Military Review

British fleet: degradation or flourishing?

144
British fleet: degradation or flourishing?



15 June 1953, the 200 warships, mostly British, anchored in Portsmouth’s outer roadstead, demonstrating the power and majesty of the Empire, over which the sun never sets.

The decks burned with a polished sheen, rows of elegant sailors built along the sides loudly greeted the royal yacht. The gun barrels gleamed solemnly, the water in the Solent Strait joyfully poured and sparkled, and everywhere, wherever he gazed, the Royal Navy flew in the wind with White Ensign. And over all this splendor, tearing wings of snow-white cotton wool of clouds, 300 planes of the sea raced aviation.


Spithead - historical the name of the anchorage in the Solent Strait, between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. Traditionally, naval reviews are held here dedicated to the coronation of the next British monarch.

The grand naval parade dedicated to the accession to the throne of Elizabeth II was the last in the history of British fleet. Neither the high masts nor the gray sides of the ships could protect Britain from the impending catastrophe - the mechanism of the collapse of the empire was launched, and now the arrogant British could only wait for the last colony to separate, and the once great power would finally turn into “small Britain”.

And if there are no colonies, then there is no fleet. To contain hundreds of warships just for the sake of the notorious prestige, the UK could not afford - being tormented by economic problems, it radically reduced military spending. Powerful battleships together went for scrapping, the extra aircraft carriers and destroyers were gradually sold to other countries.

By the beginning of the 1980, the anthem "Right, Britain, by the seas!" Sounded like a mockery of British sailors. The fleet of Her Majesty degraded to a completely bestial state - the Falklands War showed that British ships could be safely shot from a strafing flight.

Flimsy frigates dying from unexploded missiles, outdated weapons and non-Avia aircraft, who did not dare to enter the combat zone to directly cover destroyers and amphibious ships ... Only the traditionally high level of British sailors saved the complete defeat and that 80% the bombs hit the ships did not explode.

Neither the excellent personnel training, nor the thoroughly thought-out logistic and combat support system could fill the absence of a normal air defense system. The Falkland War Chronicle describes the wild cases where the crews of British ships had to fight off the jets of the Argentine Air Force with friendly volleys from ... rifles. The conclusion is logical - a third of 80 British ships and vessels that have reached the combat zone received various damage from Argentine aviation. Six of them were sunk.

And this is the result of a collision with some distant Argentina, which has just 5 anti-ship missiles! And what can we expect when meeting with a more serious opponent?

The grim reports of shipwrecks in the South Atlantic slowed down Her Majesty’s fleet — frightened by Argentine bombs; Urgent work has begun on increasing survivability; synthetic interior decoration was replaced with non-combustible materials. New versions of the destroyers "Type 42" - with the established "Falanx" and increased anti-aircraft ammunition more or less in line with the accepted international standards in its class. Serial construction of Trafalgar-class multipurpose nuclear submarines continued, the light aircraft carrier Ark Royal was completed, the third Invinsible-class ship ...

And yet, through all the British primness, the weakness and paucity of Her Majesty’s fleet clearly showed through. The whole surface component was a replica of real warships - and, no matter how hard the British designers tried, it turned out to be impossible to build a full-fledged modern destroyer in the hull of a ship with a displacement of less than 5 thousand tons. The overgrown frigate "Type 42" has remained a "ugly duckling" against the background of its American, Japanese or Soviet peers.

Revival

By the middle of the 1990, a new era began in the history of the British fleet. "We are few, but we are in vests" - this phrase best describes the modern Royal Navy.
The British, as before, are not able to build ships in large series (in fact, this does not require a foreign policy situation). But as for the quality of the naval technology, the Britons create a truly unique weapon, often surpassing all world analogues in its class.

Super-destroyers of the Daring-type air defense system, Estyut multi-purpose nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers of the Queen Elizabeth type ... all this is accompanied by excellent training of personnel (only professionals are serving) and a detailed scheme of fleet application: what, where, when, what .

The number of surface combat units in the Royal Navy, at first glance, can cause a grin: total 4 universal amphibious assault ships, as well as 18 destroyers and frigates as of 2013 year (another destroyer HMS Duncan is now undergoing sea trials, its entry into service is planned on 2014 year).
Strange characters in front of the name of every British warship (HMS) is nothing more than the abbreviation of Her Majesty's Ship (Her Majesty's Ship).

Most of the British surface ships belong to Frigates "Type 23", also known as type "Duke". In the 13 units, all are built from 1987 to 2002 year.

