Military Review

Blow out of the water. Episodes of the Falkland War

64



Exactly 31 a year ago, in the May days of 1982, the battles in the South Atlantic thundered.

The Falklands conflict has refuted most of the ideas about the modern sea battle. Instead of a “high-tech” war using radar, rocket weapons and satellite communications, where each enemy’s move is calculated from a pharmaceutical accuracy on a computer, and orders from London are delivered in real time to the other end of the Earth - instead of all this, Great Britain and Argentina got tragicomedy with non-explosive bombs, improvised missiles and sinking ships that were damaged slow and obsolete aircraft of the Argentine Air Force.

Failed weapons, friendly fire and the use of passenger airliners as naval reconnaissance are a brief description of that war. However, Falkland-82 cause genuine interest:

Firstly, this is the only maritime conflict that has occurred in the last 70 years - since the end of World War II. However, even this case can be called marine only conditionally: progress in aviation allowed jet aircraft to operate successfully from coastal bases. If the Argentines had a second active tanker and high-quality ammunition, the British squadron would have landed in full force on the approach to the islands.

The second important detail - in contrast to the usual format of modern wars (US vs Grenada), the Falklands War was a confrontation between two states of approximately equal strength. Each side had its own advantages: the British fleet - quantitative and qualitative superiority in armament and personnel training. Argentina - quantitative superiority in aviation, as well as, proximity to the theater of operations. As a result, none of the outside observers dared to give a confident forecast of the timing and results of the war in the South Atlantic.

Only when the Argentine fleet received an urgent order to return to the bases, it became obvious that Argentina would lose the war.

But what caused the sudden flight of the Argentine sailors? After all, the Argentines had a small, but well-tailored fleet of outdated ships purchased from leading maritime powers. Including: an aircraft carrier with a squadron of Skyhawk attack aircraft, an artillery cruiser from the Second World War and even two newest destroyers of URO (ironically, the British type 42, acquired for 10 years before the start of the war). Perfect nonsense by today's standards. However, it is enough to “pat” the squadron of Her Majesty's 1982 model of the year.


Queen's fleet goes to the South

The outdated ships of the Argentine Navy were modernized, equipped with Exocet and C Cat missile systems, modern radar and communication systems. Argentine deck aircraft made radar contact with the British compound. Enemy detected! Resolute attack with all available forces!
Alas, the plans of the Argentines suffer a complete collapse, the ships of Argentina leave the combat zone and hide in bases. The Ekoset missiles are being dismantled from the ships - a transport plane will deliver them to the Falkland Islands, where they will be launched from the shore by enemy ships.

Argentine sailors are afraid to approach the water. With horror and shudder, they look at the rolling crests of lead waves - somewhere there, beneath the surface of the cold ocean, an invisible Death moves. Five submarines fleet Her Majesty.

The British got their trump card from their sleeves. From now on, anyone who dares to get closer to the Falklands will get a kg of torpex into the side of the 340 - the combat unit of the British torpedo is able to break into two any enemy ship.

Submarines ... precisely nuclear submarines — Conqueor, Koreijs, Valiant, Splendid, and Spartan — drove the Argentine fleet into bases, ensuring the British had total supremacy of the sea — the fall of the blocked garrison on the Falklands became a matter of time.

Weekdays and exploits

The first to be killed was an Argentine cruiser “General Belgrano” - the 2 of May 1982 was literally “bitten off” by the nuclear submarine “Concaur”. With a torn off bow and a ruined engine room, the cruiser sank within 20 minutes after the torpedo attack. According to official figures, the victims of the incident were 323 sailor.

Repetition of the tragedy is not required. The indicative execution of the cruiser “Belgrano” gave impressive results: the Argentine fleet, realizing its helplessness before the underwater threat, immediately hid in the bases.

The sinking of the Belgrano initially pursued a purely practical benefit: the cruiser was a deadly threat to the British squadron, and it had to be eliminated. Fifteen 152 mm guns could easily sink all the frigates, tankers and container ships of Her Majesty - the British simply did not have the means to counter the Argentine cruiser. Wrapped in steel armor, the old knight was immune to 4,5 'cannon fire and the Exocet missiles that some of the British ships were equipped with. Alas, the General Belgrano fell in an unequal battle with the nuclear submarine.


General Belgrano clearly did not expect such a development.
The entire nose of the cruiser is cut off by an explosion - to the first tower of the Civil Code

Submarine "Concaurus" has become a key factor in the victory of Britain. But what did the rest of the submarines of Her Majesty?
After all, the 5 British nuclear-powered ships, one British diesel-electric submarine for special operations and two Argentine dizeluchs - a total of eight submarines, each of which has its own combat, took part in the Falklands War. history. However, very little is known about their actions - thematic sources often ignore the submarine fleet, preferring to talk about surface ships.

Indeed, the story about the combat service of submarines is of little interest from the point of view of the media - British nuclear-powered ships did not receive damage from the actions of the enemy. They did not explode, burned or sank. Did not engage in battle with Argentine aviation. They didn’t use their weapons - only the Concaur submarine was able to shoot in combat.

The rest of the submarines just calmly patrolled along the coast of Patagonia, sometimes performing completely fantastic functions. For example, provide long-range radar detection in the interests of the British squadron.

Blow out of the water. Episodes of the Falkland War

Atomic submarines "Spartan" and "Splendid" operated in the vicinity of the Rio Grande airbase (Tierra del Fuego Island) - lifting the retractable devices and means of detection (periscopes, radar antennas and electronic reconnaissance systems) above the water, tracking all movement of Argentine aviation.

“12: 15. Passenger "Boeing" - a course in the open ocean. " “14: 20. Four combat aircraft - a course to the northeast. Get ready for the guests' visit. ”

Operational information from the submarines allowed the British to at least somehow plan to repel air attacks - knowing the approximate arrival time of the “guests” and the most likely direction of attack, deck fighters “Sea Harrier” and “Sea King” helicopters were hanging in the air, hanging foil garlands over the ocean and dipole reflectors. Preparing for battle calculations SAM and anti-aircraft guns.

However, after some time, the Argentines spotted suspicious activity of British submarines in the vicinity of the Rio Grande air base and guessed about the plans of the enemy. Unable to drive off the unceremonious observers, the Argentine Air Force used elementary cunning - they began to take to the air every day their entire aviation, without any reason.

“11: 10. Soared passenger business jet. “11: 40. Takeoff four "Daggerov." “11: 50. Two combat aircraft - the course of the northeast. "

Panic begins on British ships - tons of foil strips fly into the air. Sailors with horror await a massive air attack. But the enemy is nowhere ... tension is growing, the British nerves are on the edge. "Harriers" frantically rush over the Atlantic, burning precious fuel. And so every day.

An interesting fact - the submarine "Spartan" became the first ship of Her Majesty, arrived in the conflict area at the beginning of April 1982, 20 days before the main forces of the squadron. Invisible underwater reconnaissance explored the coast of the occupied Falkland Islands, calculated the approximate number of enemy forces and tracked down the Argentine mineships. However, the Spartan did not receive an order to open fire - everyone was hoping to the last for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.


The layout of the British submarine type "Churchill" (this type belonged to "Concaurus")

In addition to monitoring the Rio Grande air base, one of the British submarines was continuously on duty at the entrance to Puerto Belgrano, the main naval base of Argentina (Buenos Aires province). 5 May 1982, a submarine reaching a shallow depth, was noticed by anti-submarine aviation aircraft - realizing that it was discovered, the nuclear submarine plunged and ... melted into the ocean without a trace. The Argentines did not manage to get rid of the intrusive and attentive "guard" until the last day of the war - any attempt to bring the fleet into the ocean meant an inevitable catastrophe - the underwater killer "Koreydzhes" would kill all the ships of the Argentine Navy right at the exit from the base.


Hms valiant

But the most curious incident occurred with the Valiant submarine - in the absence of a sea enemy, the boat was sent to the Rio Grande. Now "Valiant", "Spartan" and "Splendid" already with three periscopes monitored the situation at the Argentine air base. But an incredible thing happened - the Daggers of the Argentine Air Force who had returned from a combat mission could not detect the target and decided to get rid of the dangerous cargo by dropping bombs into the ocean. Bombs fell well, almost hooking the British nuclear submarine. By chance.

The body of a steel fish shuddered from close explosions, the sound-absorbing coating had come unstuck from the outer side of the cabin. “Valiant” counted combat damage. Nevertheless, the boat spent a day on combat patrols of the 101, thus becoming a record holder among British submarines.


HMS Onyx - Oberon diesel-electric submarine

Separately, it is worth noting the small angry fish "Onyx" - the only British diesel-electric submarines that took part in the conflict. Unlike her older "colleagues", the baby performed complex and risky operations directly in the coastal waters of the Falkland Islands. Already on April 20, the first group of SBS (Special Boat Service) Marine Special Forces was sent to the island of South Georgia from the submarine Onyx for reconnaissance and survey of the coast. Then there was a long and dangerous job off the coast of the Falkland Islands. During one of the nightly landings, the boat flew onto the rocks, seriously damaging the bow. However, later Onyx was able to return to the UK on its own, having traversed its route in 20 000 nautical miles during the hike.

In addition, the submarine "Onyx" is known for having delivered a "blow of mercy" to the heavily damaged landing ship "Sir Galahed", sinking it with a torpedo in the open ocean.


