its own LMS radar.

Quote: mvg

Yes, and the attack from 3 sides will not reflect, also due to the performance characteristics.

Quite the contrary - this Daring cannot repel a tripartite attack. But Peter - maybe.

Quote: mvg

And what about Ustinov? (there was no modernization,

Was

Quote: mvg

there is nothing to modernize

REO

Quote: mvg

Neither P-1000 nor Fort are relevant. Both production of the 80s, the extreme Volcano - 83 years, will also take off? .

You managed to confuse the year of adoption and the year of production of the rocket. From your point of view, there are no anti-ship missiles in England at all, because Harpoon was put into service in 1977.

Quote: mvg

Well, for the TTX of the Fort I said, there are restrictions on the EPR of the target and channel, not to mention ... more +++ minuses.

All air defense systems have a channel limitation, and there are no exact data for Sampson

Quote: mvg

1155, all four pieces are either being repaired or being prepared.

Three in the ranks. Right now

Quote: mvg

And for Pauline ... it was at 80 he was "powerful", and now

And now. Compare with what stands on frigates type 23 :))))

Quote: mvg

And 885, how much infa is available, has not been accepted by the fleet. Not a single military campaign. And the lack of, let's say there are no torpedoes, as on corvettes and frigates.

Severodvinsk in 2016 completed trial operation. And there were never counter-torpedoes on Estates.

[mvg]

You managed to confuse the year of adoption and the year of production of the rocket

No, I raised this issue with Moscow. Extreme Volcano, 83 years old.

on the radar. Daring

I'm not the only one to admire ... I, like everyone else))

with S-300V quite successfully could fight with cruise missiles

The KR had other TTXs, there was no stealth, it won’t capture Fort (S-300PS), it couldn’t. He also dealt with the issue, not from the floundering bay wrote. Like for the channels. Neither 1144 nor 1164 will be able to repel such an attack. And the lamps will not modernize. At least that's how Sergey grilled.

I will put each aircraft carrier on the Ticonderoga in the wake

My commander had a similar opinion. )) But Her Majesty has anti-submarine aircraft, while the TU-142 units are counted.
PS: Yes, for the Kyrgyz Republic, I remember the result of the Pacific Fleet exercises of 89, when Sarych shot down 11 of 12 targets. It seems to me that he would fix it now. And I wouldn’t bring down a single one. This is just my opinion. You do not see the target, there is no chance to bring down.
And for 885, Andrei, the military is unhappy with her ..

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mvg

No, I raised this issue with Moscow. Extreme Volcano, 83 years old.

Yeah. Nothing that he was only adopted in 1987?

Quote: mvg

I'm not the only one to admire ... I, like everyone else))

Like everyone else, this is against the background of the American seam, blind at low altitudes. Here, yes, the enthusiasm is understandable. And for us, who have a "Tackle" since the last century ...

Quote: mvg

KR had other TTX, there was no "stealth"

tell me about the stealth "Harpoon" in service with the KVMF :))))

Quote: mvg

will not capture Fort (S-300PS) RCC, will not. He also dealt with the issue, not from the floundering bay wrote.

Poorly engaged. EPR goals you can remember? :)))

Quote: mvg

Neither 1144 nor 1164 will be able to repel such an attack.

They can, and without much stress.

Quote: mvg

My commander had a similar opinion. )) But Her Majesty has anti-submarine aircraft, while the TU-142 units

And IL-38N units. But in the composition of the KVMF there are generally no anti-submarine aircraft. Only helicopters

Quote: mvg

PS: Yes, for the Kyrgyz Republic, I remember the result of the Pacific Fleet exercises of 89, when Sarych shot down 11 of 12 targets. It seems to me that he would fix it now.

Well, when you really want, then what do we need these facts? :)))))

[Volder]

Quote: mvg

Ave 971 has long been old, they are 30-35 years old

This affects their technical condition, but not their combat effectiveness. With proper maintenance and repair, the submarines will still live.

Quote: mvg

The liner appeared not from a good life, but because of problems with the BARK and Bulava.

The R-29RMU2.1 rocket entered service in 2014 and is operated in parallel with Bulava. For "Liner" is designed to be based exclusively on Soviet-era submarines. There are no problems with "Bulava" now, but they do not think to give up "Liner" either.

Quote: mvg

The liner does not reach Trident, and liquid.

In terms of range, Liner also has a more advanced missile defense breakthrough system.

Quote: mvg

Not a single surface ship of the first rank has been built for 30 +++ years. And the Saxons have a small but very scratchy fleet. It is one of the five in the world, unlike the Russian one.

It is not necessary to have ships of the first rank to reach and kill the entire British fleet. Russia will have a "thrashing" fleet. Unlike the British fleet, the Russian fleet as a whole ranks second in combat capabilities after the United States.

Quote: mvg

On the SF from the combat-ready, only Gorshkov and aviation. The rest is 30+ year old trash.

Where did such an assessment come from? Do you have data from any competent serious sources? Or maybe they listened to some expert? I don’t think so. Otherwise, you would know that combat effectiveness is measured not by the old age or youth of the ships, but by missiles and radar. Ships, in fact, are just floating platforms for weapons.

