Military Review

Falklands-82. Electronic warfare

73

Exoset AM-39 - the main threat to the British fleet in the Falklands in 1982. Source: artstation.com


Connected South Atlantic


Material "Falklands-82. Argentine suicide " aroused considerable interest among the readers of "Military Review", therefore a more detailed analysis stories fierce confrontation looks quite logical.

The Armed Forces of Argentina for the British Navy were quite a serious force, for a meeting with which they had to prepare. The enemy was armed with both anti-aircraft missile systems and quite modern French-made AM-39 Exoset anti-ship missiles. British helicopters Boeing CH-47 Chinook, Sikorsky S-61 Sea King, Sud-Aviation Gazelle, Westland Wessex, Scout and Lynx were equipped with dipole radio reflectors, infrared emitters and disposable jammers before the battle.


Sikorsky S-61 Sea King. One of six helicopter models used by the British in the war with Argentina. Source: war-book.ru

In a hurry, the shock and reconnaissance aviation the group, which included Phantom FGR.2, Sea Harrier, Harrier GR.3 and Nimrod MR.1 / 2 air reconnaissance. The Vulcan B2 bombers were retrofitted with the American AN / ALQ-101 radio jammers, which were removed from the Blackburn Buccaneer attack aircraft.

The British took radio camouflage seriously in the area of ​​the operation. The communications on the air were reduced to a minimum and the radiation modes of radars, guidance and suppression systems were strictly regulated. It is noteworthy that one of the reasons for such silence was the invisible presence of third forces.

According to a number of authors, in particular, Mario de Archangelis in the book "Electronic Warfare: From Tsushima to Lebanon and the Falklands War," the Soviet Union actively monitored the state of affairs during the conflict. The Tu-95RT sea reconnaissance plane was regularly dispatched to the South Atlantic, and the British were accompanied by harmless fishing trawlers along the route of the Royal Navy squadrons. The latter were Soviet spy ships in disguise.

The jump airfield for naval reconnaissance aircraft was located in Angola (at that time controlled by the Cubans). A group of Soviet reconnaissance satellites of the "Cosmos" type continuously worked over the South Atlantic. They intercepted radiation from British radars, encrypted radio messages and took photographs of the Falkland Islands.

There is even an assumption that the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense of the Soviet Union, receiving data on the development of events in the other hemisphere almost live, shared this information with Buenos Aires. Moreover, the USSR, specially for the Falklands conflict, put many satellites into orbit for several years, the flight interval of which over the conflict zone was less than 20 minutes.

The Soviet system of naval space reconnaissance and target designation "Legend", consisting mainly of devices of the "Kosmos" series, even made it possible to predict the time of the landing of the British landing on the islands occupied by Argentina.

Falklands-82. Electronic warfare
Argentina still considers the Falklands as its own and even calls the Malvinas archipelago. Source: en.wikipedia.org

Moscow's interest in the war on the other side of the world was not accidental.

A local skirmish involving a large grouping of ships of a potential enemy could not pass by the Soviet leadership. Moreover, the British were not going to fight with the banana republic at all, but with the strongest army in South America.

The British were informed about the close observation of the Soviet space group by their American partners. The United States operated the KH-9 Hexagon and KH-11 satellites in the South Atlantic with the latest digital data transmission system. In particular, during the passage of the Soviet satellite over the British squadron, the British tried to minimize the work in the radio range.

British magic tricks


The Argentine forces blatantly neglected electronic warfare and camouflage techniques. Largely because of not the most advanced technical equipment, but mainly because of their own carelessness. In particular, the tragically lost cruiser General Belgrano did not limit the operation of its radar and radio communication systems in any way, thereby greatly simplifying its own detection and tracking.

The British were much more careful and sophisticated.

Modern military analysts identify three main tactical techniques for conducting electronic warfare by British forces.


Sheffield is doomed. Source: warspot.ru

First of all, the ships created masking passive interference for the homing heads of AM-39 Exoset missiles. As soon as the locators detected approaching anti-ship missiles, onboard launchers fired unguided rockets stuffed with radio reflectors.

Usually, at a distance of 1-2 kilometers from the attacked vessel, up to four false targets were formed from reflectors, the life of which did not exceed 6 minutes. The main thing is that there is no storm at this time.

Various materials were used for the manufacture of reflectors - aluminum foil strips, fiberglass threads in aluminum, as well as nylon threads coated with silver. The British were so afraid of homing missile attacks that they even got used to throwing reflectors with exhaust gases through the ship's pipes just in case.

Panic in the Royal Navy came after the Argentines fatally damaged a Type 4 Sheffield destroyer with a displacement of 1982 tons on 42 May 4100 by a French anti-ship missile. Plessey Aerospace, a manufacturer of Doppler radio reflectors, was forced to fulfill defense orders around the clock.

Save Hermes


The British passive electronic trap was first effective in the midst of the conflict on 25 May, when the flagship of the Centauro Hermes R-12-class anti-submarine aircraft carrier was hit. It was approached by Argentine Super Etendards (French production) from the 2nd Fighter-Assault Squadron and fired three AM-45 Exosets from a distance of 39 km.

The destroyer Exeter D-89 was the first to detect the short-term activation of on-board radars of enemy aircraft. They raised the alarm - it was not more than 6 minutes before the missiles hit.

Hermes and another aircraft carrier Invincible urgently raised several Lynx helicopters to jam missile homing heads. The ships also formed several large clouds with dipole reflectors around them.

As a result, one missile pecked at the bait, deviated from the target and was destroyed by the Sea Wolf anti-aircraft gun of one of the ships. Stories about the fate of the remaining rockets differ.