Bow tip of the same type boat "Oberon"


Argentina Navy Submarines

The actions of the Argentine submariners can hardly be called a role model. Numerous problems, outdated equipment and insufficient training of personnel — it was useless to expect any great results in such a situation. The British had a serious anti-submarine defense - 22 destroyer and frigate, modern hydroacoustic stations, dozens of anti-submarine helicopters. All this against the only active submarine of the Argentine Navy!

Nevertheless, even in these difficult conditions, the Argentine submariners were able to achieve some success: the diesel-electric submarine "San Luis" was the only ship that could break the naval blockade and attack the ships of the British squadron.



ARA San Luis (S-32)

Three attacks. Three torpedoes fired. Two recorded explosions. The Argentine version of events can only cause a grin.

20 hours of sticky fear. In pursuit of a boat frigates "Brilliant" and "Yarmouth" are abandoned. A series of dropped depth charges and at least one torpedo fired. The British version of the events leaves no doubt - the impressions of the Argentine submarine acquaintance with the 1 event of May 1982 will be followed by the sailors in terrible dreams for a long time.

Ten days later, another mystical incident happened - Her Majesty's frigate “Arrow” heard a powerful explosion behind the stern - when they began to pull the towed acoustic trap, it turned out that only fragments of the cable remained from it. That day, the Argentine submariners were one step away from victory.

The most surprising thing is that after all the vicissitudes of this combat campaign, the Argentine submarine San Luis returned safely to the base. It remains unclear why the submarine crew conducted attacks with single shots - according to the simple rules of the submarine war, to guarantee the destruction of the target, it should be fired with a volley - releasing torpedoes in the direction of the enemy. Perhaps the Argentines had some technical problems that did not allow them to fully realize the capabilities of the submarine.


Picture of one of the crew members of the "San Luis"



The crew of the Argentine submarine. And these guys are great at playing football


Argentine "Varyag"

For completeness, it should be added that the second submarine of the Argentine Navy, the Santa Fe, took part in the conflict. Holy faith. Alas, the pious name did not bring success to the ship - the Santa Fe perished in the first days of the war.

How could this happen? The only fact puts everything in its place: “Santa Fe” is a former diesel-electric submarine USS Catfish (SS-339) of the “Balao” type. Launched (attention!) In 1944 year.

Going to sea on the "Santa Fe" in the century of powerful nuclear submarines and guided missile weapons, was very risky from the Argentine sailors. The situation was complicated by the lack of radio communications on the boat (a little later the radar failed). But even this “old bucket” turned out to be a dangerous adversary, and its sinking turned into a tragicomedy with an enchanting finale.


ARA Santa Fe (S-21)

For the first time, Santa Fe secretly landed 2 Special Forces Group on April 1982 of the year - during the brilliantly captured South Georgia Island.
24 April 1982, the boat once again delivered a group of paratroopers and equipment to the island, where she was discovered by British helicopters. The news of the Argentine submarine so pleased the British that the frigate and tanker of the expeditionary forces rushed to the horizon, and the military icebreaker "Endurenz" climbed into an impassable ice field, where he spent the whole night, chattering his teeth for fear. Helicopters made 8 sorties overnight to search for enemy submarines.

On April 26, Santa Fe, on the surface, spotted a helicopter radar. The British threw the boat depth charges, and then drove into it two small RCC. Despite the fire in the felling fence, increasing roll and trim, Santa Fe was able to moor at the pier of the old whaling station at South Georgia. The crew was captured.

The British did not calm down on this - the submarine standing on the shore still posed a considerable danger - 23 torpedoes, fuel, a faulty battery. It was necessary to transfer the Santa Fe to a safe place as soon as possible. A part of the Santa Fe crew was involved in the boat transfer operation. According to the Argentine version, there was an alleged attempt at sabotage, which resulted in the shooting of an Argentine sailor, Felix Artuzo. Whether it was in fact the heroic act of the Argentine sailors or the result of the usual mess (the Argentines did not know English, and the British - Spanish), but the damaged Santa Fe sank right in the middle of the fairway.

That's the story.


Boat at the whaling station pier



Raising Santa Fe, 1984 Year
Author:
64 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. PDM80
    PDM80 3 May 2013 07: 58
    11
    submarines are a real danger to any surface ship from an aircraft carrier and a lencora to a container ship. Russia needs a strong submarine fleet and only then aircraft carriers
  2. smart ass
    smart ass 3 May 2013 07: 58
    +9
    Now I agree with Kaptsov on everything, the author + good work) thanks
    1. orkibotu
      orkibotu 3 May 2013 17: 08
      +1
      in the USSR both races did and are now betting on the submarine fleet
      1. Ram chandra
        Ram chandra 6 May 2013 13: 05
        0
        Ras races! Check.
  3. omsbon
    omsbon 3 May 2013 09: 19
    +7
    It is unfortunate that the arrogant shaves received little on the nose.
    The author is well done, the article is interesting.
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 3 May 2013 11: 27
      +7
      Quote: omsbon
      It is unfortunate that the arrogant shaves received little on the nose.
      The author is well done, the article is interesting.


      Yes, they got quite a few. 2 frigates, 2 destroyers, an amphibious assault ship and an aircraft-carrying container carrier, I don’t remember exactly but more than a dozen aircraft.

      It is unfortunate that the Argentines were chronically unlucky in this conflict.
      1. Santa Fe
        3 May 2013 13: 33
        11
        Quote: Geisenberg
        Yes, not a little they got

        Officially (recognized by the UK):

        Death:
        - destroyers "Sheffield" and "Coventry"
        - frigates "Ardent" and "Antilope"
        - landing ship "Sir Galahad"
        - military transport "Atalantic Conveyor"

        severe damage:
        - destroyers Entrim and Glasgow
        - frigates "Plymouth", "Brodsward" and "Argonaut"
        (Plymouth - 4 hits, none worked, Argonaut - 2 hits, none worked)
        - landing ships "Sir Tristram" and "Sir Lancelotte"
        - naval tanker "British Way" (5 bomb hits - none of them exploded)
        (all these ships are corpses, explode at least one of the bombs that hit them)

        damage:
        - destroyer "Glamorgan" (hit by anti-ship missiles "Exocet", many hours of fire)
        - frigates "Brilliant", "Elecrity", "Arrow"
        - landing ship "Sir Bedivere"
        - military transport "Stromness"

        Unofficial losses:
        The Argentines are still confident that they were able to damage the aircraft carrier Invincible with free-fall bombs.
        Reasons: the testimony of both pilots of the Argentine Air Force (experienced guys - not some balabolians. They have already proved their abilities more than once - see the list above). Indirect confirmation: "Invincible" has not appeared in public for 2 months. After arriving in Portsmouth, it was noticeable that the left side of the flight deck had recently been refurbished (maybe the usual damage from the hot jets of the Harriers' engines?) Who knows ...

        Many ships became victims of more than one air attack - the same "Sir Galahad" was destroyed only the second time (the first time the bomb did not explode). Argonaut was attacked twice. Etc.

        Had the Argas normal ammunition - they could well have drowned the entire squadron of Her Majesty - with a decrease in the number of ships, the combat potential of the squadron was rapidly decreasing. Each time the attacks would become more effective

        Argentine attack aircraft shooting attack
        1. Eric
          Eric 3 May 2013 22: 32
          0
          I want a clickable photo! wassat
          1. Santa Fe
            4 May 2013 02: 14
            0
            Quote: Eric
            I want a clickable photo!

            The skiff came to the frigate "Ardent"
  4. crambol
    crambol 3 May 2013 10: 44
    +2
    Everything that happened is called the NAVY CABUC.
    1. crambol
      crambol 3 May 2013 13: 50
      0
      Feels minus from the land!
  5. Bongo
    Bongo 3 May 2013 10: 57
    +9
    With all due respect, but Argentine: Skyhawks, Mirages, and Superettandars in 1982. could not be considered obsolete, at that time they were quite modern combat aircraft. Even light turboprop "Pukars" showed good results. Moreover, all these machines are still flying ... The reason for the Argentines' failures is the insufficient number of modern anti-ship missiles and the low quality of the bombs. And also, the fact that the Argentine aviation operated at the limit of range.
    1. Santa Fe
      3 May 2013 14: 14
      +3
      Quote: Bongo
      Skyhawks, Mirages, and Superethandars in 1982 could not be considered obsolete

      A-4 Skyhawk - subsonic attack aircraft of the late 50s.

      "Mirage-5" - aka Israeli "Nesher", aka Argentine "Dagger" - shabby "second-hand", purchased for the last pennies for the Argentine Air Force.
      At the Falklands, they were used limitedly, due to the lack of air refueling systems.

      "Super-Etandar" is a wonderful aircraft in every sense, but, alas, the Argentine Air Force had only 5 combat-ready aircraft of this type

      The main striking force of the Argentine aviation was the old "Skyhawks" - a specialized naval attack aircraft already initially had refueling systems and a huge combat radius - sufficient to reach the British squadron in the open ocean.

      ps / in the 1982 year in the States, the F-15 and F-16 were already flying at all times - machines of a completely different order
  6. pinecone
    pinecone 3 May 2013 11: 49
    +1
    Plus unexploded anti-ship missiles Exoset.
  7. smershspy
    smershspy 3 May 2013 12: 12
    +4
    Quote: omsbon
    It is unfortunate that the arrogant shaves received little on the nose.
    The author is well done, the article is interesting.