Quote: mvg

P-700, which in 30 years, take off? This is me for Antei. There are big doubts about the successful launch of at least half. We have already passed this, for example, 1164 with their Basalts and Volcanoes.

Half of all available Soviet missiles, which are likely to take off, are enough to cause unacceptable damage to any fleet in the world that has moved to the borders of Russia.

Quote: mvg

945 Barracudas ?? Do you know good Soviet torpedoes? Only without the "Fizikoff", and that advertised in. It is unlikely that they are where they are.

In addition to Physics, there are other torpedoes - Case, Shkval, Predator. It's time to talk about Russian torpedoes, not Soviet ones.

Quote: mvg

For Peter the Great, and his Fort and Fort-M, well, as if by TTX, he could not intercept either the IV ax or the harpoon, he simply would not see. Yes, and the attack from 3 sides will not reflect, also due to the performance characteristics.

Thinking like that is quite incompetent. Excuse me. Our ships have long been imprisoned for the interception of Tomahawks and Harpunov. This is not such a difficult target for air defense systems because of their subsonic speed, vulnerability to radar interference (including means of setting artificial interference). Tomahawks are now being upgraded to Block V - equipped with a new multi-channel guidance system. However, this does not make the rocket difficult to shoot down.

Quote: mvg

Well, for the TTX of the Fort I said, there are restrictions on the EPR of the target and channel, not to mention ... more +++ minuses.

Each large ship has not only medium-range air defense systems, but also anti-aircraft weapons of the near zone. Also there is not one radar.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: mvg

Really look at things, the brazen fleet is stronger than the Russian Navy. Despite the tonnage. And this is not considering the closest ally ...

And what do you consider the GB fleet in such an aspect, as if the whole advantage in the event of a confrontation between Russia and the island kingdom would be precisely in the presence of: an aircraft carrier of the Elizabeth level, a destroyer of type 45, a frigate of type 26 and a MAPL of Astyut level?
It is the presence of an ally, whose already under the ground begins to "shake" and let out fountains of boiling water under a hundred meters high, allows them to continue to "crap".
In the event of a major mess, these islands will only have what you named. there is not even quarantine required.
I am amused by the statements that Russia is the weakest country in the world in terms of armaments. That is why it is recommended to attack her in bulk (in a block. Or codle) ??? Otherwise, you can snatch such "lyuley" that the events of 75 years ago seem like a farewell bonfire in a pioneer camp.
Let the Russian fleet not be in the position in which it should and must be. But he will cope with the GB fleet - do not hesitate.

[mvg]

that the events of 75 years ago seem like a farewell bonfire in a pioneer camp.

Are they already sewing hats? Will everything be as usual? 1939, 1941, the Arab war, the Korean .. the beginning of the 08 war, the 14th year in Ukraine .. Will we cast everything?

[Bastinda]

"I am amused by the statements that Russia is the weakest country in the world in terms of armament. That is why it is recommended to attack it en masse (in a block. Or Caudle) ??? Otherwise, you can snatch such" people "that the events of 75 years ago will seem like a farewell fire in a pioneer camp. "
We have been attacked for a long time. 70 - 80% of enterprises look like after a bombing, and in place of some, the "enemies" have already built shopping centers and sell their goods there.

[mister-red]

Quote: mvg

The liner appeared not from a good life, but because of problems with the BARK and Bulava. Tident does not hold out, and even liquid.

Liner 40t weight casts 2t. Trident2 has 60t, throws 2,8t. Who does not reach whom?

[mvg]

casts 2t.

Let’s then add up the number of APs, range, the number of false targets, CWOs and the fact that Ohio has 14 pieces and 24 SLBMs each. That Trident has 150+ successful runs in a row, etc. And what is looming?

[mister-red]

Nothing looms. The number of false targets in Mace is unknown. The range with the maximum load is the same. The number of missiles on a submarine is a controversial thing; the military needs to know a lot better or less. For example, I don’t know. The trident is many years old, the Mace is new, so somehow we won’t be talking about successful launches in a row. And yes, not 150 but 134. And the last launch 10 years ago, it would be interesting to see now.
I think that the military actually knows better.
I do not deny that the Trident will be better, but the Clubs are surely enough for Russia. Let's not forget that missiles on submarines in the United States are the basis of nuclear forces, and in Russia is secondary. Russia has no missiles similar to Trident2, the Americans have no analogues of the Voivode.

[mat-vey]

"From the title of Great Britain" Lady of the Seas "only one name remained" - yes, long ago, back in the last century. With the arrival of Thatcher.

[Arthur 85]

Oh, vey ... With the signing of the Washington Agreement, when the concept of two fleets was unimaginable.

[mat-vey]

Well, she began to actively "cut on the gramophone needles".

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Arthur 85

Oh, vey ... With the signing of the Washington Agreement, when the concept of two fleets was unimaginable.

Not. Firstly, in reality, England abandoned the two-state standard before the WWII and Washington only fixed this as a treaty. And secondly, the British Navy and after Washington for a long time remained the best in the world, and when it ceased to be one, it still made England a first-class sea power. In reality, England lost the title of mistress of the seas in the second half of WWII, when the US Navy reached the multi-powerful standard - that is, their Navy became stronger than all the Navy of other countries of the world combined

[Arthur 85]

Yes, at first I wanted to write: when Churchill sold the "birthright" for 50 destroyers, and then remembered this agreement, in which, whatever you say, England recognized by documents that it was no longer the best of the best, but only one of the two ... And then it went, and went.