According to one version, both of them were re-targeted at the Atlantic Conveyor, which had been requisitioned from the civilian container ship, converted into an air transport.


Burning out Atlantic Conveyor. Source: thinkdefence.co.uk

The ship had no chance in this fleeting electronic warfare - as soon as Exoset lost sight of the main targets, they found themselves the largest.

A hulking container ship with Chinook, Wessex and Lynx helicopters tried to stand astern to the direction of attack, but did not have time and received two missiles at once.

The explosion and subsequent fire killed 12 crew members, including the ship's commander. 130 people managed to evacuate from the burning vehicle, as well as one Chinook and Wessex.

The Atlantic Conveyor burned and exploded for two more days before sinking to the bottom with a huge number of MTOs and ten helicopters on board.

According to another version, the air transport received only one anti-ship missile, and the last of the three deviated so much that it fell into the sea after running out of fuel. Bitter experience for the British in confronting modern arms showed that even a missile deviated from the course is still a very serious danger.

Tricks against Exoset


In the final part of the conflict, the British more and more improved methods of dealing with the main threat to themselves - the anti-ship Exoset.

There is still no exact data on the number of missiles used by the Argentines, but there were hardly more than 10-15 launches. In fact, the British were lucky - the enemy had a little of this expensive weapon, as well as the means of delivery. Super Etendard aircraft were able to carry out only six missile launches, of which only three or four hit their targets.

The second missile countermeasure was the disruption of the target's auto-tracking by the Exoset homing head after the object was captured. The attacked ship within 2-4 minutes created a cloud of dipole reflectors at a distance of 2 km directly along the course of the rocket's flight. As a result, the cloud, together with the ship, appeared within the homing head strobe, the rocket was aimed at the snag, and the ship exited it with an anti-missile maneuver.

The destroyer Glamorgan D-19, which was hit by four Exoset missiles on June 12, 1982, was relatively successful in this way. It was in the coastal area of ​​Port Stanley, the destroyer fired at the Argentines entrenched in the port and missiles in response were fired from ground installations. Three missiles were deceived by the indicated maneuver, and the fourth pierced the left side of the vessel, ricocheted into the hangar, destroyed the Wessex helicopter and caused a massive fire. For great English luck, Exoset didn't explode. Nevertheless, 13 members of the destroyer's crew were killed.


Consequences of the Exoset missile hitting the destroyer Glamorgan D-19. Source: reddit.com

And, finally, the third means of electronic warfare against anti-ship missiles was the joint use of passive and active jamming along the flight path.

Simultaneously with the exposure of the dipole reflectors, the ship turned on active radio interference in the Exoset withdrawal mode to the reflector clouds.

However, such support was only possible in the event of a single missile attack.

How effective this technique was, history is silent.

To be continued ...
Author:
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 13 January 2021 05: 10
    +3
    and quite modern French-made AM-39 Exoset anti-ship missiles
    As many as 12 (or even 6) pieces for the whole Argentina.
    According to one version, both of them were re-targeted at the Atlantic Conveyor, which had been requisitioned from the civilian container ship, converted into an air transport.
    According to the Argentines, the Atlantic Conveyor was the main target of the attack. )))
    the destroyer fired at the Argentines entrenched in the port and rockets were fired from ground installations in response.
    No ground installations, this missile was also fired from the Etandars.
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 13 January 2021 15: 48
      +6
      “According to the Argentines, it was just that the Atlantic Conveyor was the main target of the attack.” Let me disagree here: they knew very well what was more important than an aircraft carrier or a transport. If they had not got into a transport, but some kind of scow, what would they say: "they deprived the British of the scow"? Here the principle: "fish without fish and cancer"
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2021 16: 21
        +6
        Quote: vladcub
        they knew very well what was more important than an aircraft carrier or transport

        But they fired out of sight, and were guided by the largest "exposure" on the radar. She could well be "Atlantic"
        1. vladcub
          vladcub 13 January 2021 16: 23
          +2
          Is there less exposure from an aircraft carrier?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2021 16: 32
            +7
            Quote: vladcub
            Is there less exposure from an aircraft carrier?

            Situations are easily possible in which it will be less. After all, it is not the displacement that is important (by the way, not so that it differs by an order of magnitude - about 16 and 24 thousand tons of the standard one), but the EPR, and here a lot of things matter, up to the position of the ship with the side / nose to the radar.
            The Argentines had a little time - they made a "slide", briefly turned on "Agave", and snapped at what seemed to them the maximum. Therefore - I will not be surprised at all
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 13 January 2021 17: 31
              +3
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              It is easily possible situations in which it will be less
              Just that case, the freeboard of the "A. conveyor" has increased sharply due to containers, it seems sis. "Arapaho" but not sure, and the British argued that the capture took place for this reason.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2021 17: 41
                +8
                It's very possible. Therefore, I do not say for sure that the Atlantic shone stronger than Hermes, but I am sure that this could well have happened.
          2. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 13 January 2021 17: 17
            +3
            Quote: vladcub
            Is there less exposure from an aircraft carrier?