    Totally agree!
  8. Gari
    Gari 3 May 2013 13: 09
    +3
    The article is interesting, but the author is silent about that substantial assistance from the USA to England, both political and military, otherwise the British could have won this war, from across the world, while the islands are under Argentina’s side -
    from documents declassified by the US National Security Archive regarding the British-Argentine war for the Falklands, the South Sandwich Islands and South Georgia.
    that “... the government of Margaret Thatcher was immediately determined very decisively and practically did not consider the possibility of a peaceful settlement of the conflict. In addition, Washington feared that the Soviet Union might take the side of Argentina.
    Therefore, the Ronald Reagan administration decided to provide substantial support to the British government. ” In particular, London was provided with the coordinates of the deployment of Argentine troops received from US military satellites.
    “It is quite obvious,” emphasized in one of the letters of the then US Secretary of State A. Haig R. Reagan, “that she (Thatcher - AB) is ready to use force. She is unwavering in her determination to restore the former status quo. It’s also obvious that she wants ... any decision to punish the adversary. ”
    According to the Guardian and Radio Liberty, almost a “nightmare” for Washington was a possible intervention in the conflict of the Soviet Union.
    1. Gari
      Gari 3 May 2013 13: 12
      +2
      According to British intelligence, Moscow allegedly "was ready to provide Argentina with warships, planes and missiles (type SS) in exchange for deliveries of grain and beef at preferential prices."
      And if the war had become protracted, support from the USSR could be the only chance for Argentina.

      However, the US administration and American corporations, skillfully combining various levers of influence on Argentina (from financial-economic to political) prevented not only the Soviet-Argentinean military-political "bow", but also forced Buenos Aires to reduce the supply of beef and grain to the USSR at preferential rates prices. The Americans also achieved that the neighbors of Argentina declared their neutrality, and Chileans, for example, ceased to claim five British South Pacific islands Pitcairn, located near the Chilean Easter Island
      1. postman
        postman 5 May 2013 17: 49
        +1
        Quote: Gari
        Moscow allegedly "was ready to provide Argentina with warships, planes and missiles (type SS) in exchange for deliveries of grain and beef at preferential prices."

        sorry this is nonsense. The USSR "SS type" and the GDROV comrades would not have transferred, let alone a country in whose government ruled by NAZI criminals (Germany, France, Italy) and even more so.
        1. for whom (and where) is the boom to fire SS-type missiles?
        2. how about the training of Argentinean personnel in USSR technology (which they did not see in their eyes)
        3. Instructions and labeling in Spanish?
        Quote: Gari
        forced Buenos Aires to reduce the supply of beef and grain to the USSR at preferential prices.


        no, not even looking at Resolution No. 490, strikes at slaughterhouses and other agricultural enterprises in Argentina.
        -Argentina and Uruguay did not increase the import from the USSR of raw materials, but finished industrial goods.
        - the share of the USSR in grain exports from Argentina was about 40%, meat products - over 25%, sunflower and linseed oils - 30 and 45%, wool and leather raw materials - almost 20%, soy products - more than 20%.
    2. Santa Fe
      3 May 2013 14: 01
      +6
      Quote: Gari
      substantial assistance from the United States to England, both political and military, otherwise the British could have won this war

      Still would! Attack on a NATO bloc country.
      It is amazing how Argy wasn’t raked from the whole of NATO ... alas, everyone refused to fight at the end of the world - as a result, the British had to puff themselves
      Quote: Gari
      London was provided with the coordinates of the deployment of Argentine troops received from US military satellites

      This is still nonsense.
      The Americans delivered to about. Ascension of 60 000 tons of ship fuel - otherwise Her Majesty's squadron could not reach the Falklands in full force

      Actually, no one ever hid this. America's support for the Anglo-Saxon brothers is as natural as Russia's support for, for example, Belarus

      But in general, it should be admitted: the Britons fought on their own (except for the civilian citizens of Hong Kong on some of the support ships) - with their ships, their own missiles and decrepit Volcano aircraft.
    3. postman
      postman 5 May 2013 17: 32
      0
      Quote: Gari
      In particular, London was provided with the coordinates of the deployment of Argentine troops received from US military satellites.

      Argentines should be glad that they didn’t get a slap in the face of NATO
      Quote: Gari
      in Washington, they feared that the Soviet Union might take the side of Argentina.

      This is not possible: Peron, the junta, the Nazis
  9. Gari
    Gari 3 May 2013 13: 32
    +2
    And so there, apart from these cute creatures, no one lives, but the islands are an important transit point on the way from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, which allows you to control the South Atlantic.
    1. Santa Fe
      3 May 2013 13: 53
      +2
      Quote: Gari
      And so there except these lovely creatures and no one dwells

      Yes, of course
      Port Stanley, population 2000+ people (recently there was a referendum - 100% were in favor of "we want to be British, Argentine passports in the furnace")

      One of the main attractions is the "international airport" with a 3000 meter runway - the main air base of the UK (US Air Force?) In the South Atlantic
      1. Gari
        Gari 3 May 2013 16: 31
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Port Stanley, population 2000+ people (recently there was a referendum - 100% were in favor of "we want to be British, Argentine passports in the furnace")

        One of the main attractions is the "international airport" with a 3000 meter runway - the main air base of the UK (US Air Force?) In the South Atlantic


        And probably half of the population works at this airport
        Yes, and the dream of owning a British passport is the dream of many Russian and CIS-oligarchs, million, bucks invest in Britain, just to get this treasured crust with a lion, but here it fell free
  10. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 3 May 2013 14: 27
    +9
    Author: "For completeness, it should be added that she took part in the conflict"
    If someone believes that Britain fought alone against Argentina, she is deeply mistaken.
    The fact is that the guidance on the Admiral Belgrano CD was carried out with the help of state satellites of sea reconnaissance. The States provided the British with their naval base on about. Ascension. The French have included electronic bookmarks in the GOS RCC "Exoset". Sheffield was burning from the remnants of rocket fuel (the missile hit 1,8m above the waterline) but did not sink. If the Exocet had exploded, the ship would have lost its buoyancy from the ingress of water into the hull and sank. And so he was taken in tow and taken to Britain. And only the storm on May 10, 1982. put an end to his military service.
    Plus moral support for the British and diplomatic pressure on the government of Argentina. Economic sanctions were imposed on Argentina by Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries.
    All this is called supporting actions and moral and psychological support of the database.
    1. Santa Fe
      3 May 2013 14: 40
      -1
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      The fact is that the guidance to the KR "Admiral Belgrano" was carried out using state satellites of marine reconnaissance

      one of the myths about that war.

      1. A similar system was only in the USSR (MKRTs "Legend") - low-orbit satellites with a nuclear power plant and side-looking radar.

      American reconnaissance satellites, theoretically, could detect wake traces (through overcast, huh!) And RT-interception of radio communications - but this is too little for guaranteed detection of ships.

      2. Over the South Atlantic, British reconnaissance aircraft from Ascension Island were constantly circling.

      3. "Belgrano" was discovered by a British submarine long before its sinking.
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      The French have included electronic bookmarks in the GOS RCC "Exocet"

      Oh really??
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      Sheffield was burning from the remnants of rocket fuel (the missile hit 1,8m above the waterline) but did not sink. If Exocet Exploded

      A "Atlantic Conveyor" burned down from an exploded warhead "Exoset"
      The destroyer "Glamorgan" burned out in a similar way from the French anti-ship missile system - the warhead worked in normal mode
      1. Kars
        Kars 3 May 2013 15: 25
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Fifteen 152 mm guns could easily sink all frigates, tankers and container ships

        It was a pity. It was interesting to look at it.
        1. Kars
          Kars 3 May 2013 15: 25
          0
          ___________________
          1. Santa Fe
            3 May 2013 15: 29
            0
            What is it?
            1. Kars
              Kars 3 May 2013 16: 00
              +1
              Pencil case with a powder charge.
              1. Santa Fe
                3 May 2013 16: 09
                0
                Quote: Kars
                Pencil case with a powder charge.

                152 mm?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 3 May 2013 16: 22
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  152 mm?

                  Well, yes, just pay attention to the pencil case.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 3 May 2013 16: 30
                    0
                    Close-up of a bow turret at the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 in 1972
                    It should be noted that the paint on the pistol barrels with blisters, as a result of prolonged firing away from Vietnam
        2. Santa Fe
          3 May 2013 15: 33
          +2
          Quote: Kars
          It was a pity. It was interesting to look at it.

          At "Burklin" all main posts are protected by 5-inch armor (and stronger)
          even if we take the armor-piercing ability of the 90 mm exoset (maximum) - the rocket has no chance.

          + do not forget about the cruiser escort: "Ippolito Bouchard" and "Piedrabuena" - ex. American Sumners. This is another 12 five-inch machines + a certain number of Exocet anti-ship missiles.

      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 3 May 2013 21: 06
        +3
        [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN]
        one of the myths about that war.
        American reconnaissance satellites, theoretically, could detect wake traces (through overcast, huh!) And RT-interception of radio communications - but this is too little for guaranteed detection of ships.
        1. "Belgrano" was discovered by a British submarine long before its sinking.

        The American RTR satellites of the "Ferret" type (and the Maozet "Chalet") found the location of Belgrano (estimated with an accuracy of 10 miles), according to these data, the Concaror submarine was brought into the area by the command of the fleet at a contact range. After that, the commander of the submarine, Commander Christopher Brown got in touch and asked London about further actions, because the cruiser did not enter the 200 mile zone of the naval blockade. They say the decision was made by Prime Minister M. Thatcher herself. The cruiser was assessed as a real threat to the expeditionary forces and was ordered to attack. Which Brown did. I didn’t talk about TSU from space, as it was with our "Legend". I talked about aiming at the CD using American satellites. I believe that the teachers of the VMA in 1985 had no need to mislead the audience

        [quote = KAA boa constrictor] "Sheffield" burned from the remnants of rocket fuel (the rocket hit 1,8m above the waterline) but did not drown. If Exocet exploded [/ quote]
        This opinion still exists. http://www.rfcmd.ru/books/REB/REB_27.htm
        Although, you’re probably right: it’s only our CRs with inert equipment that broke targets in half. Regards KAA.
        1. Santa Fe
          4 May 2013 02: 34
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          The American RTR satellites of the "Ferret" type (and the Maozet "Chalet") discovered the location of Belgrano (estimated with an accuracy of 10 miles

          just one of many versions.