[EXPrompt]

Quote: Arthur 85

Yes, at first I wanted to write: when Churchill sold the "birthright" for 50 destroyers, and then remembered this agreement, in which, whatever you say, England recognized by documents that it was no longer the best of the best, but only one of the two ... And then it went, and went.

Well, actually, it must be considered in general from the very roots.
Well, let's say I am of the opinion that Hitler, for example, lost the 2nd World War in 1925.
Exactly at that moment when he wrote Mine camph, and there he proclaimed the true teisises about the Aryans, exactly at that moment he lost. Having bet on 92 million of the Aryan population, this is a little not enough for a world war.

[Catfish]

Matvey, under Thatcher, they somehow fiddled with the Falklands and were very proud of their "victory". But the victory was some kind of Pyrrhic, how many ships did they lose there? Well, since then nothing at all.

[Pereira]

Pyrrova, not Pyrrova, but achieved his.

[mat-vey]

Well, then she started optimizing, but there were still specialists. They came from, I think the carrier’s container was loaded into the battle.
Incidentally - this war showed what the absence of its own advanced industry means - I'm talking about Argentina. And there is fighting spirit, and with supplies easier than the Angles, but no weapons. NATO countries have cut off supplies and if you please sign the surrender.

[Catfish]

They from, to mine a container of a cart carrier an aircraft carrier got into trouble and into battle.

Exactly the container ship Atlantic Conveyor, but the Argentines sunk it too.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mat-vey

They from, to mine a container of a cart carrier an aircraft carrier got into trouble and into battle.

Still, not an aircraft carrier, but air transport

[Grigory_45]

Quote: mat-vey

They from, in my container wagon carrier aircraft carrier got into trouble and into battle

"Atlantic Conveyor" - Air transport, i.e. ship intended for transportation airplanes and helicopters. He can’t use the transported aircraft, and this differs from the aircraft carrier (aircraft carrier).

Quote: mat-vey

this war showed what it means to have no own advanced industry — I'm talking about Argentina.

and what, the British were doing better ?? They completely failed the air defense of the AUG, suffered considerable losses, and the British admirals owe their victory only to the even more depressing state of the armed forces of Argentina.

[mat-vey]

Quote: Gregory_45

suffered heavy losses, and the British admirals owe their victory only to the even more depressing state of the armed forces of Argentina.

Well, I’m talking about the fact that there is little left of the previous training. But if sclerosis doesn’t fail me, Argentina ran out of all anti-ship missiles and they simply had nothing to fight.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: mat-vey

Argentina ran out of anti-ship missiles and they simply had nothing to fight.

Do you seriously think that the Exocetates were deciding something in a global sense? How many ships were sunk by them? You will be surprised, but with ordinary cast-iron - more sunk and damaged. The point is not that these unfortunate anti-ship missiles ended, but that the KVMS blocked the Argentinean fleet, the aircraft struck the territory of Argentina, and then the landing also landed.
Wars are won not by ships, not missiles, not planes - but the foot of an infantryman on enemy territory

[mat-vey]

During the conduct of active hostilities, especially after they became tense, the armed forces of Argentina found themselves in a situation of acute shortage of modern models of military equipment. Troops lacked everything from night vision devices to anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. In the context of this problem, the weaknesses of the national military-industrial complex and its critical dependence on sources of import of weapons were fully revealed.

Amid the economic embargo by its main suppliers, Argentina faced the difficult task of replenishing military equipment and ammunition lost in battle. Weak potential and insufficient production capacities of domestic industry did not fully compensate for the consequences of international sanctions.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: mat-vey

During the conduct of active hostilities, especially after they became tense, the armed forces of Argentina found themselves in a situation of acute shortage of modern models of military equipment.

they didn’t have it (modern technology) before the war

[mat-vey]

And what did you mean by that? What equipment doesn’t need in spare parts and ammunition? And what if an embargo is announced to you, and you don’t have your own, this equipment will fight on patriotism?
What did Napoleon say about the war without gunpowder?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: mat-vey

NATO countries deliveries chopped off and if you please surrender sign

Actually, Argenitina capitulated after the British landed naval assault and the siege of Port Stanley. Those. after the land phase. Only then did the command of the Argentine contingent in the Falklands realize that there was no other choice but to capitulate.
The victory, though given to the British, was not easy, but it was their victory.

[mat-vey]

... if Argentina attacked in 1983, Britain would lose the war. Aircraft carriers would be sold, massive reductions that had already begun in November 1981 and peaked in the spring of 1982 would have made the Royal Navy incapable of winning the Falkland battle. At least the way it actually happened.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: mat-vey

... if

history has no subjunctive mood

[mat-vey]

And here is it about history? Here is just about "From the title of Great Britain" Lady of the Seas "there is only one name left"

[Grigory_45]

Quote: mat-vey

But is it really about history?