            The photo with the "Conveyor" on fire shows that its "freeboard" is very high because of the containers and the mark is appropriate.
    2. nedgen
      nedgen 28 February 2021 02: 28
      +1
      I do not know about 15-16 missiles, but in the 80s "Foreign Military Review" published articles on this topic and it DIRECTLY says that only 4 (four) air-based AM39 missiles were delivered. They were supposed to deliver more, but after the start of the war, the French refused delivery and there were still several ground-based pieces. In addition, all the documentation and equipment for prelaunch preparation were also not delivered. And only by order from above, the local specialists somehow prepared the missiles for the arrow and hung them on Etandarov and there were ONLY 4 launches from aircraft. Two along Sheffield and two either along the Hermes AB, or along the Atlantic conveyor. Unfortunately, I don't have these magazines at hand now, so I can't quote for sure, but it seems that the magazine was either from 83 or 84. But I can vouch for the number of missiles in the article. It also talked about launching from a ground launcher at a British destroyer, but how many missiles were in the salvo were not indicated.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 28 February 2021 07: 44
        0
        Quote: nedgen
        but in the 80s "Foreign Military Review" published articles on this topic and it DIRECTLY said that only 4 (four) air-launched AM39 missiles were delivered
        I saw similar numbers in the book "Cruise missiles in naval combat" of the 86th edition, but I don’t remember exactly, it seems there are still 6 pieces.
    3. kig
      kig 18 March 2021 06: 08
      0
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      No ground installations, this missile was also fired from the Etandars.


      There are memoirs of the commander of the English squadron, in Russian translation. Here's what he writes about this attack:

      During these few days of calm, I noticed intelligence reports that the Argentines had deployed the Exocet Coastal Battery in the Stanley area.

      Next about the attack
      When the Glamorgan finally left the firing position at Port Stanley, I thought that he had misjudged the range of the Exocet Coastal Launcher located on the road to Port Harriet. But it looks like the Argentines have managed to move their mobile installations a little further east. Be that as it may, at 05.36 the Argentines fired one missile. Avenger saw her 10 miles away and alerted the ships after the missile was visually detected from Glamorgan. The rudder was moved aboard for a steep flap from the rocket, which ultimately, possibly, saved the ship. At a distance of one mile to the target, they fired a Sea Cat missile at it. The Glamorgan was still lurching as the cruise missile hit the aft upper deck exactly where it joined the port superstructure, not far from the hangar, and exploded.
  2. Far B
    Far B 13 January 2021 05: 50
    -1
    the British were not going to fight with the banana republic at all, but with the strongest army in South America
    What didn't make Argentina less banana laughing
    1. NEOZ
      NEOZ 13 January 2021 14: 13
      +2
      Quote: Dalny V
      What didn't make Argentina less banana

      yes, my hearing was cut too !!!!!
  3. Catfish
    Catfish 13 January 2021 05: 58
    +20
    "Having used up the supply of air-based anti-ship Exocets, the Argentines switched to improvisations. Local craftsmen removed and reprogrammed two ship-based Exocets from the old destroyer Segui - both missiles were delivered by a transport plane to the Falkland Islands, where they were secretly deployed to the coast by the British. The target designation was issued by the army mobile radar RASIT.
    On June 12, 1982, the destroyer "Glamorgan" came under fire from the shore - the first missile missed, the second struck the upper deck in the area of ​​the helipad and exploded, forming a 5-meter hole. Debris and explosion products penetrated the helicopter hangar, where at that time there was a fully fueled helicopter. The fire raged for four hours, 14 sailors were killed in the fight against the fire. The next day, with the help of floating workshops, the destroyer managed to regain limited combat capability. "(C)
    Oleg Kaptsov. March 13, 2013. Military review. History.

    It's not Glamorgan, but it still burns beautifully. smile
  4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2021 08: 10
    +18
    The British passive electronic trap first effectively worked in the midst of the conflict on 25 May, when the flagship of the task force's anti-submarine aircraft carrier, the Centauro Hermes R-12, came under attack.

    This actually happened on May 4th, when the British were first attacked by the Exosets.
    "Glasgow", warned of the presence of unknown aircraft nearby, managed to interfere, thereby rejecting the Exocet aiming at it, "Sheffield" did not have time to do this and died.
    In addition, it is completely unclear who exactly was the target of the May 25 attack. The British believed that the frigate Embuchseid was attacked, the Argentines said that the largest target in the British warrant was attacked. They did not see the ships visually, and fired at the largest radar illumination
    It was approached by Argentine Super Etendards (French production) from the 2nd Fighter-Assault Squadron and fired three AM-45 Exosets from a distance of 39 km.

    Two rockets. They used the last, third missile in another air raid on the British AB.
    As a result, one rocket pecked at the bait, deviated from the target and was destroyed by the Sea Wolf anti-aircraft gun of one of the ships.

    In fact, the sources do not mention that someone managed to fire anti-aircraft missiles or even artillery at the attacking planes or Exocets.
    According to one version, both of them were re-targeted at the Atlantic Conveyor, which had been requisitioned from the civilian container ship, converted into an air transport.

    yes, this version is canonical. But here is what Rear Admiral Woodworth writes about this:
    “He (Atlantic Conveyor) was on the line between Hermes and Emboscade. If the "Conveyor" had installations for setting up the LOC and deflected the missiles from itself, they could go directly to the aircraft carrier. It is not known if we could then deceive them again ... "

    That is, it is quite possible that the Argentines attacked the Atlantic Conveyor
    There is still no exact data on the number of missiles used by the Argentines, but there were hardly more than 10-15 launches. In fact, the British were lucky - the enemy had a little of this expensive weapon, as well as the means of delivery. Super Etendard aircraft were able to carry out only six missile launches, of which only three or four hit their targets.

    Why guess? The Argentines had 5 airborne Exocets, and all of them were used in that war. Another Exocet was launched from the coast, hitting the destroyer Glamorgan. Total - 6. I came across references to the seventh launch, the coastal battery fired, but fired at the end of the obsolete data and the rocket did not hit anywhere.
    Super Etendard planes were able to carry out only six missile launches

    I wonder how they managed to fire five missiles six times ...
    The destroyer Glamorgan D-19, which was hit by four Exoset missiles on June 12, 1982, was relatively successful in this way.