          In reality, the Britons did not know the number of Argentine ships, as well as their location (therefore, with such persistence they drove reconnaissance "Volcanoes" over the Atlantic from Ascension Island - over 6000 km)
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Although, you’re probably right: it’s only our CRs with inert equipment that broke targets in half.

          eg? is the Red Caucasus really?))

          By the way, what kind of satellites "Ferret" and "Chalet"?
          I heard about the Naval Ocean Surveillance System (NOSS) aka White Cloud
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 5 May 2013 00: 54
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            eg? is the Red Caucasus really?))

            There warhead was 600 kg! Although in inert equipment KS-1 broke out a piece in the 10 square from the opposite side. m. I'm talking about something else. I didn’t see it myself, but I heard from trustworthy people about the results of Basalt’s state tests at the Feodosia training ground, when the aviation version broke the target barge in two loaded with empty empty barrels for buoyancy.
            PS Oleg, you are an interesting, competent interlocutor, but it is unlikely that everyone is interested in our bickering. If you have questions, please in PM.
  11. Superbandera
    Superbandera 3 May 2013 17: 15
    0
    Great Britons, defended their own and did not give offense to the local descendants of the arrogant Saxons. Unlike the Russians, they never abandon their own ...
  12. barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 May 2013 17: 18
    0
    article shows that modern apl is able to drown the old, absolutely helpless, against this very apl, trough? But did someone doubt chtoli?) Another thing is interesting, it was almost the defeat of the British squadron that barely breathed the Argentine Air Force (that’s how Thatcher prayed that the fuses didn’t work at the bombs)) Here the big ship with aviation would be useful for the Britons)) - a full-fledged aircraft carrier with the focus of the air group on air defense. Then such crazy attacks, with bombing at point-blank range on ships, would in principle be impossible with such small aircraft forces, they would simply not fly by.
    1. Kars
      Kars 3 May 2013 17: 35
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      This is where a big ship with aviation would be useful to the Britons)) - a full-fledged aircraft carrier with the focus of the air group on air defense

      but there was nowhere to take money on it. And if it had been built earlier - maybe there would have been no war, like the British Navy - aircraft carriers, submarines, nuclear weapons - they would have put their teeth on the shelf)))
    2. Santa Fe
      3 May 2013 17: 48
      +2
      The barbiturate comment is similar to trolling, nevertheless I will answer:

      Quote: barbiturate
      article shows that modern apl is able to drown the old, absolutely helpless, against this very apl, trough?

      1. any surface trough helpless against nuclear submarines
      2. Don't overestimate Concaror. Boats of this type were built in the late 60s. Firstborns of the nuclear submarine fleet: noisy, slow-moving, without modern GAS and high-precision weapons.
      The cruiser Belgrano was sunk by Mark 8 torpedoes during World War II.

      Quote: barbiturate
      This is where the big ship with aviation would be useful to the Britons)) - a full-fledged aircraft carrier with the focus of the air group on air defense.

      Ho ho
      Such a ship with a trained wing is more expensive than the entire British fleet of the 1982 model of the year)))

      According to the results of the Falklands, the British made quite definite conclusions - in the summer of 1982, a group of marine specialists was urgently sent to the United States to purchase aircraft carrier Nimitz self-defense systems Phalanx CIWS.

      Not a single bomb would have fallen on a British squadron if the sailors had such systems.
      Quote: barbiturate
      Then such crazy attacks, with bombing at point-blank range on ships, would in principle be impossible with such small aircraft forces, they would simply not fly by.

      That's right. 4500 rds / min and automatic guidance according to radar - this is not a joke
  13. barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 May 2013 18: 35
    0
    Quote: Kars
    but there was nowhere to take money on it. And if it had been built earlier - maybe there would have been no war, like the British Navy - aircraft carriers, submarines, nuclear weapons - they would have put their teeth on the shelf)))


    maybe, but only their 45 destroyers and an attempt to build full-fledged aircraft carriers, coupled with nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons, are they still trying, madmen, probably, that the Britons understand in the navy?)


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Barbiturate comment is similar to trolling


    not at all, I did not say anything trolling))


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    1. any surface trough is helpless against submarine 2. Don't overestimate Concaror. Boats of this type were built in the late 60s. The firstborn of the nuclear submarine fleet: noisy, slow-moving, without modern GAS and high-precision weapons. The Belgrano cruiser was sunk by Mark 8 torpedoes during World War II.


    1. It is not at all a fact, in combat conditions, there was no modern order of surface ships breaking through a strong plane, but surface ships are found during exercises (which is not an indicator, I agree). British submarine - from a completely different technical and technological "century" already + a cruiser, even when he was young, could no longer fight with peers, it was not built for this. By the way, did the apl of the late 60s still float in stock? Capitalists like to hang new equipment and modernize expensive equipment quite often and it serves them for a long time). Anyone would use torpedoes, no resistance, do what you want, old reliable ones.


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Ho ho Such a ship with a trained wing is more expensive than the entire 1982 British fleet)))


    but who told you such nonsense ??)) You don’t need to do anything special yourself, everything is in the USA, select 30-40 pilots norms, send them for training. The United States prepared them in hundreds and thousands and of good quality (it’s better no one still has it)) Any planes will be sold to you, but the Britons have not enough experience, the aircraft carriers had tea before) The aircraft carrier itself is just a ship !! Do you understand? The ship is large, but there are no super technologies there, the same Apple is technologically more complicated. And what resulted in the construction and maintenance of another fleet, without an aircraft carrier? Miraculously avoided defeat? will we bet on this? Cheap can only be obtained by cabbage soup and loss.

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    That's right. 4500 rds / min and automatic guidance according to radar - this is not a joke


    this is a panic tool of the last chance to intercept the PKR, which is not even intended to hit the rocket pointwise, but to create a whole field of flying shells, which one will happen. About 5 years ago I read a translation article, there the NATO team boasted that new shells for ZAK Golkiper and Vulkan-Falanks would now intercept the PKR with a probability of up to 0.8, and earlier it was 0.2-0.3), but this is again a theory, while the interception was not in combat conditions. And you can find any pictures and specifications, manufacturers declare a lot of things)
    1. Kars
      Kars 3 May 2013 18: 51
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      attempt to build full-fledged aircraft carriers

      You should not call Quinn a full-fledged aircraft carrier, especially against the backdrop of American Bush and Fords. Yes, how many years have passed and everyone has completed, and when they finish building, they will immediately send them to the reserve, and one for sale. In the hope that the Americans will lend Taiwan money.
      Quote: barbiturate
      what do Britons understand in the navy?)

      In principle, yes, they understand more in colonial deflectors.
    2. Santa Fe
      3 May 2013 18: 56
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      maybe, but only their 45 destroyers and an attempt to build full-fledged aircraft carriers, coupled with nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons, are they still trying, madmen, probably, that the Britons understand in the navy?)

      45 destroyers are built, submarines are built, nuclear weapons exist.
      That's just the British have no aircraft carriers)))
      Quote: barbiturate
      It’s not a fact at all, in the breakthrough conditions of a strong ploy of a modern warrant of surface ships

      It was, it was many times
      Autumn 1982 - Concaror participates in Operation Barmaid (waitress) - not the newest, noisy and slow-moving submarine stole the Soviet (modern!) GAS station in the Barents Sea. I just sneaked up and cut - and no one noticed anything.

      Quote: barbiturate
      We don’t need to do anything special ourselves, everything is in the USA

      Quote: barbiturate
      to select 30-40 standards of pilots, to send for training.

      Quote: barbiturate
      Any planes will be sold to you

      Quote: barbiturate
      The aircraft carrier itself is just a ship!

      No doubt - any whim for your money
      That's just with the money ... PROBLEM
      Quote: barbiturate
      The aircraft carrier itself is just a ship !!

      This is an exceptionally large, complex and expensive ship.
      Who needs the same expensive and sophisticated wing


      300 m long is not a joke. The colossal power of the power plant. Catapults. Landing systems. Giant elevators and elevators of ammunition. Fuel storage. Fire extinguishing systems. Thousands of crew.
      At the same time, all this can die from a single flare.
      Quote: barbiturate
      will we bet on this?

      Aegis destroyers
      Submarines
      Fleet military transports
      .