About the alternative:

Quote: mat-vey

... if Argentina attacked in 1983, Britain would lose the war. Aircraft carriers would be sold, massive cuts that had already begun in November 1981 and peaked in the spring of 1982 would have made the Royal Navy incapable of winning the Falkland battle

[mat-vey]

And instead of analyzing the situation, do you see an alternative history everywhere, or only in this case?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: mat-vey

And instead of analyzing the situation, there is an alternative history for you "

for you there is a difference: analysis of a real situation, and fortune-telling on the topic "what would have happened if ..."?

[mat-vey]

And where did you see the "fortune-telling"? Extrapolation of events in the armed forces of England led by M. Thatcher.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Sea Cat

under Thatcher, they somehow twitched with the Falklands and were very proud of their "victory".

They have taken over someone else's territory, but no one is shouting "Vernitemalvins". And dermocracy is not violated.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: tihonmarine

Captured foreign territory

Well, as it were, in fact, the conflict began with the attack of Argentina on the Falkland Islands :)

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Well, as it were, in fact, the conflict began with the attack of Argentina on the Falkland Islands:

Which Britain captured from Argentina in 1833. Now here I wonder where the truth is.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

Well, let’s put it in the 19th century and Russia (like all other countries) took over everything that lay bad - at the end of the 20th century it’s stupid to suffer according to what was lost 1,5 centuries ago. And the rights of the Argentines to the Falklands-Malvins are very, very snotty - it was the British who discovered the islands, and it was the British and the French (and not the Argentines) who were the first to establish settlements on the islands, but because of the harsh climate, the English (and any other) presence died out, but Britain never refused the rights to the archipelago. In fact, until the restoration of the British presence, the islands were controlled by American corsairs, English and American whalers and Argentine exiled criminals who did not obey the Argentine authorities - the first and only Argentine governors killed their own Argentine convicts quickly, so from the point of view of international law, the Argentines claim gently speaking little substantiated.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

The first to establish settlements on the islands, but because of the harsh climate, English

And the Spaniards were there for two centuries, after the formation of Argentina, it settled, but after 12 years in 1833 the Angles

[Sergej1972]

And how many years did Argentina exist by 1833? And has she ever controlled these islands?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: tihonmarine

Which Britain captured from Argentina in 1833.

You are mistaken. The Falkland Islands were discovered either by the British or the Spaniards, and the British claimed their rights to these islands back in 1765. Actually, the French (who had a small settlement in the Falklands by that time) could have argued these rights, but certainly not the Argentines, who they quietly seized their hands, taking advantage of the fact that the British at some point evacuated the population.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Wrong.

Maybe I'm wrong, but still there is no exact definition. The story goes that the islands were discovered at the end of the XNUMXth century by D. Davis, the English navigator, under whose command the expedition of the English corsair Cavendish took place. According to other sources, the Spaniards were the first to discover the archipelago. Since that time, almost a war has been waged for the Malvinas Islands. They repeatedly passed either to Britain or to Spain, so there are no indigenous people here.
I worked in this area and repeatedly went to the islands, everyone speaks English, and people from all over the world, not a very good climate, that people from the metropolis would be rich there.

[mat-vey]

Yes, they have had an official lawsuit with varying success and without interruption since 1940, but the junta in Argentina lost their nerves.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: tihonmarine

Maybe I'm wrong, but still there is no exact definition.

This is one of the many controversial issues, but it’s impossible to say that England captured the originally Argentine islands :)

[mr.ZinGer]

Nevertheless, it was an indicator of the preparation of the fleet. A fleet of ten thousand miles from the metropolis completed the task. Here, besides direct military operations, there is also logistics.

[mat-vey]

Quote: mr.ZinGer

Nevertheless, it was an indicator of the preparation of the fleet.

Remnants of the former preparation. Argentina simply ran out of "what to fight", and no one sold them anymore. And they gave up.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mat-vey

Remains of past training

Quite the contrary - the British were forced to close the flaws of the materiel with crew training and fighting spirit. They, in general, succeeded, albeit at the cost of heavy losses.

[mat-vey]

This is when after landing they first began to deploy the hospital?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mat-vey

This is when after landing

This is when they landed in the performance zone of the Argentinean aircraft on the performance characteristics of the head superior to the miserable Harrier. And when, before landing, the British frigate, with his own belly, checked the presence of anchor mines in the landing zone, since there were no minesweepers.

[mat-vey]

And how does one contradict the other? Only the British organized the production of the necessary weapons, albeit with strain. But Argentina had no where and nothing, and there was no one to establish production. And the fact that the Germans had to start supplying them in connection with the conflict NATO’s flax was discontinued. So what kind of weapon was running out and there wasn’t any new place to wait.
Well, if the British sold the fleet, reduced the military, then what are these not leftovers?

[mr.ZinGer]

The French should have delivered, PCR Exosset.

[mat-vey]

And what kind of "logistics" do you mean? As you say, "there were many aspects." The British had to "carry" far away, but there was something to carry and on what. And Argentina had nothing to carry and it was simply impossible to carry it to view of a complete naval blockade.
Or do you think that the landing can last long on the island without supplies and support from the air and sea?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mat-vey

And how does one contradict the other?

