Military Review

From ship to ball. Episodes of the Falkland War

98
From ship to ball. Episodes of the Falkland War

“The terrible Yak is fluttering in the sky, the Yak is banging about the deck!”

- piloting features of vertical takeoff and landing aircraft


- Sir, are you familiar with the notion of “frantic fifties”?

- This is hardly more dangerous than the "roaring forties"

- Your sarcasm is inappropriate. Typical horizontal visibility for those places does not exceed 800 yards, the lower edge of the clouds hangs only 200 feet above the water.

- Pilots from "Hermes" practiced landing in a continuous fog. In addition, they have special techniques - with a deterioration of visibility in the wake stream of an aircraft carrier, falloutfirers are dropped.

“With all due respect, sir, what is this circus all about?” In the Falkland area, the stormy weather of 200 days in a year, the vertical movements of the deck of a ship similar in size to Invincible, can reach 9 meters!

- You overstate.

- Not at all. Make good use of deck Aviation in those latitudes impossible.

- We have no choice. The squadron, one way or another, will require air cover.

***


Modern modification of the "Harrier" GR9. Afghanistan, 2008


British Harbor Aerospace is a carrier-based vertical fighter-bomber fighter-bomber, created on the basis of a ground-based VTOL “Harrier”. The family of cars is driving history since the beginning of the 1960-ies, when the British General Staff approved the opinion of the high vulnerability of stationary airfields. Urgently needed a plane capable of operating from limited sites. And it was created! The pretty Harrier (translated as “Lun”) was ahead of its time - the British managed to build a reliable fighter-bomber with flight data that were quite high at the time. The reason for the success of the Harrier family is the extremely successful Rolls-Royce Pegas engine with a deflecting thrust vector that provided near-sonic flight speed, significant combat load and fantastic maneuverability.

Despite its apparent complexity, the design of the Harrier with one engine and a system of control mini-nozzles (at the wing tips, in the nose and tail parts of the aircraft) turned out to be the only suitable solution. No offense to the Yak-38 Soviet VTOL project and the promising American F-35B, but the Harrier family are the only aircraft capable of vertical take-off and landing in aviation history.

During their career, the Harriers took part in many conflicts across the globe - from Afghanistan and Iraq to Argentina. Airplanes are still in service with the US Marine Corps aviation, carrier-based aviation of India, Italy, Spain, Thailand ... During its evolution, the design went from a simple, like a stool, Hawker Siddley Harrier to the "tricked" McDonnel Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, produced in the USA.

Despite his “wretchedness” compared to classic aircraft, the unique abilities of the Harrier rescued him more than once in difficult situations. And now, in the British admiralty, there is a heated discussion on sending land "Harriers" and deck "Sea Harriers" to the South Atalanta. Outside is the spring of 1982, the Falklands crisis. Let's see what decision the admirals will take ...
***


- Sir, "Sea Harrier" and "air cover" are incompatible concepts.

- Sailors know about it. But for all its awkwardness, the "vertical" is capable of conducting air combat and lifting a ton of bombs from the deck. A new modification of the “Sidewinder” - AIM-9L with full guidance was received by the squadrons. Plus a thrust vectoring engine ...

“You understand that the aircraft maneuvering area will be located in 100 miles east of the Falkland Islands.” A closer approach is too risky - Argentine aviation can strike ships. Given this circumstance, the time of Sea Harriers' patrolling over the landing areas is reduced to 10 minutes, and there is no dream of any operational fire support for the landing.

- Each car will have to make 4 departures per day, the pilots are ready to spend in the air before 10 hours - all for the sake of the British crown. "Sea Harrier" - a reliable machine, it will cope.

- Of course. But we must help deck aircraft. Do you follow my mind?

- Not sure I understood your thought.

- The Russians had such a general, it seems, Suvorov. He taught that you need to win the number of forces that are available. You just need to be able to correctly use them.

- Much more literate. We recruited half of the civilian container ships for military needs fleet. Somehow they scored a squadron of 60 pennants. I saw her in Portsmouth - honestly I’ll tell you, a sight unworthy of the British Admiral. Tiny frigates, mixed with old junk, merchant ships and replicas of warships.

- So, we have a squadron, there is a fighter-bomber capable of taking off and landing on any piece of surface. But there is no normal airfield, except for the swinging decks of two aircraft carriers.

- So you offer ...

- Yes.

- This is madness.

“No less crazy than taking off from the Invincible ramp in stormy weather.” Take a look at this picture.

- We call it Pierced Steel Plank (PSP) Landing Mat. Means for the rapid construction of helipads, roads and runways.

- I see. Where is the construction planned?

- Our experts believe the most likely place on the coast of the bay of San Carlos. Flat terrain, convenient approach to the shore.

- How long will the construction take?

- Yankees in Vietnam built 1000-meter strips in 50 hours (9852 strips). To some extent, it will be more difficult for us - a completely wild coast, a limited number of special equipment, and supplies only by sea. Harriers, on the other hand, do not need large spaces. We hope to cope for a week of hard labor. We first lay the 500-meter runway, gradually expand the airfield and taxiways. What you can not do for the British Crown!

- What is the situation with aircraft refueling?

- Sailors have a ready-made solution: flexible floating tank-bags. Fuel is pumped from tankers on the outer roadstead - further, the “fuel storage” is towed by the boat to the shore, where it is used for its intended purpose.

- This is some kind of nonsense!

- There is a proven formula: two soldiers from the construction battalion replace an excavator.

- But did you take into account the high vulnerability of the stationary airfield?

- Let's start with the fact that such a ersatz airfield is practically indestructible.

- Sir, not funny.

- Argentines are powerless to do something with our airfield. If we break the strip of 30 feet, we will pull out new strips from under the tarpaulin - and in an hour we will restore the runway. Burn the tank with kerosene - we will organize a spare "fuel storage" on the nearby beach. This is not an aircraft carrier in the ocean, where hitting one small bomb threatens to turn into a catastrophe.

- But seriously? What measures are taken to ensure safety?

- The Air Defense Command allocates a battery of the Rapier air defense missile system.

- How long is the airfield?

- Under normal conditions, the strips are kept for up to 30 days of continuous operation.

- How to deal with the delivery of special equipment to the South Atlantic?

- Elementary Watson. This will deal with SS Atlantic Conveyor and a number of other vessels.

***





The Atlantic Conveyor is a former civilian rocking-container carrier recruited at the beginning of the war for the needs of Her Majesty’s fleet. In the popular literature is under the designation of the helicopter carrier, air transport or military transport. In reality, the Atlantic Conveyor was both the first and the second and the third - an amazing vessel turned into a universal warship in 10 days. The container ship was supposed to deliver reinforcements to the South Atlantic: 8 deck-mounted "Sea Harriers", 6 "Harriers" in the land variant, 6 light helicopters "Wessex" and X-NUMX heavy military transport helicopters CH-5 "Chinook". In addition, there was a large supply of aviation fuel, spare parts, a party of tents and, most importantly, materials for the construction of a field aerodrome.

If the first task with the delivery of the aircraft "Atlantic Conveyor" performed perfectly, with the implementation of the second task a hitch occurred - 25 May 1982, the defenseless container ship received two Exocset anti-ship missiles aboard, completely burned out and sank on the way to the Falkland Islands. Together with the ship, most of the helicopters and the entire set of aluminum plates for the runway of the future airbase in San Carlos Bay went to the bottom.


***

- Smash me thunder !!! They sank the Atlantic Conveyor.

- Calm, only calm. We sent enough forces and means to the Falklands - we will use spare equipment. On board the landing craft RFA Sir Persival and the military transport RFA Stromness there is a lot of material for building the airfield: aluminum plates AM2, steel strips PSP. If necessary, dismantle the helipads from the ships of the squadron.

“But this is clearly not enough for the 500-meter band and 12 caponiers ...”

“Our specialists are confident that the available material will be enough for the construction of an 260-meter runway, taxiway and four caponiers for the Harriers.” Perhaps there is a place for a dozen helicopters. Everything will be OK.

- How are you doing with special equipment?

- Unfortunately, only one FV180 Combat Engineer Tractor. Work is in full swing, day and night — three days after disembarking, the soldiers prepared a short runway for helicopters and the first filling tank. It is expected that the air base will reach full readiness in the coming 3-4 of the day.

***






The legendary Harrier Forward Operating Base (FOB) is an advanced airbase in San Carlos Bay, built by British troops in 12 000 kilometers from their native shores, right under their noses from the Argentines. From here, combat air patrols flew out, and from here, C-Harrier strike groups hung with bombs.

The ground airfield provided exceptional capabilities for the operation of deck aircraft: despite the short runway (total 260 meters was half the planned), the strip length was noticeably longer than the aircraft carrier deck, which had a positive effect on the combat load of the aircraft. It is worth noting that, despite the status of the VTOL, the Harrier and Sea Harrier pilots usually took off with a short run - and an extra hundred meters of runway was converted into a large 50% bomb load. The land airfield was less dependent on weather conditions, more spacious, and most importantly - it was stationary, which greatly simplified the work of aviation.

3-4 C Harrier and several helicopters were permanently based on FOB. The advanced air group was recruited on a rotational basis - after several sorties the aircraft returned to the ships for maintenance, new cars flew in return. Periodically landed here for refueling "Sea Harriers", operating directly from aircraft carriers.