    One
    1. Crowe
      Crowe 13 January 2021 14: 39
      +12
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      "Glasgow", warned of the presence of unknown aircraft nearby, managed to interfere, thereby rejecting the Exocet aiming at it, "Sheffield" did not have time to do this and died.

      The Argentine strike group included five Super Etandar aircraft (two shock and one reserve, each armed with one Exocet anti-ship missile), two more aircraft served as tankers. The strike group was guided by the P-2N "Neptune" patrol aircraft. At a distance of 46 km, the flight altitude was increased to 150 m and the onboard radar was switched on for a short time, which made it possible to detect the Sheffield and Glasgow destroyers. The missiles were launched from a distance of 37 km (according to other sources - 30 km). Thus, the missiles were launched outside the potential detection zone of low-flying targets by British radars.

      Scheme of an air attack on the destroyer "Sheffield"
      Source: Journal "Foreign Military Review", No. 8 for 1984
      So also the commander of "Sheffield" ordered to turn off all radars and electronic devices of the ship - so as not to interfere with his conversations on the satellite communication channel "Skynet". One of the missiles was detected by the calculation of the radar "Glasgow" and was disoriented by means of dipole reflectors, and the second hit the destroyer Sheffield. The missile did not even explode, but piercing a hole in the hull 1,8 m above the waterline with a size of 4,5 by 1,2 m and passing through the power plant control post and the battle information center, got stuck in post survivability, causing a fire. Due to the large amount of combustible materials, foam fillers for thermal insulation, synthetic fabrics and paints, the fire began to spread rapidly, and the temperature in its epicenter reached 950–1100 ° C, which caused a fire in the aluminum-magnesium elements of the superstructure. The burning stopped only in the evening of May 5.

      Sheffield destroyer fire after anti-ship missile hit
      Source: naval.com.br
      They say that after this and similar cases (remember our MRK "Monsoon"), the imperialists abandoned aluminum-magnesium alloys for all the advantages thereof. The lives of sailors are more important.
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 13 January 2021 16: 18
        +2
        What's the story with: "Muson"? I don't know at all
        1. Avior
          Avior 14 January 2021 00: 01
          +2
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Муссон_(малый_ракетный_корабль)
          there are different versions of the causes of the tragedy, but the fact remains
          On April 16, 1987, "Monsoon", while at the naval exercises, was struck by the RM-15M training target missile launched from the R-42 missile boat from a distance of 21 km

          1. vladcub
            vladcub 15 January 2021 20: 20
            0
            thanks for the info
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2021 16: 20
        +13
        Quote: Crowe
        Source: Journal "Foreign Military Review", No. 8 for 1984

        Agas. Only now the data in it is "a little" outdated - you see, it was written in 1984.
        Quote: Crowe
        The Argentine strike group included five Super Etandar aircraft (two shock and one reserve, each armed with one Exocet anti-ship missile), two more aircraft served as tankers.

        Considering that the Argentines had exactly 4 (FOUR) combat-ready Super Etandar, you can estimate the accuracy of the source.
        Argentina signed a contract for 14 of these aircraft, but before the conflict with England and the accompanying embargo, only five cars got into the country. Moreover, one of them was immediately put on hold in order to be used as a warehouse for spare parts for four other aircraft - due to the same embargo, Argentina had no other sources of spare parts.
        Quote: Crowe
        One of the missiles was discovered by the crew of the Glasgow radar and disoriented with the help of dipole reflectors, and the second hit the destroyer Sheffield

        What and speech.
        1. yaglon
          yaglon 14 January 2021 20: 23
          +1
          I started reading and rested on 4 rockets on Gllemorgan, and somewhere in the hole it was stitched that there were only 6 rockets, it immediately caused surprise. Many thanks to Andrey from Chelyabinsk for the detailed answers, everything somehow fell into place. The ZVO of '84 in this case, of course, is a very weak source. In general, I think that it is somehow strange to refer to the ZVO in 2021, given that the information in the articles there was taken from foreign newspapers and magazines - those that we managed to get. Now I am reviewing the old ZVOs (I have a subscription since 1973) and I see how much unreliable garbage there is, up to the elementary ignorance of English-language military terminology.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 29 March 2021 18: 13
            +1
            The Argentines in the fleet had two British-built Type 42 destroyers, and, unlike British ships, each had 4 Exocets. Woodworth writes that the Exocets were also on the frigates escorting the General Belgrano. So, if desired, the Agrentines could easily dismantle from ships and transfer to Frolklands not one or two, but several Exocets. True, hemorrhoids with the "landing" of deck complexes has not been canceled.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 14 January 2021 12: 26
        0
        Quote: Crowe
        Due to the large amount of combustible materials, foam fillers for thermal insulation, synthetic fabrics and paints, the fire began to spread rapidly, and the temperature at its epicenter reached 950-1100 ° C, which caused a fire in the aluminum-magnesium elements of the superstructure.