Yes, it completely contradicts. The Argentines had quite modern Mirages and Super Ethandars, which were noticeably better than the Harriers, plus they were trite superior in the number of British planes. However, the latter still landed. This indicates the high professionalism of the British, and you write

Quote: mat-vey

Remains of past training

[mat-vey]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Yes, it completely contradicts. The Argentines had quite modern Mirages and Super Ethandars, which were noticeably better than the Harriers

But the Harriers had something to shoot, while the Argentineans quickly lost their racquets and that’s it - fly like a swallow, high and beautiful, or else they’ll be shot, although it was.
And the question is, how can landing troops defend without support from the air and sea?
and yes, with the land, the Germans also broke off.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mat-vey

But the Harriers had something to shoot, while the Argentineans quickly lost their racquets and that’s it - fly like a swallow, high and beautiful, or else they’ll be shot, although it was.

What kind of rackets? :)))) The British, with the exception of 2 frigates with Sivulfs (SAM), ships were unable to repel attacks of subsonic attack aircraft (Skyhawk) with free-falling bombs. The air defense systems either did not have time to react or could not work at low altitudes (Sea Dart) or were completely useless because they could not get into anyone (Sea Kat) and there was no quick-fire artillery (except for single 114 mm)

[mat-vey]

Do you know what embargo is? What is production?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

I know. And yes, I was very serious at one time in the Falkland conflict, there is a series of my articles on it in VO. Therefore, there is no need for general words about rackets and embargoes, be more specific, please. If you are swimming in a question, then say so, it’s normal and not ashamed, we all know something, we don’t know something

[mat-vey]

Well then, when did Argentina even have a BC for foreign equipment over? Yes, yes, again about racquets and embargoes. Not to mention that a bunch of machinery and equipment was never delivered and not equipped.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

In short, the BC for imported military equipment from the Argentines did not end throughout the Falkland conflict. And if a little more, then in the evening

[mat-vey]

Then I wait. Although I missed this topic in the background, it constantly sounded about the problems of the military-industrial complex of Argentina, and about the lack of supplies that they themselves do not produce, and that’s just what their imported equipment shoots, well, of course it’s repaired. Well, and what’s global the rearmament was in full swing and was immediately stopped, as the suppliers were all NATO members.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mat-vey

Then I wait.

First, let's see what the Argentines had in the air. Formally, the Argentine Air Force had at the beginning of the conflict 240 aircraft, but there were a lot of problems with them. Firstly, some of them, in principle, were not suitable for battle with British ships, and of those that were suitable, due to a lack of spare parts and, apparently, certain elements of slovenliness, many were not ready. For the most modern aircraft, the statistics are approximately as follows:
Super Etandar - total 5, combat readiness 4
Mirage III - total 19 (or 21) combat readiness 12
Dagger - total 39, combat readiness 25
Skyhawk - total 68-70, combat readiness 39
That is, yes, on the one hand, it seems that embargoes, sanctions and lack of spare parts have done their dirty deed and undermined the combat effectiveness of the Argentine Air Force. But on the other hand, the British at the beginning of the conflict had as many as 20 Sea Harriers - against 80 Argentina's combat-ready aircraft!
Further. All reviews usually mention that Argentina ordered 28 Exocet anti-ship missiles, but received only 5. But the Argentines also had other Exocets - their ships carried 20 launchers for the Exocets, only they could not be used from aircraft. The Argentines did not dare to give a naval battle , but they had such opportunities - they were afraid to fight.
The most important thing is that these 5 missiles in the mass consciousness turned into the only weapon of Argentina, they say, as they were shot, all the chances to fight the Argas ended :)))) And this is far from the case.
The problem of the British was that they had almost littered with ship's air defense. Their Sea Darts could not work for low-flying targets, and against jet aircraft leaving on a low-level flight, they were practically useless. The most common Sea Kat air defense systems were generally worthless - out of 80 missiles fired, it was possible (possibly!) To get one. Only the Sivulfs worked more or less (but they also overslept 40% of all attacks, but nevertheless in those in which they did not oversleep, 10 missiles shot down 4 aircraft), but the British had Sivulfs only on 2 frigates. English did not have MZA. As a result, for the entire time of the conflict, naval air defense systems and British artillery managed to bring down only 7 aircraft.
The much admired Harriers have proven themselves to be disgusting machines. In total, during the period of May 1-25, the Argentines tried 32 times to attack British ships, 104 aircraft took part in these attempts. The British managed to intercept groups of attacking aircraft 9 times (before they launched an attack), but only managed to thwart 6 attacks (19% of the total), in other cases the Argentines, although they suffered losses, nevertheless broke through to the British ships. All in all, out of 104 attacking aircraft, 85 were able to attack British ships, i.e. The Sea Harriers were able to thwart attacks of only 18,26% of the total number of Argentine aircraft participating in them. And this despite the superiority of air-to-air missiles that the British had!
That is, in fact, it turned out like this. The main combat weapon of Argentina was jet subsonic aircraft with free-falling bombs. This, of course, does not attract modern weapons by the standards of 1982, but the problem is that the British did not have any reliable means of opposing EVEN SUCH an enemy. And the Falkland conflict had to be pulled out solely on the decisiveness and excellent combat training of British sailors and combat pilots. A detailed analysis shows that the British fought very skillfully and desperately, but they did not have any effective material part, and they pulled this conflict hardly .