      But in this case (Falklands-82) it was enough for the Britons to have the Phalanxes
      Quote: barbiturate
      Volcano-Phalanx will now intercept PKR with probability up to 0.8

      The Britons did not need to intercept anti-ship missiles. Britts needed to shoot down insolent Skyhawks

      How long would these planes have lived if they were on the British ship Falanx?
  14. barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 May 2013 19: 41
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    You should not call Quinn a full-fledged aircraft carrier, especially against the backdrop of American Bush and Fords. Yes, how many years have passed and everyone has completed, and when they finish building, they will immediately send them to the reserve, and one for sale. In the hope that the Americans will lend Taiwan money.


    why so? an aircraft carrier must correspond to the fleet, a small fleet - a small aircraft carrier, for a small fleet and a simpler task, such as supporting some new black rebels against the same blacks)

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    45 destroyers are built, submarines are built, nuclear weapons exist. That's just the British have no aircraft carriers))

    but there is an attempt and everyone understands their need for the British fleet, it’s only hard to push them through, the ships are expensive (no one argues with this), but in the current crisis it’s very difficult to push them through the budget, because in the UK it is bursting at the seams and without any aircraft carriers, they and other ships cut) Some kind of accidental accident, any strong country, as soon as it can do this and is not bound by any obligations, is trying to build them
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    It was, it was many times Autumn 1982 - Concaror participates in Operation Barmaid (waitress) - not the newest, noisy and slow-moving submarine stole the Soviet (modern!) GAS station in the Barents Sea. I just sneaked up and cut - and no one noticed anything.


    Yes, what are you) it looks more like a bike, they say there have been such cases in the Mediterranean Sea, buoys are scattering ours, and the British destroyers shoot them. Where are the combat conditions? no one would drown them, they cut off the defenseless hydrophone on the cable and immediately trumpeted it with the name of the boat, well, the usual Cold War, which funny stories do not go) This is from the area of ​​heroic overflights of aircraft carriers in peacetime and demonstrative tracking of aug at speed 30 knots (with a hell of a roar all over the ocean)

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    There is no doubt - any whim for your money is only with money ... PROBLEM

    well, good does not happen cheap, and so the safety of the fleet and the prestige of the state were at stake, with all that it implies ...

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    This is a very large, complex and expensive ship. 300 m long - this is not a joke. The colossal power of the power plant. Catapults. Landing systems. Giant elevators and elevators of ammunition. Fuel storage. Fire extinguishing systems. Thousands of crew. Moreover, all this can die from a single flare


    dear yes, but we don’t even talk about an aircraft carrier of 100 thousand tons of displacement, be it more modest at the Britons, 50 thousand and 40-50 aircraft. There is no more complicated than APL, all this is big, expensive, but technically and technologically quite understandable to engineers and designers how it should look and how it should work and the nuclear reactor is not needed. It seems to me, and thousands and a half of the crew (along with the air group) could be prepared. The great colonial power simply broke up, relaxed, but the importance of aircraft carriers was always understood.
    1. Kars
      Kars 3 May 2013 19: 51
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      small fleet - small aircraft carrier

      The Argentines had what?
      Quote: barbiturate
      Some kind of nonrandom accident, any strong country, as soon as it can do this and is not bound by any obligations, is trying to build them
      empty bragging and imitation of prestige, at the beginning of the century various small countries were fond of buying dreadnoughts.
    2. Santa Fe
      3 May 2013 20: 24
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      small fleet - small aircraft carrier

      Why do you need an aircraft carrier to a small fleet?))
      None of the countries, except the USA superpower, fights on distant shores.
      The only exception for 70 years is the Falklands - but there is a nuance: it was the colonial legacy of Britain. The remaining countries do not have overseas territories.
      Quote: barbiturate
      and support what kind of next black rebels rebelled against the same blacks

      not easier to pick up the Ganship AC-130 and shoot the Papuans from the howitzer 105 mm
      Quote: barbiturate
      but there is an attempt

      this does not count
      in fact, the British have neither a ship nor decked aircraft to it
      Quote: barbiturate
      it's more like a bike

      This is the official history of Concaror

      how about bugs on special communication cables in the Barents and Okhotsk seas?
      USS Halibut insolently crawled along the lines of the Soviet anti-submarine defense and did what she wanted.
      Quote: barbiturate
      . Where are the combat conditions?

      There are enough examples from WWII - the pelvis, which spent 90% of the time on the surface, melted everyone in its path
      Quote: barbiturate
      and so the safety of the fleet and the prestige of the state were at stake

      Phalanx and normal destroyers (not replicas of battle ships)
      Quote: barbiturate
      well, good is never cheap

      It happens and for big money they stuff
      And an aircraft carrier is just that case
      Quote: barbiturate
      but we don’t even talk about the 100 aircraft carrier, tons of displacement

      We talk about the length of the aircraft carrier. ~ 300 meters - it will not be possible to do less, the plane simply will not land.
      For example, the French SDG has a length of 260 + meters (40 000 tons)
      Quote: barbiturate
      There is no more difficult than at apl

      Much more.
      The complexity of the building is exacerbated by the cyclopean dimensions of the ship

      This is the Mk.10 system installed by a U.S. Navy submarine on a cable at the entrance to the White Sea. Power supply - nuclear RTG. there was a self-destruction system
      (is that a bike too?)
  15. barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 May 2013 19: 42
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Aegis destroyersSubmarinesFast military transports


    ships are good, but in conjunction with an aircraft carrier, their capabilities are greatly enhanced, as are the capabilities of the aircraft carrier itself with good cover

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The Britons did not need to intercept anti-ship missiles. Britts needed to shoot down insolent Skyhawks


    a good photo) shows the effectiveness of fire) although of course, such a barrage of fire for an airplane will be fatal quickly, top-mast bombing will now take place. Although the same Phalanx has good restrictions on the shooting sector and don’t turn the ship’s commander in time to the threat, or put the wrong one on the wrong plane and the plane may come at point blank range)
    1. Santa Fe
      3 May 2013 20: 04
      +2
      Quote: barbiturate
      ships are good, but in conjunction with an aircraft carrier, their capabilities are enhanced at times

      there is an air force for this

      To date, the US Air Force is able to organize a strike or organize constant patrols on any point on the planet (water / land - it doesn’t matter)
      Quote: barbiturate
      such a flurry of fire for an airplane will be fatal quickly, the top-mast bombing will now pass away.

      Conclusion: the problem with the Argentine Skyhawks was solved by simple means: installing the Phalanx on the ships of the British squadron (which was done urgently immediately after the war)
      Quote: barbiturate
      Although the same phalanx has good restrictions on the shooting sector

      Swivel platform 180 degrees.
      The maximum elevation angle, deg. - 85, minimum - -28
      Vertical guidance speed, degrees / s - 92
      Horizontal guidance speed, degrees / s - 126

      The Phalanx has pretty nimble servos
      Quote: barbiturate
      or entrust the wrong one and the plane may come up point blank)

      ships do not go alone

      An Argentine attack aircraft would be shot point-blank by one of the Phalanxes mounted by the squadron ships

      Here's another funny photo from that war. completely insolent
  16. barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 May 2013 20: 04
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    The Argentines had what?

    Quote: Kars
    empty bragging and imitation of prestige, at the beginning of the century various small countries were fond of buying dreadnoughts.

    you yourself gave the answer, iron is not everything, people are also needed)
    besides, I have never said and will not say nonsense from the area "an aircraft carrier is better located next to a 3-keel runway") If there are own air bases nearby, then of course it is better to act from them, but after all, not all countries are the United States) and not at all bases are everywhere, and interests in the ocean intersect in different countries - darkness is dark) Aviation can effectively solve almost any problem, and an aircraft carrier is its carrier and my opinion is that if a country has an oceanic fleet and there are no stationary air bases everywhere, then an aircraft carrier is a necessity (it , of course, will not replace its airbase nearby, but all things being equal, it will have its say)
    1. Kars
      Kars 3 May 2013 20: 23
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      iron is not everything, people are also needed)

      The Argentines had good pilots. Otherwise, the Angles would not have suffered such losses. So this is not suitable.
      Quote: barbiturate
      and not everyone has a base everywhere, but interests in the ocean intersect in different countries - darkness is dark)

      But countries deciding the intersecting interests of thousands of miles from their native coast and even military force at least.
      Quote: barbiturate
      Aviation can effectively solve almost any task.
      And will it be cost effective?
  17. barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 May 2013 20: 25
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    For this there is the Air Force Today, the US Air Force is able to organize a strike or organize constant patrolling over any point on the planet (water / land - it doesn’t matter)


    Well, here again, everything comes down to the USA, the USA dominates globally, there is a separate conversation, it does not yet concern the issue of the need / need for aircraft carriers)
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Conclusion: the problem with the Argentine Skyhawks was solved by simple means: installing the Phalanx on the ships of the British squadron (which was done urgently immediately after the war)

    Well, you yourself wrote that there not only bombing incapacitated ships, and the effectiveness of the ZAK is still not clear, but in those years ... but it was better than nothing. Although I do not argue, in the near zone, 2-3 km, there is nothing for the airplane under the Phalanx to do. Again, there is a video of shooting ground-based cannon systems at a target, there are many things surprising, a huge queue length and literally 2-3 hits, but this is a landfill and the earth does not swing like a deck, oh well)

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Swivel platform 180 degrees. Maximum elevation angle, degrees. - 85, minimum - -28 Speed ​​guidance in the vertical plane, degrees / s - 92 Speed ​​guidance in the horizontal plane, degrees / s - 126U Phalanxes are quite nimble servos


    I don’t argue here, I had in mind a situation like the Stark frigate, where the investigation said that the rocket was coming from such angles that the Falanks simply could not fire at, but the commander did not trust the ship.

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    ships do not sail alone Argentine attack aircraft would be shot point-blank by one of the Phalanxes mounted by the squadron ships

    I agree, but here again there are a lot of restrictions, because you can even go about your own ships from Phalanx, if everything is close by, everything depends on the situation of course, although I think with such impudence as in the photo) the phalanxes would certainly be quickly sorted out, and the pilot should be frank bad to attack like that, knowing about anti-aircraft guns with radar control, all the same, it's not 44 years already.
  18. barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 May 2013 20: 30
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    The Argentines had good pilots. Otherwise, the Angles would not have suffered such losses. So this is not suitable.