The successful location of the airbase allowed operational British fire support to the advancing British units - as a rule, Sea Harriers took no more than 20-25 minutes from the moment they received the request to plan and launch a bomb strike on the chosen target. These factors acquired particular importance at the final stage of the war, when the Argentinean ground positions began to be stormed (the Stanley garrison, the fortifications on Mount Tumbledown, etc.). It is fair to add that, despite individual successes, the impacting operations of “Sea Harriers” had a moral effect rather than practical importance. Airborne-rushing aviation gave confidence to British paratroopers and had a dismal effect on the Argentines. Otherwise, 200 bombs dropped - an insignificant amount to achieve at least some significant result in the action on the ground fortifications. For comparison: only the destroyers of Her Majesty's fleet fired 14 000 shells on targets ashore.

During the operation of FOB, two serious incidents were noted. For the first time, due to the pilot's error, the Harrier GR3 crashed, disabling the airfield for several hours. The second time the runway damaged the heavy Chinook helicopter, scattering fragile aluminum plates with its powerful screws. By the way, 10 vertical take-off and landing aircraft were lost during the operation for various reasons. The Harriers and Sea Harriers themselves destroyed about the enemy’s airplanes and helicopters around 30 (including those standing on the ground).

One of the paradoxes of the Falklands War: most of the Sea Harrier victories in aerial combat are the downed supersonic Mirages and Daggers of the Argentine Air Force. At the same time, most of the A-4 Skyhawk subsonic attack aircraft were able to break through the destructive barriers and attack British ships with free-falling (!) Bombs. The result of these attacks was monstrous - a third of the ships of Her Majesty’s squadron were damaged! Fortunately for the British sailors, 80% bombs did not work in a regular manner (to put it simply - they were stuck in the decks and did not explode). Half of them exploded - and Great Britain had every chance to "blow" in the Falklands War.

The existence of the FOB explains the paradox of the “vulnerability” of supersonic Mirage III fighters and the “invulnerability” of subsonic Skyhawks of the Argentine Air Force. The fact is that Daggera and Mirages, which had no air refueling systems, attacked targets on the coast and in the coastal waters of the island - after a long flight over the sea, Argentine pilots sought to reach the northern or southern tip of the Falklands to correct onboard navigation systems. It was here that the Sea Harrier combat air patrols were waiting for them.

At the same time, Skyhawk specialized naval attack aircraft equipped with in-flight refueling systems bravely operated in the open ocean, where, without encountering any opposition from British aircraft, they methodically turned Her Majesty's ships into a leaky sieve. (still! it is hopeless to control the air space over the endless ocean with the help of VTOL aircraft)

From this whole story, there are obvious conclusions:

1. Carriers are not able to replace the normal airfield. When the parades end and the case begins to "smell of kerosene" - deck aircraft tries to get out on the shore and once again not to tempt fate.

2. PSP Landing Mat and other pre-fabricated runways change the conditions of war. In some cases, it is possible in a matter of weeks to build an airfield on any suitable waste ground and to bomb at an enemy staggering from such impudence. Who does not believe in such "miracles" - please look at the illustration:

F4D Skyray amid Short Expeditionary Landing Field, Taiwan, 50's End

3. The key mistake of the Argentine military - after the capture of Falkland should immediately begin to extend the runway at Stanley Airport (the original length of 4000 feet ≈ 1200 meters). In stock, the Argentines had a whole month and, moreover, had all the necessary equipment. Before the British nuclear submarines arrived in the battle area, stopping all navigation, the Argentines managed to deliver thousands of soldiers, equipment, artillery and even armored vehicles to the islands! By lengthening the lane and transferring a Mirage squadron and a pair of Skyhawks to Stanley Stanley, the Argentines would turn the Falklands into an impregnable fortress.

4. The very funny thing. The first thing the British did after the return of the islands ... built a new, 3000-meter "betonka" at the Stanley airport for the base of any military aircraft.

Panorama Harrier Forward Operating Base



FV180 Combat Engineer Tractor - armored amphibious crawler loader for excavation and construction work in a military conflict zone






Based on:
http://www.airwar.ru/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/
Author:
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Arberes
    Arberes April 10 2013 09: 27
    +7
    I remember those times very well. I really wanted the Britons to get on the wort, BUT !!!
    Now, when almost all the details of this conflict are known, one conclusion suggests itself. The ARGENTINA army lacked simple modern weapons, it was simply not enough. The same French anti-ship missiles "EXOSET" - about a dozen in my opinion, no more! Well, about the bombs, which in almost half of the cases did not work and there is nothing to say!
    And one more stroke, the ENGLISH submarine drowned the cruiser of the Argentine Navy! Did the submarines of ARGENTINA participate in this conflict or didn’t they have them at that time (I mean diesels)?
    The ARGENTINS hid their aircraft carrier too, and this suggests that they could not provide him with reliable protection from submarines and enemy aircraft?
    But then everything could have turned out differently? Would the Anglo-Saxons be interested in using nuclear weapons then?
    Questions, questions, questions !!!
    1. politruk419
      politruk419 April 10 2013 10: 21
      +5
      By the way, this was the first !!! the case of combat use of nuclear submarines in the world.
    2. Army1
      Army1 April 10 2013 11: 01
      +3
      I do not know about yao, but the "iron lady" would not have been elected.
    3. Delta
      Delta April 10 2013 11: 40
      +1
      Quote: Arberes
      I really wanted the Britons to get on the wort, BUT !!!

      why did you want the British to lose?
      1. Arberes
        Arberes April 10 2013 11: 52
        +7
        Quote: Delta
        why did you want the British to lose?


        Well, firstly, ideology immediately works. We and the bourgeois. As we were educated then, Britain is a faithful STATE satellite and a member of NATO, which means our enemy!
        Secondly, all the same, not for a thousand versts ANGLOSAKSAM kissel slurp! The colonies were not enough closer?
        And in the third, ENGLAND has always been the worst enemy of RUSSIA and the Soviet Union!
        This foggy Albion always put us sticks in the wheels, (sometimes it came to an open collision, but mostly out of silence) and now it is doing it. They look into the eyes and smile, and behind them the stylet is ready, just try to look away !!!
        1. Delta
          Delta April 10 2013 12: 20
          +2
          Quote: Arberes
          Well, firstly, ideology immediately works. We and the bourgeois. As we were educated then, Britain is a faithful STATE satellite and a member of NATO, which means our enemy!

          Argentina was clearly not our ally))
          Quote: Arberes
          Secondly, all the same, not for a thousand versts ANGLOSAKSAM kissel slurp! The colonies were not enough closer?

          It was their territory. Why give it away?
          1. Arberes
            Arberes April 10 2013 12: 39
            +2
            Quote: Delta
            Argentina was clearly not our ally))

            Yes, but also the enemy too! Neutral cap country.
            Quote: Delta
            It was their territory. Why give it away?

            Well, here is also a moot point. I honestly don’t know who actually first declared the Falklands for themselves, maybe the British? But ARGENTINA claims that she is the first!
            1. Delta
              Delta April 10 2013 13: 18
              0
              Argentina can say anything. The British discovered these islands. The Spaniards still claimed the right to discoverers, but not the state of Argentina
              1. Geisenberg
                Geisenberg April 10 2013 18: 04
                -3
                Do you know whether they presented Crimea to Ukraine as well? This is not a reason to start a war. It was the most banal predatory war, it is a pity that the aggressors won in it.
            2. nnz226
              nnz226 April 10 2013 13: 25
              +5
              The enemy of my enemy is at least an ally
            3. postman
              postman April 11 2013 02: 36
              +2
              Quote: Arberes
              Yes, but also the enemy too! Neutral cap country.

              since 1981 General Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri Castelli (and the junta since 1976, before that Isabel and Eva Perón played tricks with Perón, Juan Domingo)
              The Dirty War in Argentina (Guerra Sucia en la Argentina) from 1976 to 1983
              "rat trails", ODESSA, the Argentine smuggling of the Nazis was institutionalized (including the Vichy regime employees, the former Ribbentrop agent Ludwig Freude - the intelligence chief of Argentina.
              Something happened in Nuremberg at that time that I personally consider dishonesty and an unfortunate lesson for the future of humanity. I am sure that the Argentine people also recognized the Nuremberg trials as dishonest, unworthy of the victors who acted as if they had not won. We now realized that they deserved to lose the war.
              - Argentine President Juan Peron on the Nuremberg Tribunal over Nazi war criminals
              The junta collapsed in 1983, shortly after the defeat of Argentina in the Falkland War.

              On the other hand:
              1.) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE USSR AND GREAT BRITAIN ON THE UNION IN THE WAR AGAINST HITLER GERMANY AND ITS COMMUNITIES IN EUROPE AND ON COOPERATION AND MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AFTER THE WAR (May 26, 1942.)

              Article 6. The High Contracting Parties agreed to render each other any kind of mutual economic assistance after the war.

              Article 7. Each of the High Contracting Parties undertakes not to enter into any alliances and not to participate in any coalitions directed against the other High Contracting Party
          2. Geisenberg
            Geisenberg April 10 2013 18: 07
            +2
            Since the laws of Argentina and the Argentinean administration acted on this territory. The British were silent for 300 years, and then suddenly their land was hated. The question is, and that urinate then 300 years? It was a banal devour of a separate country by the NATO bloc.
            1. seafarer
              seafarer April 12 2013 00: 29
              0
              Anglo-Saxons do not like.
              But the Falkland Islands have been British at least since the end of the 19th century.
              Let me remind you about the Falklands battle in 1914, when the German squadron of Admiral Scheer (BrKr "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau") after the defeat of the British. Adm.Kredok's squadrons at Cape Coronel tried to destroy a radio station in the Falklands, and ran into a squadron of battle cruisers (LCR "Invincible" and "Inflexible") adm. Stredi.
            2. seafarer
              seafarer April 12 2013 00: 41
              0
              Quote: Geisenberg
              The English remained silent for 300 years, and then suddenly their land was hated. The question is, and that urinate then 300 years?