        It remains only to find on Sheffield aluminum-magnesium superstructure elements. smile
        For the use of light alloys in the design of EM "Type 42" was abandoned at the design stage - and precisely because of the high fire hazard and strong deformation during a fire of such structures.
        Light alloys were widely used in the design of the previous series of RN ships - in particular, the FR Type 21. For which they paid - serious damage in a fire at the "Amazon" in 1977 and the death of "Antilope" and "Ardent" in the Falklands are in many ways connected with light-alloy structures.
      4. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 20 January 2021 15: 28
        0
        Sheffield, the Type 42 destroyer had a steel hull and superstructure structure, not aluminum-magnesium alloys, but otherwise everything is correct, plastics, etc.
      5. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 29 March 2021 18: 06
        +1
        So also the commander of the Sheffield ordered to turn off all the radars and electronic devices of the ship - so as not to interfere with his conversations on the Skynet satellite communication channel.
        - now they write that the radar station worked quite well for itself.
  5. evgen1221
    evgen1221 13 January 2021 08: 42
    +16
    Checked out the passage- (especially for the Falklands conflict) -USSR in (for several years) brought out many satellites. Here's how to understand it? Did the Union know in advance about the conflict that had not yet occurred in detail, or was it a fool for many years after the conflict that it brought satellites into this zone in the hope of continuing?
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 13 January 2021 13: 01
      +9
      Quote: evgen1221
      Here's how to understand it? Did the Union know in advance about the conflict that had not yet occurred in detail, or was it a fool for many years after the conflict that it brought satellites into this zone in the hope of continuing?

      No, of course, the author has slightly embellished the situation here, because the real orbits of the reconnaissance satellites during the flight over the United States also captured the South Atlantic. But to say that our orbital group was developed for this war, of course, is impossible - it would be a big stretch, or rather a fiction. Let me remind you that even under Allende, the USSR offered Chile to build our receiving center there for processing information from satellites, but it did not grow together for a known reason. But the fact that we tracked the conflict itself is beyond doubt.
      1. Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell 15 March 2021 14: 13
        +1
        Quote: ccsr
        we tracked the conflict itself, no doubt.

        and along the route of the Royal Navy squadrons, the British were accompanied by harmless fishing trawlers. The latter were Soviet spy ships in disguise.

        I don't know what about the camouflaged spy ships, but my father spent the entire period of the conflict on the trawler: exactly on the border of the closed zone. They repeatedly observed British ships, with all the consequences ...
    2. vladcub
      vladcub 13 January 2021 16: 04
      +4
      I think about it myself: how to understand this phrase? Perhaps: "all satellites were involved:" space "launched several years ago" or: "were several" space "satellites launched at once?
    3. Avior
      Avior 14 January 2021 00: 06
      +1
      The USSR, specially for the Falklands conflict, put many satellites into orbit over the course of several years, the flight interval of which over the conflict zone was less than 20 minutes.

      this is complete nonsense
      it turns out that the USSR knew that there would be a war several years before the events and spent a lot of money on satellites to watch it
    4. Intruder
      Intruder 14 January 2021 11: 48
      0
      Did the Union know in advance about the conflict that had not yet occurred in detail, or was it a fool for many years after the conflict that it brought satellites into this zone in the hope of continuing?
      of course, perhaps he secretly participated in the escalation of the conflict, through a comrade from the Communist Party of Argentina !? :) But we will never know this, the case of the past ...
  6. svp67
    svp67 13 January 2021 08: 44
    +3
    Moreover, the USSR, specially for the Falklands conflict, put many satellites into orbit for several years, the flight interval of which over the conflict zone was less than 20 minutes.
    So the USSR leadership knew about the preparation of this military operation both among the Argentines and the British? That is, the intelligence agents did not eat their bread for nothing. It is strange that the Americans did not pay attention to this heightened interest of the Soviet leadership.
    And most of all, the British were helped by the fact that the lion's share of the missiles and bombs that had already hit their targets did not explode.
    1. Avior
      Avior 14 January 2021 00: 10
      +1
      This is sheer nonsense about the satellites injected.
      Galtieri came to power in Argentina at the end of 1981, and in March 1982 the conflict had already begun. In principle, there could be no several years of preparation.
  7. Doctor Evil
    Doctor Evil 13 January 2021 09: 46
    +3
    But Argentina had Captain Julio Perez and Indian magic. https://warhead.su/2020/05/29/letuchaya-ryba-zhyoludi-i-palki-kak-argentintsy-raketu-podkovali
  8. kig
    kig 13 January 2021 10: 13
    +11
    Somehow ... the number doesn't add up. Absolutely all sources claim that Argentina had only 5 (five) air-launched Exocet missiles. And now we read the author's "research" and consider:
    - sinking Sheffield - 1 rocket
    - attack on Hermes - 3 missiles
    - Glamorgan - 4 missiles
    Already eight, and we are also promised a continuation!
    How many wonderful discoveries we have ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2021 10: 34
      +5
      Quote: kig
      Already eight, and we are also promised a continuation!

      In addition to the air-based Exocets, the Args also had missiles deployed on ships. Several of them were removed, creating an impromptu ground-based missile battery. Glamorgan was fired from it, but it is not entirely clear how many missiles there. According to my data - one.
      1. NEOZ
        NEOZ 13 January 2021 14: 29
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        According to my data - one.

        Andrew,
        I would like to hear your opinion on the reasons for the defeat of the Argov (in a nutshell).
        as well as your thoughts about the absence of the Argov fleet in the war, especially not the use of Avik.
        and hypothetically, could the Argov fleet (with avik) influence the outcome of the war?
        Thank you!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2021 16: 25
          +4
          Quote: NEOZ
          I would like to hear your opinion on the reasons for the defeat of the Argov (in a nutshell).

          In short, the absence of modern war aircraft. If they had a squadron of Super Etandarov with 40 air-based anti-ship missiles + "Neptuns" (AWACS aircraft of the WWII era) would not have collapsed - the British could only sympathize
          If even in the absence of all of the above, there was a normal air base in the Falklands, they could have won too.
          If it were not even for all of the above, but there would be experienced pilots and the technical condition of the bulk of the aircraft would allow 1,5-2 air sorties per day - I think they would have won too.
          Quote: NEOZ
          and hypothetically, could the Argov fleet (with avik) influence the outcome of the war?