    I'm tired of saying something already, they took my phrase out of context and bring it as evidence, initially it was not about the Argentine Air Force
    Quote: Kars
    And will it be cost effective?

    I don’t know, but other ships are also far from free
    1. Kars
      Kars 3 May 2013 22: 05
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      pulled my phrase out of context

      Quote: barbiturate
      you yourself gave the answer, iron is not everything, people are also needed)

      Quote: barbiturate
      but who told you such nonsense ??)) You don’t need to do anything special yourself, everything is in the USA, select 30-40 pilots norms, send them for training. The United States prepared them in hundreds and thousands and of good quality (it’s better so far no one still has)

      Quote: barbiturate
      I don’t know, but other ships are also far from free

      Everything is known in comparison. The fact that Argentina did not help the presence of an aircraft carrier. England, the presence of an ersatz aircraft carrier did not help much either. In the Indo-Pakistani wars, the Indian aircraft carrier also didn’t show a superweapon, So what can the whole matter be about the size and number of aircraft carriers? And the fleet as such .
  19. barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 May 2013 20: 48
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Why is a small fleet an aircraft carrier at all?)) None of the countries, except the USA superpower, is fighting on distant shores. The only exception for 70 years is the Falklands, but there is a nuance: it was the colonial legacy of Britain. The remaining countries do not have overseas territories.

    Well, this question needs to be asked to the military of many countries that are building them in one form or another, and it seems to me, not at all to invade somewhere, but to "control the sea" and protect their interests. Small aircraft carriers still pass by shipbuilding firms building their "sea control ship"

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    not easier to pick up the Ganship AC-130 and shoot the Papuans from the howitzer 105 mm

    duck if not near your base, where will you raise? After all, the whole world is not reduced to the United States, there are other conflicts and interests of different countries

    Quote: barbiturate
    this does not count in fact, the British have neither a ship nor deck aircraft to it

    I agree, not yet, but there is an acute desire to have it all and the attempt is counted, let's see how the deal ends)

    Quote: barbiturate
    This is the official story of Concaror, what about bugs on special communications cables in the Barents and Okhotsk seas? USS Halibut crawled insolently along the Soviet anti-submarine defense lines and did what it wanted

    well, as well as who writes history, sailors are pleased to drink beer in old age and slap each other "like we did it", and the bugs on the cables do not say anything at all about the connection of surface ships, however, like the banal buoy theft in the sea by Concaror)
    1. Santa Fe
      4 May 2013 01: 41
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      and for "control of the sea"

      a very strange argument.
      what does "control of the sea" mean? how does it look in practice ??
      Thermostat control - Coast Guard border boats and corvettes
      High seas patrols are basic aviation tasks

      And here is an aircraft carrier? It is not clear.
      Quote: barbiturate
      duck if not near your base, where will you raise?

      already wrote about this - only Superpower (USA) is fighting on foreign shores, which has hundreds of bases on all continents of the earth.

      other countries never do not fight away from their shores
      (the only exception for 70 years is the Falklands, where Britain was deciding on its colonial inheritance).
      Ordinary countries fight only with their neighbors (Iraq-Iran, India-Pakistan, Israel-Arabs, etc.) and they simply do not need an aircraft carrier
      Quote: barbiturate
      and the bugs on the cables do not say anything at all about the plane connection of surface ships

      For 10 years Halibat, several times a year, went to collect tapes with notes. All this right under the nose of the SF, in the Barents Sea, which at that time was buzzing from anti-submarine ships and aircraft.
      Quote: barbiturate
      as well as the banal stealing of a buoy in the sea by Concaror

      it was not a steal buoy

      "Conqueror" cut off the towed antenna of the GAS behind the stern of the Soviet anti-submarine ship
  20. barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 May 2013 21: 03
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    There are enough examples from WWII - the pelvis, which spent 90% of the time on the surface, melted everyone in its path

    )) it is enough to recall that the pelvis itself (pl) were all very melted too quickly and the losses disappeared by many hundreds - this is the result of a bias in the construction of the fleet towards pl

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    It happens and for big money they stuff rubbish, and an aircraft carrier is just that case

    oh why are you wondering if it’s like an apl roaring on the ocean floor (whose main trump card and power is secrecy) isn’t bullshit?) is it like a ship like Peter the Great isn’t bullshit for huge dibs if you have to work along the coast? etc. A bunch of examples and the aircraft carrier will win in 90% of cases, because its weapon is aviation, and this allows you to effectively solve a wide range of tasks, from reconnaissance and target designation, to strikes along the coast and solving a long-range plane
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    We talk about the length of the aircraft carrier. ~ 300 meters - you won’t be able to do less, the plane just won’t land. For example, the French FGD has a length of 260+ meters (40 tons) Quote: barbiturate There is no more difficult there than an apple, much more. And all this is exacerbated by the cyclopean dimensions of the ship. This is the Mk system. 000, installed by a U.S. Navy submarine on a cable at the entrance to the White Sea. Power supply - nuclear RTG. there was a self-destruction system (is that a bike too?)


    you see, write yourself, 40 thousand displacement, is that a lot? we have some apls more, they are not cyclopical at all, 300 meters (you can do it less) it’s the whole ship, the lifts themselves, etc. are much smaller, and the dlins of modern ships are also impressive and exceed over a hundred for some) apls and for 150 easy.
    I heard about the system, since they got it and showed it is an absolute reality, only it has nothing to do with what we said, the USSR clearly did not assume that the cables could be detected and eavesdropped, lesson)
    1. Santa Fe
      4 May 2013 02: 09
      +2
      Quote: barbiturate
      (pl) were all overheated too very smartly and losses disappeared by many hundreds

      This is war. Losses are not reliable.

      Boats fully paid for their existencebecoming the most effective means of naval warfare. If we proceed from their tonnage of sunken vessels, then the result is 1: 10

      battleships Barham and Royal Oak, attack aircraft carriers Taiho and Sekaku, heavy cruiser Indianapolis (the largest tragedy of the US Navy), Arc Royal, the legendary Edinburgh loaded with gold ... you can remember " Wilhelm Gustloff, super-aircraft carrier "Sinano", aircraft carriers "Koreyges", "Eagle", "Wasp", cruisers "Ashigara", "Atago", "Maya" ... - small "pelvis" killed everyone who met on their ways.

      And this despite the fact that the "pelvis" spent 90% of the time on the surface, were extremely imperfect and vulnerable.
      Quote: barbiturate
      as if apl, rattling to the floor of the ocean (whose main trump card and strength is secrecy) is not nonsense?)

      Do you want to make a rating of the most useless and inefficient ships?
      Nimitz will be on the podium
      Quote: barbiturate
      the aircraft carrier will win in 90% of cases, because its weapon is aviation, and this allows you to effectively solve a wide range of tasks

      aviation is the prerogative of the Air Force, not the Navy.
      the fleet has its own tasks and they are effectively solved without the involvement of aircraft carriers. The Air Force will do the rest

      there is simply no need to try to "push" planes onto the deck of a ship. aviation does an excellent job from the shore
      Quote: barbiturate
      40 A thousand displacement, is that a lot?

      fact: all modern aircraft carriers have a monstrous cost
      and their complexity (loss of reliability) is such that more than half of the service they spend on endless repairs in the dock
      The US Navy, having 10 members, can simultaneously exhibit no more than 4-5 groups
      French SDG is generally a disaster
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 May 2013 21: 06
    0
    ok guys, it's time for me to sleep) tired of typing)
  23. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 3 May 2013 22: 16
    +3
    Returning to bookmarks.
    http://merkulof.com/page851.html
    « Glamorgan destroyer finished shelling the Argentine positions and began to move away from the firing position when the Argentines launched the Exocet. The approach of the rocket to the ship was discovered by signalmen who were the first to see a rapidly approaching fireball. The time for the commander of the destroyer captain 1 rank M. Barro was left only to make a sharp turn and the only attempt to bring down the Exocet. When the Argentine rocket had only one mile to fly, it was unsuccessfully fired from the Sea Kat anti-aircraft missile system. Exocet hit the ship at a sharp heading angle in the area of ​​the aft superstructure. Having broken through a bulwark and a helicopter hangar, she destroyed the Wessex ship helicopter and destroyed the left side anti-aircraft launcher of the Sea Kat air defense system. There was no explosion of the warhead, but from an explosion of aviation fuel 13 people died in the area of ​​the flight deck, another 17 received various injuries. A fire broke out in the hangar and downstairs rooms. But the destroyer retained the course, electricity and operability of the water fire extinguishing system.
    The crew of the ship within three hours managed to localize the fire, and soon completely eliminate it. Having managed to ensure the progress in 20 nodes, the destroyer headed for the repair and restoration work in the TRALA zone. Despite the efforts made by the repair crews, Glamorgan no longer took part in the fighting. ”

    The first to receive the Exocet missile on board the EM Sheffield

    The warhead of the rocket did not explode. Fire caused by rocket engine fuel.
    The heroic description of the British:
    “An active radar, homing of the second missile captured Sheffield at a distance of 12 — 15 km, in the final section of the trajectories the flight altitude of the missile decreased from 15 to 3 m. From the ship, the missile was noticed only 6 seconds before it hit and the commander only managed to command:“ Take cover! ”
    The missile penetrated the 10-mm shell of the destroyer under the superstructure of the main command post at altitude. 1,8 m above the waterline, flew through the galley and entered the engine room. Explosion of residual rocket fuel caused a fire fuel tanks, which soon covered the entire middle part of the ship's hull. Its distribution was facilitated by a drop in steam pressure and the failure of power generators that fed fire pumps, as well as the ignition of interior decoration made of synthetic materials, ship superstructures made of light aluminum-magnesium alloys and the shells of electric cables burning like gunpowder. The premises very quickly filled with thick poisonous smoke, and soon the threat of an explosion of rocket and artillery ammunition was created.
    After a four-hour fruitless struggle for survivability, the commander gave the command to leave the ship. "
    1. Santa Fe
      4 May 2013 02: 41
      +1
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      There was no explosion of the warhead, but from an explosion of aviation fuel