              Anglo-Saxons do not like.

              But the Falkland Islands have been British at least since the end of the 19th century.

              Let me remind you about the Falklands battle in 1914, when the German squadron of Admiral Scheer (BrKr "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau") after the defeat of the British. Adm.Kredok's squadrons at Cape Coronel tried to destroy a radio station in the Falklands, and ran into a squadron of battle cruisers (LCR "Invincible" and "Inflexible") adm. Stredi.
        2. Army1
          Army1 April 10 2013 13: 12
          -2
          Quote: Arberes
          Secondly, all the same, not for a thousand versts ANGLOSAKSAM kissel slurp! The colonies were not enough closer?
          And in the third, ENGLAND has always been the worst enemy of RUSSIA and the Soviet Union!
          This foggy Albion always put us sticks in the wheels, (sometimes it came to an open collision, but mostly out of silence) and now it is doing it. They look into the eyes and smile, and behind them the stylet is ready, just try to look away !!!

          I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!!!! ALBINOSOV'S ALL CASES, YES AND THE CENTER FOR POWER OF THE WORLD GOVERNMENT I THINK ALSO THERE.
          1. Army1
            Army1 April 11 2013 00: 36
            -1
            Two British did not like
        3. Petr_Sever
          Petr_Sever April 11 2013 00: 06
          0
          Quote: Arberes
          Well, firstly, ideology immediately works. We and the bourgeois.

          Argentina, it must be understood, a communist country, BGG))
          Quote: Arberes
          And in the third, ENGLAND has always been the worst enemy of RUSSIA and the Soviet Union!

          Yes, yes, Soviet Russia, on the other hand, famously got even with them, in 1918, the Brest Peace,
          having committed frank betrayal of the allies ..
    4. Doctor Evil
      Doctor Evil April 10 2013 12: 48
      +5
      The Argentine diesel submarine "San Luis" U-209 type several times launched a torpedo attack. Unfortunately, to no avail, but made a good deal of rustle. The Britons also failed to sink it.
      1. Doctor Evil
        Doctor Evil April 10 2013 13: 46
        +2
        Well, why did they hit me with a minus? He answered the question of Arberez. And why the comment fell down a branch, without a clue.
      2. Delta
        Delta April 10 2013 14: 12
        -2
        Quote: Dr. Evil
        The Argentine diesel submarine "San Luis" U-209 type several times launched a torpedo attack. Unfortunately, to no avail, but made a good deal of rustle. The Britons also failed to sink it.

        But what rustle did she make there if she wasn’t found and the results of her stay (or a possible breakthrough of the blockade) did not leave this submarine?
        1. Doctor Evil
          Doctor Evil April 10 2013 15: 13
          +5
          And you, Dear, type a query in the search engine and find out. You didn’t find out how they drove 20 hours and all to no purpose. As a result, one of the conditions when choosing a landing site was its inaccessibility for submarine attacks.
          1. Delta
            Delta April 10 2013 15: 37
            0
            Why do I need a search engine, dear, if I know perfectly well that even the submarine commander's own reports indicate that all the submarine's torpedo attacks were in vain. And the British simply did not notice them. Well, what's the rustle? By the way, the data on the combat service of this submarine (its logbook) has not yet been declassified, so the participation of this submarine is questionable in principle. The Argentines needed the PL for propaganda. No wonder she was credited with the sinking of an aircraft carrier, then at least a destroyer))) which of course was not. Which search engine has information that she was "chased"?
            1. Doctor Evil
              Doctor Evil April 10 2013 15: 47
              +2
              Indeed, why do you need a search engine, you were present on board and you know everything. Troll, my friend, judging by habits. I don’t intend to conduct further discussion and feed you. So I take your leave, stay with yourselves, comrade Internet Major.
              1. Delta
                Delta April 10 2013 15: 53
                -4
                so which of us is a troll, after a spilled der..ma?))) Need a search engine? communicate with him, Mr. offended Internet foreman, obviously certainly not only aboard her, but also aboard all other ships.

                And, by the way, about the search engine. So here's what's in a wiki like that boat
                http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_San_Luis_%28S-32%29
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 10 2013 22: 53
                  +5
                  Quote: Delta
                  if I know very well that even in my own reports the submarine commander indicated that all the submarine's torpedo attacks were in vain. But the British simply did not notice them.

                  Delta disgraced again

                  on 1 May, was on medium sized warships
                  with helicopters as identified by sonar only. These warships were the HMS Brilliant and the HMS Yarmouth. The attack was unsuccessful and the San Luis was counterattacked for 20 hours with depth charges and at least one torpedo


                  source - http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA279554&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
                  p. 10 bottom paragraph

                  Yarmouth and Brilliant chased the boat for 20 hours, dropping depth charges and at least one torpedo
                  1. Delta
                    Delta April 10 2013 22: 59
                    -5
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Delta disgraced again

                    I would suggest you no longer disgrace, but it’s obvious that you have such masochism))) I’m waiting for your next pseudostates, I’ll laugh with pleasure
    5. nnz226
      nnz226 April 10 2013 12: 53
      12
      With all due respect to the Argentines - they are - Sheep !!! Have more than a month of head start, proximity to mainland bases and not prepare! We would have transferred several batteries of large-caliber guns to the islands and a couple of battalions of tanks and the Aglitsky landing force would have been mixed with mud. Neither the command nor the "goldatics" of the Argentines were distinguished by either intelligence or staunchness. Province, sir!
      1. Volozhanin
        Volozhanin April 10 2013 20: 20
        +4
        For tanks there, the terrain is unsuitable — stones, rocks, finally not a fountain. But did they transfer the heavy artillery as much as they can, just the point? The runway is still as short, they could lengthen (in theory), conscripts who served 6 months against higher professionals samples: the Guards Infantry, Marines and PARA. Well, and generally a bad luck for the Args. Perhaps yes, BARANS. Now I’m reading Woodward’s memoirs. An extremely boring, boring and uninteresting book about such an interesting war.
        1. seafarer
          seafarer April 12 2013 00: 38
          0
          Quote: Volozhanin
          The runway is still short, could have lengthened (in theory)

          The Britons, by the way, did just that: after the hostilities ended, the first thing they did was lengthen the runways to 3000 m, so that you could take любые aircraft
      2. cdrt
        cdrt April 10 2013 22: 13
        0
        That's exactly what you have to do ... playing a toy for the Argentines ...
      3. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg April 11 2013 00: 04
        +1
        Quote: nnz226
        With all due respect to the Argentines, they are Sheep !!!


        Unfortunately, this is what it looks like. But actually it’s still easier. The country did not participate in any modern warfare - neither experience, nor commanders, etc. It’s a miracle that they just at least fought something.
    6. nnz226
      nnz226 April 10 2013 12: 53
      0
      With all due respect to the Argentines - they are - Sheep !!! Have more than a month of head start, proximity to mainland bases and not prepare! We would have transferred several batteries of large-caliber guns to the islands and a couple of battalions of tanks and the Aglitsky landing force would have been mixed with mud. Neither the command nor the "goldatics" of the Argentines were distinguished by either intelligence or staunchness. Province, sir!
      1. Volozhanin
        Volozhanin April 10 2013 20: 30
        +4
        And yet, on the GREAT CHESSBOARD there are players and there are pawns. Here are the argams and pointed to their true place in this world. The British lion showed that he still had not all his teeth dropped out and roared (for the last time?). In this story, I one more thing admires. If the British fleet showed itself at that moment when it was in a state of decline and crisis, how did it look at the zenith of fame? Respect and respect. You can minus, but such enemies are worthy of admiration and respect.
    7. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg April 10 2013 18: 00
      +3
      I also remember very well how our media covered this war. It was very disappointing for the Argentines. In all respects, the Argentines lacked the most basic combat experience. All they had to do was re-equip substandard American bombs with serviceable fuses. Immediately after the first unexploded bombs. Well and then of course the airport on the islands.
      1. Volozhanin
        Volozhanin April 10 2013 20: 33
        +3
        The bombs were serviceable, only they were dropped from extremely low altitudes and the fuses did not have time to stand on a combat platoon.
        1. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg April 10 2013 23: 58
          +1
          Quote: Volozhanin
          The bombs were serviceable, only they were dropped from extremely low altitudes and the fuses did not have time to stand on a combat platoon.


          This is exactly what is called a malfunction.
    8. seafarer
      seafarer April 12 2013 00: 43
      0
      Quote: Arberes
      Did the submarines of ARGENTINA participate in this conflict or didn’t they have them at that time (I mean diesels)?