          Yes, he could. Woodworth, by the way, was quite realistically afraid of missile attacks by Argentine ships
    2. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer 13 January 2021 11: 26
      +1
      5 or 6 is airborne. Those "exosets" that were received from the destroyers of pr. 42 are "surface-to-surface", the exact number is unknown. It is not clear how the launch was carried out from a ground launcher, under which the "Glamorgan" itself "crawled", since the seeker needs primary information from the onboard radar.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2021 12: 03
        +3
        Quote: TermNachTER
        It is not clear how the launch was carried out from a ground-based launcher, under which the "Glamorgan" itself "crawled"

        A circle of "crazy hands" performed by Argentine officers. By some miracle, they managed to transform the data on the location of the ship using ordinary calculators (!!!) and somehow enter it into the rocket.
        1. Doctor Evil
          Doctor Evil 13 January 2021 12: 52
          +4
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: TermNachTER
          It is not clear how the launch was carried out from a ground-based launcher, under which the "Glamorgan" itself "crawled"

          A circle of "crazy hands" performed by Argentine officers. By some miracle, they managed to transform the data on the location of the ship using ordinary calculators (!!!) and somehow enter it into the rocket.

          My comment above was about that. Interesting here too (at the end of the page). And the photos are good. https://forum.awd.ru/viewtopic.php?f=884&t=221349&start=260
    3. kig
      kig 13 January 2021 13: 19
      +4
      Quote: kig
      Total already eight

      I answer myself winked
      Two missiles were fired at Sheffield (it's just that the author does not reflect this), but one hit. The total is already 9.

      As for Gllemorgan, Admiral Woodward's memoir refers to the attack on the destroyer by Skyhawk attack aircraft, which were not the carrier of the Exocet. The bombs flew past, the destroyer was hit by an aircraft cannon, which did not cause him any damage. It happened on May 1. Further, on June 12, one Exocet missile was actually launched from the shore on the destroyer. The rocket hit the superstructure near the hangar, there was a fire, but the ship even kept the speed of 20 knots. 13 crew members were killed. According to the admiral, the destroyer launched its Sea Cat on Exocet, but did not hit. In this case, the admiral does not mention any massive missile launch by the Argentines and jamming with his ships, although earlier, for example, during the attack on Hermes, he wrote about this in detail.

      Well, we are waiting for the continuation.
      1. Avior
        Avior 14 January 2021 00: 13
        +1
        For Glamorgan, an attack from a coastal installation was a complete surprise, the British did not know about their presence among the Argentines.
        1. kig
          kig 14 January 2021 02: 20
          +1
          Quote: Avior
          the British did not know about their presence among the Argentines.


          Reading Woodward:
          During these few days of lull, I noticed intelligence reports that the Argentines had deployed the Exocet Coastal Battery in the Stanley area. Unwilling
          check the accuracy of the information myself, I immediately removed all fire support ships away from the coast.

          Next about the attack
          When the Glamorgan finally left the firing position at Port Stanley, I thought that he had misjudged the range of the Exocet coastal launcher located on the road
          beyond Port Harriet. But it looks like the Argentines have managed to move their mobile installations a little further east. Be that as it may, at 05.36 the Argentines launched one missile. Avenger saw it 10 miles away and alerted the ships after the missile was visually detected from Glamorgan. The rudder was moved aboard for a steep flap from the rocket, which in the end, perhaps, saved the ship. At a distance of one mile, they launched a Sea Cat missile at it. The Glamorgan was tilting, still turning when the cruise missile hit
          aft of the upper deck exactly where it joins the port superstructure, near the hangar, and exploded.
          1. Avior
            Avior 14 January 2021 08: 13
            0
            Thanks for the information. I read that the use was unexpected for the British, so dipole traps were not used.
            From the passage you quoted, it is clear that this is not entirely true, but the traps were still not used, which is not entirely clear. Or was it too late to notice on Glamorgan? But Si Cat did manage to shoot. Or it was too late for the traps.
  9. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 13 January 2021 11: 22
    +5
    There were 5 or 6 exoset launches. The data vary, 6 missiles were delivered, but one was defective. In general, the French saved their NATO allies. If they supplied 12 "super etandars" and 60 missiles + a simulator for training pilots in the use of "exosets", which was included in the supply agreement. But the French have once again demonstrated that they are very dumb partners)))
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2021 12: 37
      +6
      Quote: TermNachTER
      There were 5 or 6 launches of "exosets"

      5 air and at least 1 ground battery (according to Glamorgan). But it seemed to have been fired with one missile before, and it is possible that Glamorgan was fired at with two. Total - 5 anti-ship missiles from aircraft and 1-3 - from ground launchers
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 13 January 2021 17: 10
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        minimum 1 s ground battery

        Where does the Exocet ground battery come from? The ship version of "Exocet" was not delivered to Argentina at all at that time, not all aviation ones came.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 January 2021 17: 25
          +4
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Where does the Exocet ground battery come from? The ship version of "Exocet" was not delivered to Argentina at all at that time

          You are greatly mistaken. By 1982, Argentine ships had 20 Exocet launchers and there were a lot of missiles for them. But they could not be used from aircraft.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 13 January 2021 17: 28
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You are very mistaken.