      Well, here we have a discrepancy in the sources

      After the ship executed a rapid turn away from the missile in the limited time available, a few seconds, the Exocet struck the port side adjacent to the hangar near the stern. The turn had prevented the missile from striking the ship's side perpendicularly and penetrating; instead it hit the deck coaming at an angle, near the port Seacat launcher, skidded on the deck, and exploded. This made a 10 ft by 15 ft hole in the hangar deck and a 5 ft by 4 ft hole in the galley area below, where a fire started.
  24. albert
    albert 3 May 2013 22: 27
    0
    Hmm, I heard that one of the reasons for the sinking of the Argentine cruiser "General Belgrano" was such a mistake of the Argentines - they went on a cruiser and two Espinas escort and they did not have sonar systems turned on, which allowed the British to successfully carry out the attack. And after the torpedo explosion. the destroyers, instead of helping their own or pursuing the submarine, ran away.
  25. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 3 May 2013 22: 43
    +4
    Sheffield after the "explosion?" RCC "Exocet". Head part 165 kg, combined explosive! Conversion to TNT is at least 300 kg. Has anyone seen, at least at the firing range, what happens to the board when SUCH shell hits? And here even the board is not torn up ... However!
    1. Santa Fe
      4 May 2013 02: 43
      +1
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      And here even the board is not turned ... However!

      The fact that the RCC that got into Sheffield did not explode is a well-known fact.

      In the second case (Glamorgan), we have a discrepancy in the sources. Debatable.

      It remains to clarify the third attack - "Atlantic Conveyor" - two hit anti-ship missiles, one of the missiles exploded
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 4 May 2013 10: 47
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        It remains to clarify the third attack - "Atlantic Conveyor" - two hit anti-ship missiles, one of the missiles exploded

        "The attacked ships turned out to be the aircraft carrier Hermes and the container ship Atlantic Conveyor. The British again did not expect the enemy. Only about a minute before the first missile hit the radar operators of the frigate Embascade, they discovered both AM39s and raised the alarm. The ships began to quickly shoot off the dipole reflectors. As a result, the anti-ship missile system heading for the Hermes went off course. Then everything turned out like in a nightmare: this missile re-aimed and hit a container ship. And a moment before that, the Atlantic Conveyor struck the first AM39. As you know, this ship was re-equipped in an auxiliary aircraft carrier. On its upper deck there were tanks with fuel for aircraft and helicopters, installations with liquid oxygen. In the interior, among other "delights", there were 500 cylinders with acetylene and oxygen. Missiles pierced the main deck aft on the left on board and hit the storage of these cylinders, they exploded, causing a massive fire that quickly spread throughout the ship. experiments to extinguish it were unsuccessful and after the death of 12 people, including the captain, the Atlantic Conveyor had to be abandoned. The fire raged for two days, after which the burned-out remains of the ship kept afloat for another four days. It was a serious loss for the British: 10 helicopters were destroyed (six Wessexes of the 848th AE along with three CH-47S Chinooks from the Air Force and one Lynx of the 815th AE) and large stocks of aviation fuel, weapons, and ammunition and miscellaneous property. Was destroyed stock of cluster bombs for "Harriers", 4500 tents, steel bars, necessary for the construction of a temporary airfield. including".
        A source claims that both KRs did not explode. But, even if one of them did not explode, it does not paint the French.
        Given that the Argentine pilots did not have any combat training
        and a complete lack of experience in ship operations, they showed themselves excellently.
        The name of one of the pilots is very funny - Kurilovich!
        1. Santa Fe
          4 May 2013 14: 11
          +1
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          But, even if one of them did not explode, it does not paint the French.

          Persian Gulf-87
          damaged US Navy frigate "Stark" - 2 anti-ship missiles, of which one worked normally, killing 37 sailors.

          So the point is, most likely, not in the "bookmarks", but in the imperfection of fuses and missile warheads.
  26. Vtel
    Vtel 4 May 2013 00: 21
    0
    Nevertheless, I am happy for the Argentines, for all the incidents of that war and unequal forces, they still set the Britons to heat and knocked them off a bit of arrogance.
  27. barbiturate
    barbiturate 4 May 2013 06: 19
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    This is war. Losses are inevitable. Boats fully paid for their existence, becoming the most effective means of naval warfare. Based on their tonnage of sunk ships, the result is 1: 10 battleships Barham and Royal Oak, attack aircraft carriers Taiho and Sekaku, heavy cruiser Indianapolis (the largest tragedy of the US Navy), Arc Royal, legendary Edinburgh "with a cargo of gold ... you can recall the" Wilhelm Gustloff ", the super-aircraft carrier" Sinano ", the aircraft carriers" Korejges "," Eagle "," Wasp ", the cruisers" Ashigara "," Atago "," Maya "... - small "pelvis" killed everyone who met on their way. And this despite the fact that the "pelvis" spent 90% of the time on the surface, were extremely imperfect and vulnerable.

    I agree in many respects, but the ships and planes have melted the small pelvis by hundreds and crawled up to thousands) The fact that the submarine is in many cases an effective weapon, I can’t argue, but it solves many problems much worse or cannot solve at all, compared to surface ships.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Do you want to make a rating of the most useless and inefficient ships? Nimitz will be on the podium

    I don’t know, Nimitz, in my opinion, the USA is little needed now, the USA built these ships during the time of active confrontation and completed building more by inertia, but it was already realized that the world already belongs to them, there is no enemy and almost every country in the world is ready to provide them their own airbases, and in such conditions an aircraft carrier is not needed, of course, but all this if we talk about Nimitz, other countries need aircraft carriers, of course not everyone, but they need them.

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Aviation is the prerogative of the Air Force, not the Navy. The Navy has its own tasks and they are effectively solved without the involvement of aircraft carriers. The Air Force will do the rest. There is simply no need to try to "push" planes onto the deck of a ship. aviation does an excellent job from the shore


    Well, here again you are talking about a country that dominates the whole world - the United States, and if a country does not have air bases around the world, like the UK at least in 1982, what should she do?) And almost all such countries) Even the USSR could not let me support my fleet with aviation from land and, realizing this, I began to build and design aircraft carriers, and even smaller countries, but with large sea borders, they all rushed to race and build them)
    1. Santa Fe
      4 May 2013 14: 45
      +2
      Quote: barbiturate
      and the planes melted the small pelvis with many hundreds and got to a thousand

      the count of sunken surface ships went to many thousands
      1: 10 - this is the real ratio of damage to the submarine

      Two small points:
      1.the main part of the Kriegsmarine submarine - there were boats of type VII, surface / underwater displacement - 600 ... 900 tons (depending on the mod.). For comparison: in / and the sunken battleship "Royal Oak" 33 tons.
      2. It is interesting to look at the number of forces involved in the fight against submarines:
      - 850 built destroyers and 130 escort aircraft carriers of the U.S. Navy (some were transferred by Lend-Lease Britain) - this is not counting the destroyers of the pre-war construction and anti-submarine ships of other countries;
      - Catalina radars, naval patrols at the Flying Fortresses base;
      - ASDIK sonar, towed acoustic traps, etc. hi-tech;
      - regular bombing of submarine-based locations;
      - hacked codes "Enigma"
      .
      and nevertheless, until the last day of the war, the U-bots continued to heat the Allied ships in packs.
      Quote: barbiturate
      but it solves many problems much worse or cannot solve at all, in comparison with surface ships

      Nuclear submarines are able to kill the enemy fleet, conduct reconnaissance of the coast, land gr. special forces, knock out the key nodes of the enemy air defense with their Tomahawks ... but many tasks are too tough for them.
      to cover convoys and sea communications, dozens of frigates and destroyers + basic Poseidons / Orions / Tu-142 will be required.
      if necessary, air cover will provide the Air Force
      Quote: barbiturate
      other countries need aircraft carriers, of course not all, but they need.

      eg? and for what tasks?)))
      Quote: barbiturate
      and if a country does not have air bases around the world, like Great Britain at least in 1982, what should it do?

      already wrote about it - only Superpower (USA) fights on foreign shores, which has hundreds of bases on all continents of the earth.

      other countries never fight away from their shores
      (the only exception for 70 years is the Falklands, where Britain was deciding on its colonial inheritance).
      Ordinary countries fight only with their neighbors (Iraq-Iran, India-Pakistan, Israel-Arabs, Russia-Georgia, etc.) and they simply do not need an aircraft carrier

      Here, the S-189 diesel-electric submarine (the boat is twice as large as the German U-boat type VII) and Mistral. The size ratio is just monstrous. A baby can easily crash a helicopter carrier, with all its air wings and a marine battalion on board - then even the sinking of 10 boats will not compensate the enemy for the damage
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 5 May 2013 07: 17
        -1
        WWII boats sank about 400 ships and submarines, lost over 1100. This is without taking into account Soviet submarines - there the ratio is simply disastrous.
        And 1:10 is for transport. And that's an exaggeration. The battle for the Atlantic, for example, is the loss of allies: 3500 merchant ships
        175 warships (main classes);

        Germans: 783 submarines. It turns out the boat is terrible to transport, warships won this dispute
        1. Santa Fe
          6 May 2013 14: 34
          +1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          WWII boats sank about 400 ships and submarines, lost St. 1100

          One "Barham" or "Arc Royal" is more valuable than 20 German U-bots
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Allied losses: 3500 merchant ships
          175 warships (main classes);

          what are we talking about)))
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Germans: Xnumx Submarines.