      Participated.
      The most famous are 2 submarines of the Argentine Navy:
      "Santa Fe", which 25 April was damaged by British helicopters (2 AS-12 missiles) in Grüntviken; lost the ability to dive and, as a result of the damage received, sank in the harbor. It was later raised and became part of Royal Navy.
      DPL "San Luis" (built by Germany) under the command of Cap. Lieutenant Asquet 1 May attacked the aircraft carrier "Invincible" with a 2 torpedo salvo from a distance of 1400 yards (about 1300m). I fired according to the acoustics data / without overscope / hits did not achieve. True, the Britons drove her for almost 20 hours, but they could not sink.
      Brittanya Nuclear submarine "Conquerer" ("Conkerоp "?) attacked the cruiser" Admiral (General?) Belgrano " 2 May around 19:00 in a 3-torpedo salvo. The first torpedo hit the cheekbone, in the area between the clams and the bow tower of the Civil Code - the bow was completely torn off. The second torpedo hit the aft area of ​​the superstructure. The third torpedo passed by. Interestingly, these were torpedoes from the time of WWII Mk-8.
  2. shurup
    shurup April 10 2013 09: 44
    +5
    Conclusion. Early written-off piston aircraft capable of operating from field runways.
    Now this niche is filled with shock UAVs.
  3. svp67
    svp67 April 10 2013 09: 50
    +1
    Well, the runway "Brit" has been lengthened, now the Argentines can try again ...
  4. lars
    lars April 10 2013 09: 52
    +8
    Yes, it was an interesting fight. Many experts believe that if the Pukara light attack aircraft, which the Argentines had in the Falklands, were equipped with torpedo bombers, the crowded British squadron would be "absolutely good." But, history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. In any case, the experience is very interesting. The human factor plays a big role again. Respect for the Argentine pilots who stormed ships on the direct exit. The British could not even think (the concept did not imply them) that with such a shipborne air defense it was possible.
    1. Arberes
      Arberes April 10 2013 10: 16
      +5
      Dear wholly agree with youlars drinks
      Despite the losses, the pilots of the Argentine Air Force did their job, and the sunken ships of the BRITISH Crown testify to this.
      ENGLAND airplanes were equipped with dipole reflector-traps and it helped them a lot, I think they had air-to-air missiles more effective!
      But the NORTH OF ARGENTINA did not show itself at all!
    2. avt
      avt April 10 2013 10: 33
      +6
      Quote: lars
      Yes, it was an interesting fight. Many experts believe that if the Pukara light attack aircraft, which the Argentines had in the Falklands, were equipped with torpedo bombers, the crowded British squadron would be "very good"

      Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. What are torpedoes on a counterguerrilla plane? request Well on Ivek - Lynx still suggest to put a 125mm gun. The main mistake of the Argentine slovens was that they did not bother to prepare the infrastructure and place their Standards, Skyhawks but Falklands. And also provide air reconnaissance over the adjacent water area. Clowns used observations from flying civilian sides. Well, the Amer bombs ..... generally a separate song. In general, the generals didn’t have to dance tango with each other, but normally prepare for the conflict. Well, after all, complete nonsense was to start a war without receiving weapons under contracts! The standards flew to the English, if memory serves, with five Exocetes! In general, the voivode they have, they’ll probably carry over. But it didn’t. And the pilots are desperate guys goodAt such a junk, Standards do not count and in such conditions request .
      1. Santa Fe
        April 10 2013 13: 36
        +4
        Quote: avt
        What are torpedoes on a counterguerrilla plane?


        The maize worker Suardfish once raised torpedoes. Argentine "Pucara" will be stronger
        1. avt
          avt April 10 2013 15: 08
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The maize worker Suardfish once raised torpedoes. Argentine "Pucara" will be stronger

          request Is that a joke? Or is it just too lazy to see why and when Pukara was created and for what purposes they were thrown to the islands?
        2. VAF
          VAF April 10 2013 16: 52
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Sweetcorn Swordfish


          Oleg, as always, RESPECT and huge, +! All parts are just SUPER! drinks

          I forgot to indicate in the letter that subsequently the flight rates and starting time became the same for everyone, i.e. 8 and 10 and the same number of flights1

          April 6th was the anniversary of the Dolphin -50 years .... arranged flights to Stupino ... pleasure .. full PPK-U fellow

      2. lars
        lars April 10 2013 20: 58
        +2
        By the beginning of the events in the South Atlantic, the Argentinean Air Force received about 60 unique combat aircraft of its own design and construction of the IA-58A Pucara (the plane received its name “Pukara” from the names of the small fortresses of the Patagonian Indians). This lightweight two-seat attack aircraft, designed primarily to combat all kinds of partisans, was created by Fabrica Militar de Aviones (FMA), located in Cordoba. It was equipped with two French Turbomeca Astazou XVIG turboprop engines with a power of 1022 electric horsepower each. The aircraft had a solid arsenal of weapons, which included onboard 20-mm guns and 7,62 mm machine guns, as well as up to 1500 kg of various ammunition suspended on three external nodes (bombs, 70-mm NAR, napalm tanks and even torpedoes).
        http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/folkl/pucara/pucara.html
  5. Prometey
    Prometey April 10 2013 09: 56
    +2
    It feels like this war was a showdown of two groups of beggars - they fought as best they could, with handy means)
    1. Santa Fe
      April 10 2013 23: 50
      +2
      Quote: Prometey
      this war was a showdown of two groups of rogue - they fought as best they could, with handy means


      Argentine and British paratroopers fell into each other from the same rifle - FN FAL

      Argentine Air Force used as naval reconnaissance aircraft and AWACS ... passenger airliners request

      The args also had 2 "real" early warning aircraft - the P-2 Neptune of 1945 (both were out of order on the 15th day of the war) crying

      The Argentine craftsmen dismantled 2 containers with Exocet anti-ship missiles from the destroyer, transported the "special cargo" to the islands, reprogrammed the GOS - and launched this mess from the shore, using the air defense radar for target designation. The first time was missed, the second missile hit the destroyer HMS Glamorgan belay

      Not without "friendly fire": the British destroyer "Cardiff" accidentally shot down an army helicopter; Argentines are generally handsome - the damaged Mirage of Aregntina's Air Force went to an emergency landing in Port Stanley: while descending, it dropped a PTB - they thought from the ground that an enemy plane was dropping bombs and immediately shot it down. wassat

      The commander of the British destroyer Sheffield, performing the tasks of the radar patrol, said that all this is bullshit - turn off the radar, it interferes when I talk on the satellite phone. fool The radar was turned off. An hour later, we received an Exocet anti-ship missile system on board. That didn't explode. But the ship all the same burned out and sank.
      Etc.
      there are a dozen or two tragicomic episodes. Worthy of an entire article
      1. Delta
        Delta April 11 2013 12: 50
        -1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Worthy of an entire article

        do not!!!!!!
  6. bubla5
    bubla5 April 10 2013 10: 19
    +2
    Something authors pulled on the British
  7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 10 2013 10: 29
    12
    1. Aircraft carriers are not able to replace a normal airfield.

    Oleg ! good laughing laughing laughing
    This is five points :))) I have no doubt that if it suddenly comes to your mind to write an article about how to grow orchids at home, or about raising sharpei puppies, then the conclusion about the meaninglessness of aircraft carriers will be there :)))
    1. Andy
      Andy April 10 2013 11: 20
      +5
      the author is all with the mills ... ugh, the aircraft carriers are fighting. so he is tempted to ask him why "the aircraft carriers are not capable of replacing a normal airfield", but all the "aircraft carriers" won at the "coast"
  8. newcomer
    newcomer April 10 2013 10: 30
    +3
    Quote: svp67
    Well, the runway "Brit" has been lengthened, now the Argentines can try again ...


    as Lavrentiy Palych said, "an attempt is not torture." The Britons, according to yours, specially for the arrival of Argentine friends have lengthened the runway, and now they are impatiently and in awe - when to lay the red carpet for dear guests.
  9. avt
    avt April 10 2013 10: 38
    0
    Quote: avt
    Quote: lars
    Yes, it was an interesting fight. Many experts believe that if the Pukara light attack aircraft, which the Argentines had in the Falklands, were equipped with torpedo bombers, the crowded British squadron would be "very good"

    Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. What are torpedoes on a counterguerrilla plane? request . The main mistake of the Argentine slovens was that they did not bother to prepare the infrastructure and place their Standards, Skyhawks but Falklands. And also provide air reconnaissance over the adjacent water area. Clowns used observations from flying civilian sides. Well, the Amer bombs ..... generally a separate song. In general, the generals didn’t have to dance with each other, but normally prepare for the conflict, if they were going to fight. Well, after all, complete nonsense was to start a war without receiving weapons under contracts! Standards flew to the English, if memory serves, with five Exocetes!
    Flyers, yes, heroic guys, and the governors have a full guano. One word-coaker.
  10. Nayhas
    Nayhas April 10 2013 11: 06
    +8
    Oleg, you are making the wrong conclusions. If at VBR. If there was a full-fledged aircraft carrier with FULL Fighter aircraft, refueling aircraft and AWACS, then not a single Skyhawk would break through to the landing ships. Having at least three airfields on the islands, but not having data on the air situation, the loss of VBR. would be similar.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 10 2013 12: 57
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      If at VBR. was a full-fledged aircraft carrier with FULL Fighters, refueling aircraft and AWACS

      Ahaha. If the UK had a full-fledged aircraft carrier with COMPLETE fighters, refueling aircraft and AWACS ... the Argentine Air Force would have 50 Super Etandars, 106 Exocet anti-ship missiles, all-round AIM-9Ls and a two-kilometer runway in the Falklands.
      And the British squadron would come to an end