            Yes, I already ran through non-Russian sources, I admit a mistake. But you didn't write about the planes, you won't prove it. )))
  10. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 13 January 2021 13: 08
    +4
    First of all, the ships created masking passive interference for the homing heads of AM-39 Exoset missiles. As soon as the locators detected approaching anti-ship missiles, onboard launchers fired unguided rockets stuffed with radio reflectors.
    Usually, at a distance of 1-2 kilometers from the attacked vessel, up to four false targets were formed from reflectors, the life of which did not exceed 6 minutes. The main thing is that there is no storm at this time.

    This technique could have an effect if the rocket (missiles) were launched into white light as a pretty penny, across the areas, before the GOS captures a specific target. If the launch from the aircraft was carried out for a specific selected target, then the number of other ships or false targets in the area no longer matters. Only after the failure of homing and the search for the seeker of a new target.
    The second missile countermeasure was the disruption of the target's auto-tracking by the Exoset homing head after the object was captured. The attacked ship within 2-4 minutes created a cloud of dipole reflectors at a distance of 2 km directly along the course of the rocket's flight. As a result, the cloud, together with the ship, appeared within the homing head strobe, the rocket was aimed at the snag, and the ship exited it with an anti-missile maneuver.

    Quite a dangerous case. If the covered ship is in the center of the formed cloud of dipoles, the probability of defeat is quite high. The direction and speed of the wind are unpredictable at the moment of attack, and precious seconds are spent on the formation of a dense and extensive curtain.
    And, finally, the third means of electronic warfare against anti-ship missiles was the joint use of passive and active jamming along the flight path.
    Simultaneously with the exposure of the dipole reflectors, the ship turned on active radio interference in the Exoset withdrawal mode to the reflector clouds.

    In the presence of a passive channel of guidance on a radiating target on the GOS RCC, active interference can serve as a beacon to the ship.
    In my opinion, all three methods in combination are good for unarmed vehicles. Once a warship has detected an attacking anti-ship missile, it must shoot it down. And in a group it is easier for neighbors to do this, because the RCS RCS to the target is minimal, and for its neighbors its RCS is higher. There would be a control center and enough reaction time.
    1. Niko
      Niko 13 January 2021 14: 18
      +5
      I think you have to be a Boooooo big optimist to argue that it was necessary to "shoot down missiles" without using the means of RB. Let me remind you: 1982.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 13 January 2021 15: 01
        +5
        "Sea Wolf" - theoretically, had such an opportunity. But there were only 3 frigates with this air defense system, and there were problems with the equipment. Woodward writes that there were civilian programmers aboard the frigates who were modifying the software "on the fly."
    2. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 13 January 2021 17: 12
      +1
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      Quite a dangerous case. If the covered ship is in the center of the formed cloud of dipoles, the probability of defeat is quite high.
      But it is still decreasing, especially since many anti-ship missiles dive at the target after a small slide.
    3. Avior
      Avior 14 January 2021 00: 17
      +1
      however, not a single Exocet hit the target when using traps from ships.
  11. ccsr
    ccsr 13 January 2021 13: 17
    +10
    Author:
    Evgeny Fedorov
    and along the route of the Royal Navy squadrons, the British were accompanied by harmless fishing trawlers. The latter were Soviet spy ships in disguise.

    I think that the author is aggravating the situation, if only because all our reconnaissance ships have long been identified by the Americans and the British, and it simply did not make sense to send some kind of fishing trawler there, if only because it would have to be seriously re-equipped, and this quickly did not it happens. Well, they could have put some RTR specialist into the crew of a civilian trawler, but there was not much point in this, if only because he would have had to conduct radio exchange such that is not typical of fishermen, which means he would be instantly calculated, and even sunk "by accident ", having organized a clash, if he had behaved very impudently.
    There is even an assumption that the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense of the Soviet Union, receiving data on the development of events in the other hemisphere almost live, shared this information with Buenos Aires.

    We didn’t even share this level of information with our allies in the Warsaw Pact, but here we laid it out on a silver platter to Argentina. The author, no such assumptions are necessary, this lowers the level of confidence in your article too much, because these are typical speculations. We could share certain information with Argentina, but not operational - this is a fact. Yes, and nafig we were sharing information with her, if they did not want to purchase our anti-ship missiles from us, the targets for which we could somehow help to choose. And there was no need for them to know the capabilities of our intelligence - this is the main obstacle in providing information of this kind.
    1. alsoclean
      alsoclean 13 January 2021 18: 58
      +2
      I think that the author is aggravating the situation, if only because all our reconnaissance ships have long been identified by the Americans and the British, and it simply did not make sense to send some kind of fishing trawler there, if only because it would have to be seriously re-equipped, and this quickly did not it happens.

      Firstly, the MRI / SRT were not converted suddenly, there were quite a few of them. For any task.
      secondly, a whole fleet of BMRT and SRT worked off the coast of Angola. Vessels 20. Of these, -1-2 could be converted. There was such a shout on the air (!!), hiding the transmission was not a problem ...
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 13 January 2021 19: 06
        +3
        Quote: alsoclean
        ... Vessels 20. Of these, -1-2 could be converted. There was such a shout on the air (!!), hiding the transmission was not a problem ...

        Of course, if we assume that the Americans are fools and do not know which antennas a regular trawler has, and which are a reconnaissance ship, then yes, then we can believe that they really could not classify them. But how to hide the round-the-clock volume of radiograms and the structure of signals, including satellite ones? Yes, and from Angola it takes too long to go to the Falkland Islands, so either a special reconnaissance ship should be sent, or the hopeless venture with a trawler should be abandoned - the crew there are civilians, not the military.
        1. alsoclean
          alsoclean 14 January 2021 00: 18
          0
          And the programs went not to the USSR, but to the same Angola. And then further - this time.
          The second - the fish was caught in the South Atlantic - and based in Angola,
          Third, the Americans are certainly not stupid, so the British were not given everything ...
          and fourth: I personally know guys who went to such MRI for AUG and collected the garbage thrown from the AV ...))
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 14 January 2021 11: 36
            0
            Quote: alsoclean
            And the programs went not to the USSR, but to the same Angola.