          Is everything right in the Atlantic?
          Quote: Tlauicol
          It turns out the boat is terrible to transport, warships won this dispute

          This is especially noticeable in the Falklands))
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 6 May 2013 18: 58
            -1
            The point is that there is no 10: 1. "Barhem" is more valuable, of course, but the main prey is transports, and not all of them are Lusitania or Gustloff. And the pace of construction of boats and transports and their losses are such that even a 10: 1 ratio would not end with maritime transport. If we compare only the losses "ship versus submarine" - then here the submarine is simply destroyed.
            After WWII, in conflicts, the boats sank the old cruiser, the old frigate, the corvette. Three boats lost -3: 3- the best ratio in a century
            1. Santa Fe
              6 May 2013 20: 26
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              "Barham" is more valuable of course

              but what about the rest of the 175 warships?))

              and there were such "trophies" that you could download: aircraft carriers Koreydzhes, Ark Royal, Eagle, 2 battleships, the cruiser Edinburgh with a load of gold ...
              each draws at cost on xnumx u-bots
              Quote: Tlauicol
              but the main prey is transports, and not every one of them is Lusitania or Gustlof

              12 ... 13 million tons !!
              1 to 20 tonnage ratio (sunk U-bots and their victims)
              loss of personnel 1: 2 in favor of submariners
              trucks, tanks, planes, cargoes, oil, provisions, ammunition (see the list of Lendliz cargoes) - all this went to the bottom

              from the history of PQ-17
              22 vehicles with a total tonnage of more than 142 thousand tons were sunk by German submarines and aircraft. 210 planes, 430 tanks, 3350 vehicles and 99 316 tons of other general cargo went to the bottom
              Quote: Tlauicol
              the pace of construction of boats and transports and their losses are such that even the ratio of 10: 1 would not end with shipping.

              yes, the balance of power was not at all in favor of the Germans

              Quote: Tlauicol
              After WWII, in conflicts, the boats sank the old cruiser, the old frigate, the corvette. Three boats lost -3: 3- the best ratio in a century

              are there three boats? I only remember the Gazi and one of the M-class submarines in the Korean War

              but what about a Convincing victory in the Falkland War (directly from Sun Tzu’s quests)! The entire Argentine fleet hid in the bases.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 7 May 2013 05: 23
                0
                and what is more valuable than 32000 submariners or 60000 other drowned men? PQ17 - this is the beating of infants - the boats are suitable for this. but a modest escort drowned 13 boats - this is not a defenseless convoy for you.
                Santa Fe forgot, you wrote.
                I love submarines myself, but this is not a panacea. Aviation taxis incl. aircraft carrier
                1. Santa Fe
                  7 May 2013 14: 44
                  +1
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  and what is more valuable than 32000 submariners or 60000 other drowned men?

                  more valuable than 60 thousand drowned. twice as many.

                  Within 15 minutes, the aircraft carrier Koreydzhes banked to the port side, turned over with its keel upward and sank. From the crew of 1200 people, only 682 were rescued. Together with the aircraft carrier with a displacement of 22500 tons, 24 aircraft were killed.
                  high-class specialists also served on the aircraft carrier "Koreyges"
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  but a modest escort boat drowned 13 boats - this is not a defenseless convoy for you.

                  why then the humble Argentine aircraft carrier could not drown the 5 British submarines wink
                  the args had anti-submarine "Trackers" and "SeaKings" - the same age as the nuclear submarines "Valiant" and "Concarror" (rather primitive pelvis - slow, noisy, with a maximum immersion depth of 300 m)

                  ... who's to blame that the submarine will rise to the surface only to "strike" the periscope along the wave and disappear into the ocean again
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  this is not a defenseless convoy for you

                  Do you think that the escort could save the convoy from high losses?))

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_for_Convoy_PQ_18
                  the PQ-18 convoy's acidic cover forces? there was even an aircraft carrier!
                  alas, the Germans managed to sink 13 transports (third of the convoy !!)
                  (for comparison - the completely defenseless PQ-17 lost 22 of the vessel)
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Santa Fe forgot

                  The technical condition of the submarine was depressing, the captain de Corbet Bikain was particularly worried about the "dying" battery. Soon after leaving the ship, one after another, more and more technical problems began to appear, - on April 17, an accident occurred in the power supply network, forcing the boat to drift for three hours during correction. The next day, the electric motor No. 1 failed, which had to be decommissioned during the repair, which took a day. On April 19, the No. 4 diesel cooling system pump failed, it had to be decommissioned already at 48 hours while the repair was in progress. The boat was sailing for the most partbut on April 20, due to a severe storm, was forced to dive and go under the batteries. However, the progress in this case, given the state of the battery, turned out to be so slow, that on April 21 and 22, Bikain, despite the storm still raging, was again on the surface.
                  the old boat was on the surface and was completely defenseless at the time of the attack.
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Aviation taxis incl. aircraft carrier

                  this is especially noticeable in the Falklands)))
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 7 May 2013 20: 35
                    -1
                    sink 13 transports at the cost of 4 boats and 40 aircraft? far from 10: 1, agree. and if the British nuclear submarines are old pelvis, then what is a 40-year-old aircraft carrier?
                    and in the Falklands it’s clear that English. carrier-based aircraft sank enemy ships
                    1. Santa Fe
                      7 May 2013 21: 30
                      0
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      to sink 13 transports at the cost of 4 boats and 40 aircraft?

                      Have you seen the escort guard forces?
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      far from 10: 1

                      tonnage 20: 1
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      then what’s the 40 carrier aircraft carrier

                      Nimitsu (CVN-68) is now also 40 years old and so what?
                      you need to look at the wing - and it was at the level: a squadron of anti-submarine "Trackers" and helicopters "Sea King" - the same age as the nuclear submarine
                      + as part of the escort - a modern British-built type 42 destroyer (the second EMPIP was not capable of combat)

                      alas, nothing helped
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      and in the Falklands it’s clear that English. carrier-based aircraft sank enemy ships

                      even the frigate "Arrow" sank a dry cargo ship from the bow gun!))

                      These included vessels stuck in the coastal waters of the Falklands and reconnaissance boats disguised as trawlers patrolling along the borders of the "war zone".

                      But not one of the surface warships of the Aregntina Navy ventured to approach the besieged islands.
                      Convincing victory in the best traditions of Sun Tzu
  28. barbiturate
    barbiturate 4 May 2013 06: 20
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    fact: all modern aircraft carriers have a monstrous cost, their complexity (loss of reliability) is such that more than half of the service they spend on endless repairs in the US Navy dock, having 10 employees, can simultaneously expose no more than 4-5 groupsFrench SDG is generally a solid disaster

    the fact is that all modern ships have a monstrous cost, even here, on the site, in the article about the project 949 "baton" submarine) it was written that 2 boats of this project were more expensive than the "Admiral Kuznetsov". They spend as much time in the dock as the government needs, being a kind of projection of force, you can't just send an aircraft carrier, and it's expensive, it's naive to think that they are broken at the dock because they are big and break)
    4-5 US aircraft carriers - this is in a peaceful quiet time, with global domination in the world, they do not even need so much, just the crews and pilots have to sniff gunpowder and undergo training. But why is the French ship a complete disaster? A new ship with a nuclear installation, of course not everything will be smooth, how much have we and the Americans suffered with the first ships in the project? do the heck and more. The French bring, arm, study, pl chtoli do not break, so they start from the sheet to give full speed and use any of their weapons)
    1. Santa Fe
      4 May 2013 15: 05
      +1
      Quote: barbiturate
      project 949 "baton") it was written that 2 boats of this project were more expensive than "Admiral Kuznetsov"

      long loaf boat special. 24 000 tons of displacement - overkill. Another prodigy.
      "Normal" boats: 671RTMK, Barracuda, 971 projects, Ash, Los Angeles, Virginia, SSGN based on Ohio - 7-15 thousand tons. simple, cheap and effective (compared to other naval ships)
      Quote: barbiturate
      the fact is that all modern ships have a monstrous cost

      in addition to the four times lower construction cost (compare Virginia and Nimitz), the boat has 20 times lower operating costs (1 crew alone: ​​22 - we consider only sailors, excluding the aircraft carrier’s wing).
      Quote: barbiturate
      it is naive to think that they are broken in the dock because they are large and break

      break down like chinese tape recorders
      SRA and PIA - period from 3 to 6 months. (almost annually)
      EDRSA and Docking PIA - up to 1 years (every few years)
      RCOH - 37 months (every 20 years)
      + repair of unplanned damage (and there are a lot of them, given the specifics of carrier-based aviation)

      Selected Restricted Availability - minor repairs
      Extended Drydoicking SRA - larger repairs in the dry dock;
      RCOH - Refueling and Complex Overhaul - kapitalka with reloading the reactor
  29. xomaNN
    xomaNN 4 May 2013 21: 14
    +4
    It is a great pity that the Belgrano KR veteran did not have a chance to fire at least a couple of volleys at the modern British Navy. But the Argentine Air Force, at all costs, proved to be a fine fellow!