      In reality, the impoverished Argentina had only 5 Super Etandar missile carriers and 6 Exocet anti-ship missiles, the only KS-130 tanker and 2 AWACS aircraft (Neptune models of the 40s). And impoverished Britain did not have enough money even for sea anti-aircraft self-defense systems "Falanx" ... what kind of aircraft carriers are there, what are you talking about)))

      In 1982, carrier-based aircraft of the British Navy operated in GENTLY conditions, but completely failed the task - a third of the squadron ships were damaged (there are comments about this below)
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 10 2013 16: 12
        +4
        “If Great Britain had a full-fledged aircraft carrier with COMPLETE fighters, refueling aircraft and AWACS ... the Argentine Air Force would have 50 Super Etandars, 106 Exocet anti-ship missiles, all-round AIM-9Ls and a two-kilometer runway in the Falklands.
        And the British squadron would have come to a complete end "- far from obvious. As you know," Super Etandar "was still not a fighter and against the fighters of the aircraft carrier, for example," Kitty Hawk "they would have no chance. 24 Tomkata would provide a clear sky, and the Intruders with the Corsairs would plow a hypothetical "two-kilometer runway" with technicians, fuel and airfield equipment, but on the contrary Argentines were lucky that the British did not have full-fledged aircraft.
        1. Santa Fe
          April 10 2013 22: 20
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          and let’s say Kitty Hawk against fighter aircraft carriers, they would have no chance. 24 Tomcat would provide a clear sky, and Intruders with Corsairs would open

          )))))
          The aircraft carrier "Kitty Hawk" with an F-14 and a trained crew was more expensive than the Falkland Islands, Argentina and Great Britain combined)))))
          Excessively expensive, wasteful and ineffective means for local disassembly with a beggar Argentina.

          Moreover, in that hypothetical situation, "Kitty Hawk" would be 100% corpse. What prevents to protect the airfield with the battery of the Kvadrat air defense missile system (export "Cube") and the S-200. Throwing subsonic Intruders against the batteries of modern air defense systems means betraying the pilots. In 1984, US carrier-based aircraft climbed into the Bekaa Valley and lost 2 aircraft (Corsair and Intruder) on their first sortie. There were no people willing to post the flight - next time the positions of the Syrian air defense systems were fired upon by the battleship "New Jersey".
    2. Volozhanin
      Volozhanin April 10 2013 20: 42
      +2
      Yes, yes, I also thought about everything, don’t write off the limes in 1980 with your heavy aircraft carrier Ark Royal, which had phantoms and buccaneers + guns-AWACS, the args wouldn’t even be flopped. And if ..., we would get more serious. F-4 Phantom vs Subsonic Skyhawk.
      1. Santa Fe
        April 10 2013 22: 24
        0
        Quote: Volozhanin
        , do not write off the limes in 1980 your heavy aircraft carrier Ark Royal, on which there were phantoms and buccaneers + gannets-AWACS, the args would not even be blown off.

        Start the argi war six months later - 14 ordered Super Etandars and 24 Exocet anti-ship missiles would arrive in Argentina. - and the decrepit "Ark Royal" would dance like in a frying pan)))
        (in reality, the Argentine Air Force managed to get 5 SuperEthandars and 6 missiles)
  11. Delta
    Delta April 10 2013 11: 39
    +1
    The author could not even subscribe to the article. And so it is clear. I wonder what other words the author did not have in previous articles to express hatred and contempt for aircraft carriers ...
    And what are aircraft carriers in general? are these animals or insects? Kaptsov, there are none. And there never was. Get down already and change the record, give out at least something else, but useful
    1. Santa Fe
      April 10 2013 13: 01
      0
      I have one question: why was the Harrier Forward Operating Base built, if the British had as many as two aircraft carriers
      1. Delta
        Delta April 10 2013 13: 25
        0
        What are the aircraft carriers? what it is?
  12. Vtel
    Vtel April 10 2013 11: 44
    +2
    Yeah! "According to statistics, 80% of Argentine bombs and missiles that hit Her Majesty's ships did not work in a regular way! It is easy to imagine what would happen if they all exploded - Glasgow, Plymouth, Argonaut, landing ships - all of them With the loss of a third of its squadron, Great Britain was deprived of the opportunity to fight on the other side of the earth and lost the Falklands War. Indeed, the British were on the verge of disaster!

    But the 20% of the detonated ammunition was more than enough to destroy six ships of the British squadron!
    - the destroyer "Sheffield" - burned down from unexploded PKR "Exochet";
    - the destroyer "Coventry" - died under the bombs of Argentine stormtroopers;
    - the frigate "Ardent" - numerous hits of aerial bombs, explosion of ammunition cellars;
    - frigate "Antilup" - two unexploded bombs, detonation when attempting to mine;
    - air transport “Atlantic Conveyor” - simultaneous entry of two Exocset anti-ship missiles;
    - the already mentioned landing ship "Sir Galahad" - the damage was so severe that the British had to sink the ship in the Atlantic. "
    1. Santa Fe
      April 10 2013 12: 49
      +1
      Quote: Vtel
      But the 20% of the detonated ammunition was more than enough to destroy six ships of the British squadron!

      it's still nonsense
      from bombs and missiles seriously affected:
      - frigate "Argonaut" (burned out, lost its course);
      - frigate "Brodsward" (the bomb did not explode, but the mechanical damage was great);
      - frigate "Prlimut" (4 hits of bombs, none of them exploded, but their own depth charges detonated from the blows, tfzhelevy damage);
      - the destroyer "Glamorgan" (hit by the "Exocet" anti-ship missile system, a fire for many hours);
      - landing ship "Sir Tristram" (completely burned out and lost its course).

      And about 10 ships were damaged by unexploded bombs: Entrim, Elecrity, Sir Lancelot, Glasgow ...

      The damage to the Sir Tristram was so great that it lost its speed, buoyancy and was completely burnt out. Here it is, returning home with the help of the DAN Lifter platform (by the way, "Sir Tristram" is not one of the officially lost 6 ships)
      1. Kars
        Kars April 10 2013 15: 57
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        (by the way, "Sir Tristram" is not one of the officially lost 6 ships)

        the Yankees this battleship also recorded in the damaged (((
    2. Volozhanin
      Volozhanin April 10 2013 20: 47
      +1
      I love pictures from that war, and this including
  13. gorkoxnumx
    gorkoxnumx April 10 2013 16: 08
    +1
    What is Nar S-8 or what?
  14. Lexx
    Lexx April 10 2013 20: 18
    +1
    War of the two bald for a comb
  15. gorkoxnumx
    gorkoxnumx April 10 2013 20: 29
    0
    Everyone needs oil !!!
    1. cdrt
      cdrt April 10 2013 22: 20
      0
      Can you tell me how much that oil was sold after 30 years? wink
      Knowing the real answer, your phrase can be applied as an explanation of the flight of Americans to the moon wink
  16. Selevc
    Selevc April 10 2013 21: 03
    +1
    Reading the article and comments, for some reason I get the impression that that war was a "Pyrrhic victory" for England ... The war revealed more problems in the British army and the Navy than joy from their successes ...

    The world’s leading power with a huge carrier fleet and apl fleet with great difficulty won the war against a country with obviously outdated weapons at that time ... If we compare the Air Force and the Navy of Argentina and England, it was a battle of the Elephant and the Pug - while the Pug was defeated but still thoroughly patted the Elephant ...

    The damage caused by the Argentines to the British fleet is especially impressive ... I think it is unnecessary to tell anyone especially what the Navy is for Britain - in fact, it is the face of this country ... The courage and professionalism of the Argentine pilots is impressive - they were able to beat the arrogant British face more than once :)) )
    1. Santa Fe
      April 10 2013 22: 01
      +2
      Quote: Selevc
      For some reason, the impression is that that war for England was a "Pyrrhic victory" ... The war revealed more problems in the British army and navy than the joy of their successes ...

      Geopolitically, the Falkland operation was a brilliant victory for Britain
      1. Overseas territories returned
      2. Britain's prestige has grown - the old lion has shown the world that it still has fangs
      3. The junta collapsed in Argentina - the new regime was more accommodating and began to return debts to Britain
      4. British society received a considerable charge of patriotism

      From a military point of view, it was largely an accident (or a regularity?) When 80% of bombs did not explode (expired), and the fleet was locked in bases because of the British nuclear submarines ... in such circumstances, Argentina could not win, of course . The fall of the blocked Falkland garrison was only a matter of time.

      However, despite the victory, the sailors of the whole world made a very definite conclusion for themselves: Her Majesty's fleet of the 1982 model of the year is an incompetent bunch of rusty rubbish that can be thrown by free-falling bombs from subsonic aircraft!
      Replicas instead of warships, with unsatisfactory survivability and limited capabilities, without self-defense systems, without normal missiles, artillery.

      Attack of A-4 Skyhawk on Her Majesty's squadron. Subsonic machines insolently fly to ships, as if now World War II, and not 1982
    2. Delta
      Delta April 10 2013 22: 48
      0
      Quote: Selevc
      world power with a huge carrier fleet and apl fleet

      just with a small carrier fleet. And for thousands of kilometers from their native shores
  17. Selevc
    Selevc April 10 2013 22: 37
    +1
    And also the war for the Falklands showed the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles - so a country that does not have a serious fleet, but has a decent supply of such weapons, can cause serious damage to even a very strong naval enemy ...
    1. Delta
      Delta April 10 2013 22: 57
      +1
      This is an assumption from the category of "if only". There is a lot of talk here about the unexploded bombs of the Argentines and at the same time they are admired. But for some reason, when they talk about the turned off radars of the British, then they spread rot. Just as more Argentine bombs could go off, so the British could take service more seriously.
      1. Santa Fe
        April 10 2013 23: 11
        0
        Quote: Delta
        when it’s talking about off the radar

        just once - Sheffield drowning incident
        Quote: Delta
        the British could take service more seriously.