On the technical side - the usual, unremarkable ships with a displacement of the order of 5000 tons, designed to perform escort, patrol and support tasks around the globe.
The combined diesel-electric-gas-turbine power plant (of the type CODLAG) allows you to move at speeds up to 28 nodes (it is reported that the lightweight HMS Sutherland developed 34 knots. During testing in 2008 year). 7500 miles sailing distance (14 000 km) at an economic speed of 15 bonds. - enough to double across the Atlantic.

The crew - 185 ... 205 people, depending on the task.

Armament is standard for NATO countries, taking into account some British traditions:
- 8 PKR "Harpoon";
- Marine "Wolfe" air defense missile system (32 UVP in the nose of the frigate);
- British 4,5-inch universal gun (caliber 114 mm);
- a pair of automated artillery installations "Oerlikon" DS-30M;
- small anti-submarine torpedoes;
- aft helipad, hangar.


Frigate HMS Northumberland

Strong multipurpose vehicle for low intensity conflicts. The main disadvantage of the frigate "Type 23" - its air defense system "Sea Wolf". Despite its formidable appearance and the 32, which are ready to launch, the characteristics of this complex correspond to the portable Stinger air defense system rather than to the full-fledged naval air defense system. The maximum range of fire - 10 km, we can assume that the British frigate "Type 23" is not completely protected from air attacks.

However, in reality, an air attack on the “Type 23” would be very problematic. After all, the “elder brother” always walks close by - the inimitable destroyer of the Daring-type air defense system (aka “Type 45” or type “D”).

"Daring"... In total, since 2003, Her Majesty’s fleet has been replenished with six ships of this type. The most modern destroyers in the world, in whose design the most advanced technologies in the field of existing sea air defense systems have been introduced.



Two radars with active PAR: centimeter - to detect low-flying targets against the background of water, and decimeter - control of airspace at a distance of 400 km.
Fantastic anti-aircraft complex PAAMS, capable of knocking down cruise missiles, racing at an altitude of 5 meters at a speed of Mach 2,5. The ammunition complex of the complex - 48 SAM of the "Aster" family with an active homing head (another surprise!). The firing range of the Asters is 120 km.
You can read more about this sea miracle here: http://topwar.ru/31074-drakony-na-sluzhbe-ee-velichestva.html

The largest ship of the British fleet today is HMS Illustrious - the only surviving light aircraft carrier type "Invincible".

At the moment, due to the decommissioning of the Sea Harbor "Sea Harrier", the ship is not used for its intended purpose and is classified as an amphibious assault carrier. It is expected that the old ship, launched in the distant 1978 year, will leave the Royal Navy next year.

Also, as part of the British fleet, there are several other large surface units - two helicopter dock carriers of the Albion type and an amphibious assault ship of the Ocean type. All three ships were built between 1994 and 2004 year.

Her Majesty's ship "Ocean" It is an analogue of the Mistral - a universal landing ship of similar dimensions, with a solid flight deck, but without aft dock chamber (landing craft are launched into the water using sloop beams). Air Group - up to 18 helicopters: multipurpose Lynx, Merlin and Sea King; heavy military transport "Chinook"; attack helicopters "Apache". The ship’s interior is designed to house 830 marines.


HMS Ocean

Landing ships type "Albion", in contrast to the "Ocean" deprived of a solid flight deck and a helicopter hangar, but have a dock filled with water designed for 8 self-propelled barges (4 tank descent and 4 light). Additional amphibious assault vehicles can be launched using sloop beams. The landing ship can carry paratroopers on 400 for one flight (briefly - up to 700), the 64 stern helipad of meter allows simultaneous take-off and landing operations of two Merlin transport helicopters.

When the situation goes beyond the colonial squabbles with the Papuans and the matter begins to take a really serious turn, it is the turn of the nuclear submarine fleet. Slippery black fishes do not know how to "show the flag" and spoil the view on any parade (phew! What freaks!). The only thing that these machines are able to do is to cut off the sea communications, drowning everyone who meets them on the way, or “cover” targets in the depth of the enemy’s territory with a volley of cruise missiles. And then, disgustingly grumbling with refrigerators and pumps of the reactor circuits, with a dark shadow, cross the ocean underwater to fall asleep again at the pier in Devenport (British submarine base).

In total, the British today have 7 multi-purpose submarines - five older Trafalgar 1980-s built and two newest Estuyt-type submarines.