[mat-vey]

As it is ambivalent. Of the "working" planes of Argentina, it turns out that almost all of them are lost, even though the British had nothing to fight. The fleet is also locked in ports. Especially as Argentina has an aerial bomb, too, because of problems with fuses. The missiles are all the same. over?
And what happens? When the British began to land, they had at least something, like one of the materiel was ships with aircraft, albeit inferior but capable of at least fighting something. And Argentina has landing, without supplies and essentially without support. Plus in Argentina itself with support is not very, to say the least. Well, what's the point of floundering? Even though England does not have much equipment, it’s still better than Argentina’s nothing.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: mat-vey

From the "working" planes of Argentina, it turns out that almost all are lost

Who told you this? :))))) By the beginning of the landing (night of May 21), the Argentines lost only 9 relatively modern aircraft (or maybe less, too lazy to look, but definitely not more than 9). 11 more screw (!) Attack aircraft, which had no value, were destroyed by the SAS landing.

Quote: mat-vey

The fleet is also locked in ports

The Argentine fleet was not barred by anything but its fear of going to sea. British surface ships never in the course of the conflict blocked Argentine ports on the continent, and submarines left there long before the British disembarked. The Argentines were afraid to throw the fleet into battle, although they had superiority in aircraft and quite modern anti-ship missiles on ships.

Quote: mat-vey

Moreover, like the air bombs in Argentina, too, not ah because of problems with fuses.

And who is to blame for this? :)))) The Argentines themselves, who, apparently, did not observe storage rules. In any case, the issue could be solved relatively easily by testing the bombs in the warehouses, sometimes aviation is worth training with real ammunition :))) The Argentines did not do this and, accordingly, did not identify problems with fuses in a timely manner.

Quote: mat-vey

And what happens? When the British began to land, they had at least something, like some of the materiel was ships with aircraft, albeit inferior but capable of at least fighting something. And Argentina has landing, without supplies and, in fact, without support

You were mistaken a little more than completely. It was after the landing that the most massive sorties of the Argentine Air Force took place. Of the 247 sorties that took place from May 1 to May 25, 163 were made from May 21 to May 25, that is, the most fierce battles took place within five days after the start of the landing. Later, until June 19, there were about a hundred more sorties.

[mr.ZinGer]

Many reasons.
RCC Exosset was not very.
I read that "Shefield" simply burned down, when hit by the warhead it did not work, the fire broke out from the du, the superstructure was aluminum.
There were several direct hits of air bombs in ships, but there were no explosions.
The main attack aircraft of the Argentines was Skyhawk, which flew at the limit of range from the continent and did not pull against Khirier in an air battle.
But the fleet completed its task.

[ioan-e]

Many reasons

And there are 2 more books - The Lonely Raid and the Breakthrough Course, there Peter the Great fought for the Argentine against the Germans!

[Krasnodar]

Quote: Sea Cat

Matvey, under Thatcher, they somehow fiddled with the Falklands and were very proud of their "victory". But the victory was some kind of Pyrrhic, how many ships did they lose there? Well, since then nothing at all.

Welcome
Why pyrrhic? The islands conquered thousands of kilometers from their shores, under the nose of the Argentines, near their ports, bases, airfields, etc. Losses in people and aviation caused the Latinos more than they themselves lost, in principle, norms, no?

[Catfish]

I had in mind the losses of Britain, in my opinion, incompatible with the technical level of the state, especially in comparison with Argentina. Those. the game was hardly worth the candle.

[Krasnodar]

Quote: Sea Cat

I had in mind the losses of Britain, in my opinion, incompatible with the technical level of the state, especially in comparison with Argentina. Those. the game was hardly worth the candle.

In my personal opinion, it’s difficult to even fight with the Papuans, especially in Papua New Guinea, and about the sheepskin, it was worth, of course. The British showed that they can protect their interests anywhere in the world, which is already commendable

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Sea Cat

I had in mind the losses of Britain, in my opinion, incompatible with the technical level of the state, especially in comparison with Argentina

Yes, in terms of technology (especially air defense), the British screwed up. Substandard air defense systems, the absence of MZA on ships, the absence of AWACS, the Harrier without radar .... The British were lucky in the sense that the Argentinean technique was even worse.

But after the Falklands, the British (and not only them, but all the countries that followed the conflict, including the USSR) made the proper conclusions.

Quote: Sea Cat

the game was hardly worth the candle

was worth it. Britain would lose face in the face of the international community if it allowed Argentina to prevail, or if it wiped itself and let things go on the brakes. Avoiding reputational losses of this rank is worth the money spent. The British showed that they were still worth something, although they had an operation almost on the verge of a foul

[mr.ZinGer]

I would not say that this is a feast of victory.
The ratio of casualties and ship composition is not in favor of Argentina.
Again, the British fleet was in worse conditions compared to Argentina.

[Thrifty]

Britain will sell its aircraft carrier to the Chinese, and send it to the shores of China, as promised? New owners of movable property, self-propelled property

[Sergey39]

Britain is no longer the "ruler of the seas". If only through their "North American cousins".

[bars1]

So, the Englishwoman must!

[Dizel200]

They laugh in vain. a good enemy is a dead enemy, and the Saxons are far from that.

[Vasyan1971]

They hope that the principle “First you work for the image, and then the image works for you” will work. However, it works: "Stopped - lagged behind."