            There was no osnaz maritime radio center in Angola - no need to fantasize.
            Quote: alsoclean
            The second - the fish was caught in the South Atlantic - and based in Angola,

            So they had to report for the fish to their ministry, so there is no need to wind up a situation when everything was solved much easier with the available means. And the conflict, by and large, was not very relevant for us.
            Quote: alsoclean
            I personally know guys who went to MRI for AUG and collected the garbage thrown from the AV.

            And what is the big deal if we assume that the American AUG is much more serious than what happened in the Falklands? By the way, this is how our radio intelligence really worked a few years before the Falklands:
            1. alsoclean
              alsoclean 14 January 2021 21: 52
              +1
              There was no osnaz maritime radio center in Angola - no need to fantasize.

              And why do I believe you ?? Probably I feel awareness soldier
              And the conflict, by and large, was not very relevant for us.

              I believe again. yes
              By the way, this is how our radio intelligence really worked a few years before the Falklands:

              What a funny book. Allow me a link ...
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 15 January 2021 12: 16
                +2
                Quote: alsoclean
                What a funny book. Allow me a link ...

                I am afraid that you will have to find the link yourself - this is Mikhail Boltunov's book "The Golden Ear of Military Intelligence" and it is on the net. I have scans of some of the pages that I made myself. The book is quite rare, and if you come across it, then purchase it at any price, you will not regret it.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 January 2021 14: 12
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          Of course, if we assume that the Americans are fools and do not know which antennas an ordinary trawler has, and which are a reconnaissance ship, then yes, then you can believe that they really could not classify them. But how to hide the round-the-clock volume of radiograms and the structure of signals, including satellite ones?

          EMNIP, Bigler wrote in the comments that NATO considered all our fishing fleets to be "dual-use" organizations - because of the amount of communication equipment used and the information transmitted. They forgot that socialism is accounting and control. smile
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 14 January 2021 14: 36
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            EMNIP, Bigler wrote in the comments that NATO considered all our fishing fleets to be "dual-use" organizations - because of the amount of communication equipment used and the information transmitted.

            We didn’t have enough professional translators for radio interception on military intelligence ships, and it would never have occurred to anyone to spray on some trawlers. "Bigler" is a well-known platform, but there are also would-be specialists who know everything, although when you touch on the details, it turns out that they are more masters at poisoning jokes than seriously delving into the problem. Even Bigler himself accused me of the fact that there is no such term as TTZ, after which I realized the level of his knowledge in this area. You will learn more interesting things here than where humor dominates when choosing forum authors.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 14 January 2021 15: 46
              +1
              Quote: ccsr
              We didn’t have enough professional translators for radio interception on military intelligence ships, and it would never have occurred to anyone to spray on some trawlers.

              That's right. That is why I wrote that "NATO considered".
              It's not for me to explain to you the difference between "what is the enemy really"And"that the enemy, according to intelligence reports“Moreover, the stronger the enemy is in intelligence reports, the more money can be obtained for the fleet budget. smile
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 14 January 2021 16: 07
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Moreover, the stronger the enemy in intelligence reports, the more money can be knocked out for the fleet budget.

                But we know that their lies did not correspond to reality. It is simply not worth replicating it, especially after so many years, when the scale of this activity on both sides became known.
  12. Dimide
    Dimide 13 January 2021 15: 42
    +5
    And the article is informative and the comments are professional.
    This is how it should be.
    Test for all debaters!
  13. Voltsky
    Voltsky 13 January 2021 21: 15
    0
    Ooooh, finally, a new heresy about the Falklands :) guys - who were not there, and then they walked under the table, based on the peekaboo they write about what was there :)
    you normally speak author -> author -> author - burn more :)))
  14. The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 14 January 2021 02: 18
    +2
    The rocket is called Exocet
  15. Doctor Evil
    Doctor Evil 15 January 2021 18: 43
    0
    Author: Evgeny Fedorov


    "In a hurry, the strike and reconnaissance aviation group, which included the Phantom FGR.2, Sea Harrier, Harrier GR.3 and the Nimrod MR.1 / 2 air reconnaissance group, was retrofitted in a similar way. The Vulcan B2 bombers were retrofitted with American AN / ALQ radio jamming stations. 101 taken from the Blackburn Buccaneer stormtroopers. "

    I know about the "Volcanoes" and the "Black Buck" operation, I came across information about the "Nimrods", the "Harriers" are the workhorses of the conflict. But the presence of "Phantoms" in the British air force hit me like a butt on the head. I hope the author will reveal the details in the second part.
  16. Hippo
    Hippo 31 January 2021 14: 02
    0
    "Exoset AM-39 is the main threat to the British fleet in the Falklands in 1982."
    Still, the main threat to the British fleet was the free-fall bombs under the wings of the A-4 Skyhawk ...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfVNKIT_1RY
  17. Hippo
    Hippo 31 January 2021 14: 30
    0
    If the Labor comrades had not written off the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal (R1979) in 09, then the losses of Britain would not have been so impressive ...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFWi9NytgcM
  18. Andrey Krasnopoyas
    Andrey Krasnopoyas 20 March 2021 02: 30
    0
    To judge electronic warfare, one must also be a futurist, and not just a historian.