Trafalgar is a modest submarine boat with a displacement of 4800 tons (underwater - 5300 tons). Submerged speed - 32 node. Crew - 130 man. Armament - 5 torpedo tubes, ammunition - up to 30 torpedoes Spearfish (swordfish) with a range of up to 30 miles (when fired at shorter distances, the torpedo speed can reach 80 nodes ≈ 150 km / h).
Since 1998, trafalgar-type submarines have been able to carry instead of a part of torpedoes tactical missiles of the Tomahawk.

The story of the “Estyut” nuclear-powered ships is much more interesting - HMS Astute and HMS Ambush are already in service, the following four boats are at various stages of construction (for example, HMS Agamemnon was laid two weeks ago, in July 2013 of the year). The seventh "Estujt" - HMS Ajaks is planned to bookmark in the coming years.


HMS Ambush

"Estyut" - the most modern in the world multi-purpose submarine project with considerable combat capabilities. Estujt extracts fresh water and oxygen directly from the seawater, and the only reason that it appears on the surface once every three months is a change of crew and restocking of food. In the design of the boat introduced many innovative solutions, it is invisible and inaudible to the enemy, instead of the usual periscope - a multifunctional mast in video cameras, thermal imagers and a laser rangefinder. The British are proud to report that the “Estyut”, even without leaving the base, is able to follow the movement of the “Queen Elizabeth II” liner on the entire route from London to New York.

The main arguments of the super-boat are 6 TA caliber 533 mm and 38 ammunition from torpedoes, mines and Tomahawk cruise missiles (currently the British fleet has adopted the Tomahawk Block IV - the most advanced modification of the Ax with the ability to reprogram in-flight and attack moving targets).

There are British and more terrible "toys" - four Vangard type nuclear-powered ships, carriers of submarine-launched ballistic missiles "Trident-2" - for 16 pieces in the womb of each "fish". Everything is simple here - bang! bang! and the end of life on Earth.

As for the less destructive means, then, in addition to all of the above, the British sailors have 15 mine ships, a training destroyer Bristol and two dozen patrol ships, including the icebreaker HMS Protecor.


HMS Protector off the coast of Antarctica

Her Majesty has her little secret - Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA). An auxiliary fleet of 19 container ships, tankers, integrated supply ships, universal landing ships and floating workshop RFA Diligence, 10 displacement 850 tons.

RFA is just the beginning. In crisis situations, the Ministry of Defense begins requisitioning vessels from private owners. Any means are used, for example, during the Falkland War, the company Cunard Line was requisitioned luxury liner Queen Elizabeth as a hospital.

RFA is the most important element of the fleet, allowing the ships of Her Majesty to quickly move to any part of the planet and carry expeditionary troops along with them. Without these ships, the British could not fight on foreign shores and would be sad under the cloudy sky of Albion.

Epilogue

Currently, the British fleet is stronger than ever in all the past 50 years. The Royal Navy is a well-balanced and well-trained tool for solving any pressing problems, from international operations within NATO to conducting combat operations on its own.

In the future, the fleet of Her Majesty is expecting some changes - by the end of this decade the epic with the construction of two Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers should be completed. The fate of these ships has been rewritten more than once - for example, in 2010, it was assumed that three years after the construction, the lead aircraft carrier would be mothballed and sold to another country (South Korea and Taiwan were among the potential buyers). Now the plans have changed again - both aircraft carriers may remain in the ranks of the Royal Navy, but will be rebuilt for a springboard; installation of catapults is considered unnecessarily wasteful. What will happen next - time will tell, the leading aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth should be commissioned as early as 2016.

Also, in the 2020-ies the British plan to begin replacing frigates "Type 23" with new "Type 26". The project was named Global Combat Ship ("global warship") ... that's such a subtle British humor.


Universal landing ship dock HMS Albion, St. Petreburg, 28.05.2007



Automatic Goalkeeper anti-aircraft gun on board HMS Albion. The British have learned from the Falklands





Landing ship dock RFA Mounts Bay



HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier construction



RFA Wave Ruler tanker



Strategic Vangard-type submariner
Author:
144 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 8 August 2013 08: 24 New
    31
    Brochure "If you want to see the world - join Her Majesty’s Navy? You can endorse weapons and equipment that have never been used in combat conditions - paper can bear it all. But the fact remains:" magnificent "and" ultramodern "(probably about it like that wrote until 1982) the Sheffield destroyer of the magnificent Royal Navy (and so they also wrote) burned down and drowned from the hit of the Exoset missile, which did not explode (and, after all, it was certainly ultramodern and fail-safe) ...
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 8 August 2013 08: 54 New
      21
      As soon as the praises were sent to the fleet of Her Majesty at the beginning of the article, for some reason I immediately understood who wrote the article. smile
      1. Gluxar_
        Gluxar_ 9 August 2013 02: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Vladimirets
        As soon as the praises were sent to the fleet of Her Majesty at the beginning of the article, for some reason I immediately understood who wrote the article.