[lopuhan2006]

But so far, no one has taken the title of one of the world wallets from Great Britain. And given that they decide when to unleash wars, the fleet can be neglected in this case for the near future.

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: lopuhan2006

But while the title of one of the world's wallets from the UK no one took away

They actively began to fight with this title. Britain used to be one of the "safe havens" for stolen capital. But greed prevailed, and they decided to "plunder the loot" a little ... I suppose that now the capital will try to find a more peaceful place.

[Pereira]

There are no more such places.

[orionvitt]

Quote: lopuhan2006

nobody took away the title of one of the world wallets from Great Britain.

Strange, but not enough for new ships.

Now the dates are going to be shifted for a number of reasons, including financial ones.

[TermNachTer]

I appeal to the local all-fledged people, you see the situation - and there no one shouts: "Everything is lost, chief." The mattress admiral was quoted here - it's not very good there either. Nuclear submarines fail faster than they are replaced. The cruiser, which is supposed to replace the "Ticonderoga", has not yet begun to draw, and the operating cruisers are massively going to suck. So, it's not all bad. As one of the greats said: "Do what you must, and let it be what will be."

[Cyrus]

Why was this sobbing?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: TermNachTER

I appeal to the local all-conspirators, you see the situation - and there no one shouts: "Everything is lost, chief"

There are a lot of people screaming about it.

[cniza]

With this approach, the UK will move into the second tier of countries with a navy.

Noble, I do not like the word trolling, a joke of Great Britain ...

[Andrea]

What can you do if the oaks remained only in parliament, and the fleet cannot be cut out of them.

[knn54]

Was England the mistress of the seas?

[Incvizitor]

Well, in any case, it was worth something.

[Catfish]

What now? From the title "mistress of the seas" is left one name ...

And why does she need a fleet, the Americans have enough for all ships, but for "prestige" and a pair of nuclear submarines will be enough.
If a world turmoil begins, then everyone will still be who first started and who "had more cartridges."

[Cyrus]

Not a fact, far from a fact.

[Evil Booth]

I have been writing for a long time that the military industry of england fell below the same Iranian so that in the general mass they level out. and the English fleet can be beaten by some of the African ones. This is on the topic of "patriots" chatbots that in Russia there is 1 avik ... and in England there are already two ... and in Russia there are heels of ready-made APLs and in England ... yes, and foreign missiles ... they have no missiles for several years and will not be)) this is google, those are already all and the new ones have not yet been invented and have not been purchased ... no planes, nothing. tanks cannons shells rszo names that hundreds and hundreds and where is it all? abroad. produce only separate units without developing new ones. in the same Iran, the entire complexes ... air defense a full set of missiles from 2 to 2000 km of all possible types of types and sights for them) including anti-ship missiles and missiles and anti-tank systems and others. to the tmou in the English army, the shortage of the army and relano in battle can go 1 or 2 regiments, and all together they are far from 100 even.

[mat-vey]

Well, the "red witch" tried ..

[Evil Booth]

that is, 6 PCRs drowned 6 English ships as they don’t hint

[Beck]

No luck trying for centuries ...

[xxxGibSoNxxx]

Sohu: One title left from UK title “mistress of the seas”

Well, that is, someone really wants to live by the old rules (well, when they owned the seas there)? And the Chinese plow, just plow? Are they not afraid that they will be dry literally? China, then, is not at all big ..

[Doctor]

With the advent of aviation and missiles, a fleet is not needed to take over the world.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Arzt

With the advent of aviation and missiles, the fleet is not needed in order to rule the world.

yeah, yeah ... name at least one war won exclusively by aviation and missiles?

[Doctor]

yeah, yeah ... name at least one war won exclusively by aviation and missiles?

It's not about winning wars, it's about power over the world.
We can say no fleet now. We do not need him.
So are the British.
The fate of China is being decided in London. With or without a fleet.

[Lamata]

All soon Sokhu will announce that China is the Middle Empire, and Comrade Xi Jingping is Bogdykhan.

[Slavutich]

Chinese edition of Sohu - but how else

[Chaldon48]

In vain, the English sailors laugh vast experience. In the event of a military clash, the Chinese will not be good

[xxxGibSoNxxx]

In vain, the English sailors laugh vast experience. In the event of a military clash, the Chinese will not be good

Efficiency of interception of ballistic missiles, which by the way are 101% all, fly at hypersonic speed .. in the best case, no more than 30%! Why do we need a fleet if it does not guarantee literally anything! At this point in time, everything is decided by the economy. Everything else, we'll see.

[Ros 56]

Especially with this, as he, in remembered, with Nelson.
As my old friend says, experience, like sexual impotence, comes over the years.
But over the years, technology and its components are changing. And I didn’t observe something special experience of naval battles over the past 30 years. So what is it about?

[gurzuf]

Nothing wrong! Ukraine will help them!

[Reserve buildbat]

I agree with the Chinese that less and less of the British fleet remains, but if the tonality of the "plow" article is preserved, then I would like to say that the Chinese are a tram boor.

[Fishery]

in fact, China morally takes revenge on the times of the region’s colonization of the region by Europeans and its humiliation, the states are able to cover up England, as well as to hurt China.