        Any war, from the point of view of order and organization, is like a fire in a brothel
      2. Selevc
        Selevc April 11 2013 20: 36
        0
        Quote: Delta
        But for some reason, when it is said about the switched off radars of the British, they are spread rot.

        Something I can not believe that on a ship in the combat zone, and even with a constant threat of being attacked from the air, the radar was turned off !!! It is very similar to the usual western brekhalovka - naturally, did they somehow have to justify the fact of the loss of the destroyer?

        I won’t say they are worth the weight of the world - "Our ship's air defense system is so full of holes that it cannot withstand Argentine missiles" - so they came up with this story as a cover about the seemingly disabled Shuffield radar !!!
  18. Backfire
    Backfire April 10 2013 22: 45
    +2
    Interesting article. But the conclusions are erroneous - they say, when "the parades end and begins to smell of" kerosene ", then the aircraft carriers are immediately in the bushes, carrier-based aircraft ashore, and all the work begins to be done by conventional coast-based aircraft.

    If anything in this regard was shown by the experience of the war for the Falklands, then the old truth is that there is no need to "cook soup from an ax." No need to try to save money on what is not worth saving. Either we make a normal aircraft carrier with a full-fledged flight wing, or we don't do it at all. Half measures never lead to good.
    "Shortened aircraft carriers" or "aircraft carrier cruisers" with vertical takeoff aircraft are a waste of money and the bitterness of defeat during the war.

    Only a full-fledged aircraft carrier is needed, with catapults and a deck of sufficient length to launch and receive: AWACS aircraft, refueling aircraft, jammers and combat aircraft with full ammunition. Everything else is a deception of ourselves.

    A question may arise - but it was precisely such "shortened aircraft carriers" with vertical take-off planes that saved England from defeat in that war. How so?
    The answer is simple.
    In the Falklands conflict, England was saved only by the fact that up to 80% of the bombs dropped from Argentine aircraft did not explode! Most of the warheads of the Exoset missiles did not detonate either. Otherwise, the outcome of the war would have been completely different.
    So lucky can once every 100 years. And they hope for such a case - to doom themselves to defeat.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 10 2013 23: 07
      -2
      Quote: Backfire
      Or we make a normal aircraft carrier with a full-fledged avikrylom or do not do at all.

      You want to say that no country in the world can wage a war except the United States?)))
      Quote: Backfire
      Only a full-fledged aircraft carrier is needed, with catapults and a deck of sufficient length to launch and receive: AWACS aircraft, refueling aircraft, jammers and combat aircraft with full ammunition

      Only the States can afford such a ship. And then, in unpaid debt.
  19. Backfire
    Backfire April 10 2013 23: 15
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    You want to say that no country in the world can wage war except the United States?

    Hmm, are you even able to understand what you read? I didn't say not to have an army at all! I meant that you shouldn't "rivet" "non-aircraft carriers".
    For example, the same Argentina in the conflict mentioned - even fought very much for itself with England, which had aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons.


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Only the States can afford such a ship.

    The USSR could well afford the 3-4 of such ships if they were building a balanced fleet.
    Now the aircraft carrier can afford China, India. Also, Russia could well have a couple, just then in Russia there would not be as many dollar billionaires or as many, but they had fewer billions. And they need this happiness?
    1. Santa Fe
      April 10 2013 23: 35
      0
      Quote: Backfire
      The USSR could well afford the 3-4 of such ships if they were building a balanced fleet.

      The Navy of the USSR did not have classic aircraft carriers. Yes, even if there were three pieces - did something from this change?)))
      The Navy of the USSR performed all assigned tasks.
      Quote: Backfire
      Russia could well have a couple

      what for? where to apply them?
      Quote: Backfire
      then in Russia there would not be so many dollar billionaires

      yeah ... there is enough for a dozen Aegis destroyers and a squadron of multipurpose nuclear submarines of the "Seawulf" type
      Quote: Backfire
      I meant that you shouldn't "rivet" "non-aircraft carriers".

      But what if there is not enough money for Nimitz?)))
  20. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city April 10 2013 23: 35
    0
    As for our yaks, they made the most important mistake. They put us in control of fighter pilots. It was necessary to learn from scratch !!! Also, by the way, it concerns ekranopdanov. Those who yak mastered said that it is quite reliable. (In Afghanistan)
  21. Backfire
    Backfire April 10 2013 23: 42
    0
    Quote: 1c-inform-city
    The Navy of the USSR did not have classic aircraft carriers.


    You wrote about something else: such as a break, can anyone else besides the USA let aircraft carriers?

    Can! Once again - China, India, France


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    But what must be done to wage war on the sea?

    War at sea is not necessarily war only in the open ocean, thousands of miles from its bases.
    You can wage war in such seas as the North, Banzevoe, Mediterranean, etc. as well as in coastal ocean areas, relying on coastal aviation.

    The formation, made up of Tu-22M attack aircraft, under the cover of fighters (for which tankers are needed), is a very formidable force capable of striking the enemy fleet and covering its ships at a distance of at least hundreds of nautical miles from the coast.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 00: 01
      0
      Quote: Backfire
      Can! Once again - China, India, France

      None of these countries have a normal "classic aircraft carrier"
      Quote: Backfire
      with catapults and a deck of sufficient length to launch and receive: AWACS aircraft, refueling aircraft, jammers and combat aircraft with full ammunition.



      Quote: Backfire
      You can wage war in such seas as the North, Banzevoe, Mediterranean, etc. as well as in coastal ocean areas, relying on coastal aviation.

      why then an aircraft carrier?
      1. Backfire
        Backfire April 11 2013 00: 12
        0
        And here is a Chinese aircraft carrier:
  22. Backfire
    Backfire April 11 2013 00: 09
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    None of these countries have a normal "classic aircraft carrier"


    None of them?
    Is this a mirage?
    Meet: Charles de Gaulle. On board you can see the AWACS aircraft preparing for takeoff, similar to the E2 Hawkeye.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 00: 20
      0
      Quote: Backfire
      Meet: Charles de Gaulle. On board you can see the AWACS aircraft preparing for takeoff, similar to the E2 Hawkeye.


      Charles de Gaulle. Just the facts:
      - built 11 years.
      - 2,5 times less than the American Nimitz (40 thousand against 100 thousand tons), while it costs about the same.
      - in view of the foregoing, the construction of the second aircraft carrier was canceled

      de Gaulle is not a "classic" aircraft carrier. This is Nimitz's pathetic line.
  23. Backfire
    Backfire April 11 2013 00: 13
    0
    And here’s the Chinese aircraft carrier:
    1. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 00: 25
      -1
      this is an ordinary photojab)))
  24. Backfire
    Backfire April 11 2013 00: 28
    0
    Quote: Backfire
    de Gaulle is not a "classic" aircraft carrier - 2,5 times less than the American Nimitz (40 thousand versus 100 thousand tons)

    And what is he then?
    Or do you think, if not 100 thousand tons of displacement - so this is no longer an aircraft carrier?

    It carries a full-fledged air wing: Rafale fighters, attack aircraft, AWACS aircraft, multipurpose helicopters, and not "vertical aircraft" like England during the Falklands conflict (we are discussing it, haven't forgotten?)


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Built 11 years.

    And where does the construction time?
    1. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 00: 33
      0
      Quote: Backfire
      And what is he then?

      The ship of prestige.
      attempt to create your own aircraft carrier
      Quote: Backfire
      Or do you think, if not 100 thousand tons of displacement - so this is no longer an aircraft carrier?

      Even 100 thousand tons is not enough for serious hostilities
      40 thousand A ton carrier is weak as a puppy - half the wing, half the 4 ammunition. shorter on xnumx meters deck, xnumx catapults.
      Quote: Backfire
      And where does the construction timeline go?

      Despite the fact that aircraft carriers require at least two.
      1. Santa Fe
        April 11 2013 00: 55
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And where does the construction timeline go?
        Despite the fact that aircraft carriers require at least two.

        Aircraft carrier spends half of his life in a repair dock
        To maintain constant readiness, you need to build at least two aircraft carriers
  25. Backfire
    Backfire April 11 2013 00: 30
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    this is an ordinary photojab


    Well, here's a link to this "toad": http://www.itar-tass.com/c1/527277.html
    Your own ITAR-TASS.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 00: 42
      0
      Quote: Backfire
      Well, here's a link to this "toad": http://www.itar-tass.com/c1/527277.html Your own ITAR-TASS.

      Who cares where you got the picture
      There is no such ship in the PLA Navy

      The only Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning is the modernized Varyag. With a springboard. Without catapults and AWACS aircraft
  26. Backfire
    Backfire April 11 2013 00: 44
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Even 100 thousand tons is not enough for serious hostilities

    Burrowing talent into the ground - urgently to Washington, working as a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex - to push the aircraft carrier project in 1 million tons of displacement. bully
    1. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 00: 47
      0
      Quote: Backfire
      Burrowing talent into the ground - urgently to Washington, working as a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex - to push the aircraft carrier project in 1 million tons of displacement.

      The Pentagon has a better solution. 800 airbases on all continents of the earth


      In such circumstances, aircraft carriers are simply useless and not needed.
  27. Backfire
    Backfire April 11 2013 00: 53
    0
    Quote: Backfire
    The only Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning is the modernized Varyag. With a springboard. Without catapults and AWACS aircraft

    But the planes on it are full-fledged, not "vertical".
    Under the Falklands, England could not even dream of such a thing!

    And although it is used more as a training ship, nevertheless, they are not going to withdraw it from the fleet even after the commissioning of aircraft carriers under construction in China. Paired with a large aircraft carrier - there will be very nothing connection.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 01: 29
      -1
      Quote: Backfire
      But the planes on it are full-fledged, not "vertical".

      What is the difference - without AWAX they will not be able to detect the target
      Quote: Backfire
      Paired with a large aircraft carrier - there will be very nothing connection.

      where will they be used?)))
  28. Backfire
    Backfire April 11 2013 01: 09
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Aircraft carrier spends half of his life in a repair dock

    I'm not aware of how fast the aircraft carrier "should" dock.
    The main thing is different: how does this relate to the topic under discussion?

    You wrote that "no one except the United States has aircraft carriers".
    I answered you and proved that this is not so, that there are other countries with aircraft carriers.
    You yourself insert their pictures into your own posts.


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    40 thousand ton aircraft carrier weak as a puppy

    You have already made several naval "discoveries": for example, that an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 42 thousand tons, with two nuclear reactors and an air wing in 40 aircraft is a "puppy". Nifiga yourself a puppy !!! good

    But what is the significance of the details when you did not know the main thing - that there are other countries besides the USA that have aircraft carriers!
    1. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 01: 34
      0
      Quote: Backfire
      The main thing is different: how does this relate to the topic under discussion?

      Carriers need at least 2.
      The French have only one
      Quote: Backfire
      an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 42 thousand tons, with two nuclear reactors and an aircraft wing in 40 Aircraft is a "puppy". Nifiga yourself a puppy !!!

      )))
      Do you know how many planes it took to bomb Serbia a bit? or Libya?)))
      Quote: Backfire
      that there are other countries besides the USA that have aircraft carriers!

      all non-American Av are unfit and are profanity
  29. Backfire
    Backfire April 11 2013 01: 43
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Carriers need a minimum of 2. The French have only one

    Those. acknowledge that there are still countries besides the USA that also have aircraft carriers. Which was required.

    And I didn’t argue about the quantity

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Do you know how many planes it took to bomb Serbia a bit? or Libya?)

    I do not know. And this has nothing to do with your saying that "no one except the US has aircraft carriers"
    1. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 02: 08
      -2
      Quote: Backfire
      Do not know

      Attacks on Libya - 150 NATO aircraft from European and Mediterranean air bases
      NATO operation against Yugoslavia - 1000 aircraft
      Operation "Desert Storm" - 2600 aircraft of the MNS aviation, excluding rotary-wing aircraft
      Quote: Backfire
      an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 42 thousand tons, with two nuclear reactors and wing in xnumx aircraft is a "puppy". Nifiga yourself a puppy !!!

      De Gaulle - Go! Attack Iraq! Or at least Libya)))

      The capacity of the cellars of ammunition de Gaulle - 550 tons
      The mass of explosives dropped on Iraq in 1991 year - 141 000 tons
      de Gaulle is just a puppy compared to this power
  30. Backfire
    Backfire April 11 2013 02: 12
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Strikes against Libya - 150 NATO aircraft from European and Mediterranean airbases; NATO operation against Yugoslavia - 1000 aircraft; Operation Desert Storm - 2600 aircraft, excluding rotorcraft


    We talked about something completely different.
    I am glad that you have recognized that there are other countries besides the USA who have aircraft carriers.


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The capacity of the cellars of ammunition de Gaulle - 550 tons

    Neither the number of ships, nor the volume of their cellars, I had a discussion with you. hi
    1. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 02: 18
      -1
      Quote: Backfire
      I am glad that you have recognized that there are other countries besides the USA who have aircraft carriers.

      Carriers are different.
      There is at least a little battle-worthy, but insanely expensive system of 10 aircraft carriers Nimitz
      There are "ships of prestige" - incapacitated single pelvis, suitable only for parades - de Gaulle, Liaoning, Kuznetsov

      Just look at the number of ships built, the length of their decks and the amount of ammunition cellars to find out who is who.
  31. Backfire
    Backfire April 11 2013 02: 27
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Carriers are different.

    Well, finally. Okay, let it be "different" but the main thing Yes! love

    As for the price, the price of an aircraft carrier or the whole AUG itself does not matter. The main thing is that we "buy" for it. If world domination is like the United States for the last 50 years, so what's the difference how much it all costs? In the end, it is not we who pay, but those for whom all these AUG and other hardware "work". For example, those who have oil but no democracy:
    1. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 02: 34
      +1
      Quote: Backfire
      the price of an aircraft carrier or an entire AUG itself does not matter. The main thing is that we "buy" for it. If world domination like the United States for the last 50 years

      Carriers here?
      Quote: Backfire
      Well, finally. Okay, let it be "different" but the main thing is!

      The main thing is to eat! For example, the "pocket" aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy)))
      1. Backfire
        Backfire April 11 2013 02: 37
        +2
        We have this photo known in this form:
        1. Santa Fe
          April 11 2013 02: 43
          -2
          You did not answer the first question. On the connection between Nimitz and world domination of the United States)))
  32. Backfire
    Backfire April 11 2013 03: 15
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    You did not answer the first question. About the connection between Nimitz and US world domination

    I do not remember that we switched to "you". But I will explain:
    Because one of the main tools of this domination is the dollar.
    And when someone wants to "jump" from him, like Gaddafi ... well, everyone saw what happens.
    And one of the main tools for ensuring settlement in dollars is military force. AUGi is one of its components.
    1. Delta
      Delta April 11 2013 12: 44
      0
      Quote: Backfire
      I do not remember that we switched to "you".

      It's ok for him
    2. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 14: 05
      0
      Quote: Backfire
      I don't remember that we switched to "you"

      already crossed. closer to the topic
      Quote: Backfire
      And one of the main tools for ensuring settlement in dollars is military force. AUGi is one of its components.

      Have you ever thought that an aircraft carrier is an insignificant part of the US military machine?
      there are much more effective and efficient means of world influence: the same 800 military bases around the world.

      As for the AUG, it’s not just Nimitz, it’s the US Navy! And the aircraft carrier there is far from the most dangerous ship
  33. Selevc
    Selevc April 11 2013 09: 07
    +1
    "It remains a mystery why the Argentine command missed the opportunity to strike at the Hermes. If they succeeded, the British would collapse. Knowing this, we fought a war on the edge of a knife. I understood that there was only one accident - a mine, explosion or fire on any of our two aircraft carriers will almost certainly become fatal to the entire operation. " (Sir Admiral John Woodward, in 1982 commanded TS-317).
    1. Backfire
      Backfire April 11 2013 10: 36
      0
      I also cannot understand this. All 5 Exoset missiles had to be used in one attack, trying to disable at least one aircraft carrier.

      Perhaps they had problems with target designation, so they attacked what happened, and not what was needed from the point of view of strategy.
      1. Santa Fe
        April 11 2013 14: 24
        0
        Quote: Backfire
        I also cannot understand this. All 5 Exoset missiles had to be used in one attack, trying to disable at least one aircraft carrier.

        The Argentines had only one serviceable tanker KS-130
        British sailors are very lucky
    2. Santa Fe
      April 11 2013 14: 22
      +1
      Quote: Selevc
      a mine, explosion or fire on any of our two aircraft carriers will almost certainly be fatal for the entire operation

      why only on an aircraft carrier?

      what would happen if the landing ship "Sir Galahad" died not in the bay of San Carlos, but in the open sea, when it was hit by 1000-lb. bomb (did not explode). Hundreds of paratroopers could have become victims.

      In a similar situation was "Sir Lancelot" and "Sir Tristram" - the landing of the British troops hung in the balance

      What would happen if the destroyers Entrim (unexploded bomb in the engine room) and Glasgow, the frigate Brodsward, the British Way tanker (5 unexploded bombs) were killed - all these ships were corpses, if only one of the them bombs.

      + Xnumx Sunken War Corps
      + heavily damaged Plymouth and Argonaut (left the combat zone in tow)
      + "Brilliant", "Glamorgan", "Elekrity", "Arrow" which lost their combat capability (damage - broken radars, burned-out helicopters, damaged hull)

      Given the possible loss of landing ships, all this meant for Her Majesty's fleet an absolute loss
      1. Kars
        Kars April 11 2013 14: 42
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        what would happen

        In general, it would be interesting to consider the chain reaction of reducing the combat effectiveness of the squadron during the regular operation of Argentinean ammunition.
        A vet with each disabled ship, attacks on the remaining ones would become more effective.

        also add an interesting fact
        The frigate Alacriti met the Argentine transport Isla de los Estados and sank it with 114-mm gun fire. It seems that this may be the last ship in the history sunk by artillery fire.



        And of course, as I do not give this quote))))
        It also turned out that quite reliable rocket launchers have insufficient rate of fire, which prompted the idea of ​​using mine installations. The British bit their elbows because they sent the battleship Vengard to be scrapped, because with its help they could finish the battles on the islands in a matter of days. In addition, the good old battleship could simply not pay attention to the Exozets, which destroyed several ships. The missile warhead was a miserable 500-fnn bomb, hits which the battleship would not even notice
  34. Selevc
    Selevc April 11 2013 20: 23
    0
    The fighting on the Falklands somehow does not reach the level of a real war - it is rather a local conflict or special operations ...
    Argentina was probably just afraid to attack aircraft carriers - because in return you could get a carpet bombing of Buenos Aires and the shaves constantly scared their nuclear weapons ...