[Grigory_45]

Once upon a time, Great Britain called itself the mistress of the seas and an empire over which the sun never sets. What now? From the title "mistress of the seas" there is only one name left, and with it, apparently, problems.

the Chinese press so far is wishful thinking. KVMS is still a pretty powerful thing. They contain quite a lot of modern ships (Deringi are considered one of the best destroyers in the world, Wengard submarine missiles and Astyut-class multipurpose submarines are very good), including two aircraft carriers.

Of course, if Britain continues to reduce the Navy, it will slide to the level of Russia or even lower. Moreover, for the British it will be fatal - they traditionally developed the Navy, the fleet was the main striking force, the army was never a priority.

[Ros 56]

Judging by the publication of this Sokha, the Chinese have a lot of aplomb. Apparently want a striped substitute in the world.

[dzvero]

Now they just want to, but someday they can replace it. In the meantime, we all read Sokha together to imagine what the world will be like under the rule of the Chinese ...

[Mihail2019]

No, we are reading Soho to imagine how the Chinese see the whole world ..
This is close to what you say, but still not that!

[Mihail2019]

Well, for this, apparently, Russia exists - so that some would not "burrow". Including millennials.

[lopuhan2006]

Quote: orionvitt

Quote: lopuhan2006

nobody took away the title of one of the world wallets from Great Britain.

Strange, but not enough for new ships.

Now the dates are going to be shifted for a number of reasons, including financial ones.

Those for 7 years to spank the Duncans, 2 aircraft carriers are you missing? I think that if they feel like it, they will do as much as necessary. I don't even want to talk about us. For me, this is an example of the "reasonable sufficiency" approach applied to the UK.

[Victor March 47]

Quote: Spectrum

She is mistress overseas, as she was and remained. Nigvinostan unconditionally fulfills all the requirements of the queen.

Dumbass. Small Britain has become a toilet for its overseas patrons. They do not spit on the queen publicly, not in the name of respect, but in the name of tradition. But her fantasies remain within Westminster, and do not go beyond the borders of the island, but also beyond the fence of this barn.

[Victor March 47]

Quote: Ros 56

Judging by the publication of this Sokha, the Chinese have a lot of aplomb. Apparently want a striped substitute in the world.

It will happen, and very soon.

[Tank jacket]

From the title "China-World Factory" also remains the name ... Hi Sohu. Buy ice cream from Russia.

[Andobor]

Yes, all the fry have crawled out - and yet the same great power was.
- A pompous misunderstanding, stuck at the exit from feudalism, - Papuan with diamonds.

[Keyser soze]

A pompous misunderstanding, stuck on the way out of feudalism, -

Just to remind you that Magna Harta was signed on June 15, 1215. And with which the absolutism of the king is limited and the rights of citizens are affirmed. 13th century Karl! In the whole other world, this is a gloomy Middle Ages .... England is the mother of all modern freedom and Parliamentary democracy.

[Andobor]

Quote: Keyser Soze

England is the mother of all modern freedom and Parliamentary democracy.

Yes, Karl, there in the 13th century it also hung, according to the level of social development, but there were no show-offs.
At the time, they robbed those who only seduced from the trees - and are still seriously proud of it.

[mister-red]

You know a bad story. Somehow in American or something. Free of course, but for whom. You first read the reasons for all this. And yes, the constitutional monarchy in the absence of the constitution is some kind of nonsense. Well, yes, political traditions, precedents, etc. In the 90s, too, liberals extolled the US kontintituation, in which over the course of a couple of centuries only a few amendments were added. And their election system, which has not changed since. However, now it even dawns on ordinary Americans how much this does not correspond to modern times.

[Mihail2019]

Or maybe the small-shavens have already come to terms with the fact that they "slept", fighting in Europe, all of Asia. And now I'm terribly curious, what kind of bill can China roll out to "gentlemen"? Starting with the "opium" wars ..

[Freemason Mason]

At one time, Europeans and Americans built their factories in China, invested a huge amount of money, which gave him a leap in economic development. Only because of this, China now does not match Africa in terms of living standards. The Chinese turned out to be unable to build an efficient economy without outside help, there is no need to run far for an example - it is difficult to forget Mao and his "Great Leap Forward" and the subsequent famine. And after that they will "roll out the accounts" of the UK and the USA ?! Over the last thousand years, these "roll-outs" have not won a single more or less significant war, their hands are still short to "roll out" there. I will not hide that in this confrontation I sympathize with the West, it is better they are enemies, but they are old and familiar than China, from which it is not clear what to expect, which gradually, expanding its sphere of influence, will reach (or has already reached) us.

[mister-red]

I want to remind you that Britain destroyed the Indian economy at one time, and China planted opium on it. If it weren’t for all this, China and India would be ahead of everyone at the beginning of the 20th century.

[mat-vey]

Quote: Freemason

At one time, Europeans and Americans built their factories in China, invested a huge amount of money, which gave him a leap in economic development.

And who let them into the country, and who did it.

[CommanderDIVA]

The world is ruled by financial flows and those who control them, and these are just the Anglo-Saxons, the times of a large number of warships, guns and missiles are gradually becoming a thing of the past, and whoever understands this is the winner, so how we build the fleet now is the optimum, the Chinese need control the growing trade routes to Europe, Asia and Africa