    I must admit that Argentina entered into this conflict completely unprepared ... There are completely incomprehensible strategic mistakes ... How could the British Navy really stand up with only 5 Exoset missiles? Having mostly outdated planes and ships? It is clear that Britain, in response to the seizure of the islands, will prepare an airborne assault for their release - while the main goals are of course aircraft carriers and landing ships ... It was for these purposes that the main blow needed to be prepared - and the sinking of 2-3 destroyers did not affect the course at all conflict is more like an act of retaliation ...
    1. seafarer
      seafarer April 12 2013 00: 17
      0
      Quote: Selevc
      Argentina was probably just afraid to attack aircraft carriers - because in return you could get a carpet bombing of Buenos Aires and the shaves constantly scared their nuclear weapons ...

      In this theater of war, the British had 1 (ONE!)bomber "Volcano". Bombed the positions of the Argentines on April 29 (also once).
      True, the Argentines really got scared and transferred all Mirage III fighters to the defense of Buenos Aires.
      1. Santa Fe
        April 12 2013 03: 52
        0
        [quote = seafarer] The Britons had 1 (ONE!) Volcano bomber in this theater of operations [/ quote]

        The RAF command developed a series of operations Black Buck (the contemptuous nickname of the South American Indians), which consisted in striking targets in Port Stanley with single "Volcanoes", which were to operate from Fr. Ascension. To do this, they transferred to Widewake airfield from Weddington AFB five Vulcan B.2 (numbers XL391, ХМ597, ХМ598, ХМ607, ХМ612) from the 44, 50 and 101 squadrons. In order for the bombers to overcome the 6250 km separating the Falklands from the Ascension, and return back, it was necessary to carry out numerous refueling in the air. Therefore focused on the Ascension 20 tankers Victor K.2, which were part of the 55 and 57 th squadrons, whose permanent base was Markham. In addition, as refuelers used 6 more "Volcanoes".[

        quote = seafarer] bombed the position of the Argentines on 29 April (also once). [/ quote]
        1-th time - April 30 departure, target - Stanley Port Airport runway
        only from April 30 to June 12 "Volcanoes" Five times bombed the falklands
    2. Santa Fe
      April 12 2013 03: 43
      0
      Quote: Selevc
      Argentina probably just was afraid to attack aircraft carriers

      Captain de Corbet R. Kurilovich waited for his turn to fly, for whom 3-A-203 was allocated, and tenete de navio (captain-lieutenant) X. Barras on 3-A-204. Xnumx's squadron na report came out that approximately 110 miles northeast of Port Stanley was a group of British ships, which included an aircraft carrier. The information was issued by the operations center in the archipelago, equipped with AN / TPS-43 radar. At about 10.00 Kurilovich and Barrasa took off, but it had to be interrupted because the tanker crew was not ready. Departure was postponed to the afternoon. At 14.30, the "drummers" left the Rio Grande and headed north-east. At 15.00, being 610 km from the enemy ships, they met a tanker, refueled, then turned to the southeast and at a speed of 923 km / h rushed towards the enemy fleet. The planes dropped to 30 m and opened up along the front to a distance of up to 2,4 km, sometimes increasing it to 3,2 km. At 16.28:69 pm Kurilovich turned on the radar for the first time. At a distance of 16.32 km, he found British ships, including two large ones. At XNUMX, the pilots fired missiles: first, the leader worked, and after one or two seconds, the follower. The Exocetes pursued two big goals ...

      The attacked ships turned out to be the aircraft carrier "Hermes" and the container ship "Atlantic Conveyor"... The British again did not expect an enemy. Only about a minute before the first missile hit the radar operators of the frigate "Embascade" found both AM39s and raised the alarm. Dipole reflectors were quickly fired from the ships, as a result of which the anti-ship missile system, which was heading for the Hermes, went off course. Then everything turned out as in a nightmare: this missile re-aimed and hit a container ship. And a moment before that "Atlantic Conveyor" hit the first AM39.

      Quote: Selevc
      and the sinking of the 2-3x destroyers didn’t affect the course of the conflict at all - it just looks more like an act of retaliation ...

      ))) 6 ships sank, 20 damaged - the triumph of the Argentine Air Force
      Quote: Selevc
      while the main goals are of course aircraft carriers and landing ships

      landing ships.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc April 12 2013 09: 04
        0
        In that war, Argentina had perhaps only one advantage over Britain - its proximity to the theater of war ... But Britain, on the contrary, overly stretched communications was a weak point and it was necessary to strike at that place ...
        And not with single aircraft but with a massive raid - Argentina as the weaker side of the conflict there was nothing left but one or two strong and decisive blows ...

        But in reality, we see sluggish half measures - single attacks that did not bring victory to Argentina. There were local triumphs - but the main goal of the war - the retention of the islands was not achieved !!!
        1. Ilyukha
          Ilyukha April 12 2013 12: 57
          +1
          I read the memoirs of Admiral Woodward, who commanded the British in that war.
          If at least one of the aircraft carriers had been lost / damaged, the war would have been lost. Without the Harrier, nothing would have happened.
          Argentines have never fought a serious opponent (the Indians do not count)), there was no experience.
          Having captured the islands, they brought in 11 thousand soldiers, with 16 (sixteen) guns, several light tanks and armored personnel carriers.
          This is 11 thousand soldiers!
          They didn’t build fortifications, they didn’t dig into the ground, they didn’t deliver cannon-tanks (although there were a lot of them). Would any of our German, English, and other commanders have come to mind?
          Football players, in short, they))
          1. Santa Fe
            April 12 2013 14: 31
            0
            Quote: Ilyukha
            If at least one of the aircraft carriers were lost / damaged, then the war would be lost

            The Britons could easily purge the war - they would lose most of their frigates, destroyers and landing ships (which in reality got hit by unexploded bombs)
            Quote: Ilyukha
            Argentines have never fought a serious opponent (the Indians do not count)), there was no experience.

            The foundation of the Argentine Armed Forces - former Wehrmacht officers. Despite the setbacks, Argentinean training turned out to be much better than anyone expected. Barely a third of the British squadron did not drown
            Quote: Ilyukha
            Without the Harrier, nothing would have happened.

            there is every reason to doubt this. The role of "Harrier" was episodic
            In addition, there was an ersatz airbase in the bay of San Carlos.
            Quote: Ilyukha
            Football players, in short, they))

            ))))

            Tank landing ship of the Argentine Navy "Cabo San Antonio"
            1. Ilyukha
              Ilyukha April 12 2013 15: 01
              0
              In general, the world in 1983 was really surprised that the players attacked WHOLE ENGLAND)), and later the military from different countries, appreciating the actions of the parties, were quite surprised that the British were able to win.
              An interesting and rare example of how victory was won due to the incredible mistakes of the enemy.
              PS Fugitive Nazis really were in the Argentine army. Only how old were they in 1983? Hardly in the service ..
        2. Santa Fe
          April 12 2013 14: 16
          0
          Quote: Selevc
          nothing but one or two but strong and decisive blows

          Quote: Selevc
          flaccid half measures - single attacks that did not bring victory to Argentina

          Thousands of combat and support flights of the Air Force and Navy of Argentina

          If we take the real situation: 6 anti-ship missiles, 1 tanker and unexploded bombs - only the Falklands airfield could save Argentina, but it was also not prepared properly.
  35. seafarer
    seafarer April 12 2013 00: 09
    0
    Quote: Arberes
    Did the submarines of ARGENTINA participate in this conflict or didn’t they have them at that time (I mean diesels)?

    Participated.
    The most famous 2 submarines of the Argentine Navy: "Santa Fe", which 25 April was damaged by British helicopters (2 AS-12 missiles) in Grüntviken; lost the ability to dive and, as a result of the damage received, sank in the harbor. It was later raised and became part of Royal Navy.
    DPL "San Luis" (built in Germany) under the command of Cap.-Lieutenant Asqueta 1 May attacked the aircraft carrier "Invincible" with a 2 torpedo salvo from a distance of 1400 yards (about 1300m). I fired according to the acoustics data / without overscope / hits did not achieve. True, the Britons drove her for almost 20 hours, but they could not sink.
    British nuclear submarine "Conqueror" ("Conqueror") attacked the cruiser "Admiral (General?) Belgrano" 2 May around 19:00 in a 3-torpedo salvo. The first torpedo hit the cheekbone, in the area between the clams and the bow tower of the Civil Code - the bow was completely torn off. The second torpedo hit the aft area of ​​the superstructure. The third torpedo passed by. Interestingly, these were torpedoes from the time of WWII Mk-8.
    1. Ilyukha
      Ilyukha April 12 2013 13: 12
      0
      I would like to correct you a little. The damaged Santa Fe was flooded by one of the captured Argentine sailors, who were forced to help in towing a boat, the design of which was not known to the British (US production, 1943, very old, class "Balao"
      The sailor was killed, and is the national hero of Argentina.
      Later the boat was lifted and melted, leading out of the bay, in a deeper place
  36. dooper
    dooper 6 June 2013 16: 23
    0
    For those interested http://historiwars.narod.ru/Index/XXv/Folk/folkmain.htm