        Article crap, put a minus. Conclusions even on poor custom advertising are not drawn. "analytics" is ephemeral, with what does it compare? With the fleet of Argentina? Then you can still think. But even not to compete with China.
        1. kartalovkolya
          kartalovkolya 9 August 2013 09: 00 New
          +4
          The article is certainly not so hot, but something interesting: Britain’s nuclear missile carriers go on combat duty (unlike the Chinese). And this is something, but with them the British fleet has lost its former power: so "... rule Britain seas ... "a moot point?
    2. avt
      avt 8 August 2013 09: 03 New
      +9
      Quote: serge-68-68
      Advertising brochure "If you want to see the world - join the Navy of Her Majesty? You can advertise weapons and equipment that have never been used in combat conditions as you like - paper can stand it

      Yes, only pictures of brave sailors. And here it is, “Estut” - the most modern project in the world of a multi-purpose nuclear submarine with considerable combat capabilities. Freshwater and oxygen are produced by the Estute directly from sea water, and the only reason to appear on the surface every three months is a crew change and replenishment of food supplies. "Well, the song is right laughing that's how they built this miracle - so they don’t even need to lubricate the mechanisms with anything, only the crew refuel the beer with bacon. laughing I didn’t set the minus just for visual agitation - the photos are good. Well, at least I didn’t write about the newborn king. laughing
      1. sasha.28blaga
        sasha.28blaga 8 August 2013 09: 26 New
        11
        Seawater is not known when it began to be recycled. In space technology, drinking water is even made from urine. I generally do not like articles glorifying foreign weapons.
    3. 0255
      0255 8 August 2013 10: 04 New
      11
      in Sheffield, as far as is known, the armor was only ... 10 mm thick! An Exoset rocket would not have caused damage to an armored cruiser from World War 1 with serious armor. It is a pity that the Argentines did not have Soviet more powerful missiles like the X-22 and X-29, Her Majesty would have missed at least half of her Navy
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 9 August 2013 00: 30 New
        0
        It is a pity that the Argentines did not have Soviet more powerful missiles like the X-22 and X-29

        Yes, then they were not particularly in the USSR Air Force laughing
        In 1981, just started to master the troops
      2. old man54
        old man54 10 August 2013 01: 49 New
        0
        Quote: 0255
        in Sheffield, as far as is known, the armor was only ... 10 mm thick!

        If you are talking about the destroyer HMS Sheffield, damaged by Argentine aircraft during the war for the Malvinas Islands, then it didn’t have a reservation at all! Where did they get about 10 mm? Destroyers even during the 2-th MV did not book!
        1. Santa Fe
          10 August 2013 10: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: old man54
          If you are talking about the destroyer HMS Sheffield, damaged by Argentine aircraft during the war for the Malvinas Islands, then it didn’t have a reservation at all! Where did they get about 10 mm?

          This is just the thickness of the skin.
          Quote: old man54
          The destroyers even during the 2nd MV did not book!

          Shatterproof was. At the same “Fletcher” - all important nodes covered 0,5-inch plates, the board - 18 mm
          1. old man54
            old man54 10 August 2013 22: 17 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            This is just the thickness of the skin.

            Well, for Internet specialists it’s the same, steel means armor! laughing
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Shatterproof was. At the same “Fletcher” - all important nodes covered 0,5-inch plates, the board - 18 mm

            did not know! recourse But shavers didn’t want to reserve theirs during the 20 MV. And the article is just about them! wink
    4. T-100
      T-100 8 August 2013 11: 27 New
      -5
      Let them sell us their fleet at the price of scrap metal, and we will already find a worthy application for the ships)))
      1. Ruslan_F38
        Ruslan_F38 8 August 2013 12: 01 New
        14
        The saturation of the fleet of our potential opponents, I would say enemies - does not add optimism. The war with Argentina has been a long time and since then the enemy fleet has changed for the better and not only English. Conclusions should have been made yesterday and our leadership and the new minister and all who are responsible for the modernization and construction of the Russian fleet.
      2. Fire
        Fire 8 August 2013 13: 18 New
        0
        No thanks. Our shipbuilders need to build their own fleet, a new one, with aircraft carriers and cruisers, and that scrap is only for re-melting or on targets for anti-ship missiles ...
      3. Witold
        Witold 10 August 2013 14: 17 New
        -1
        Scrap metal can most likely be called the Russian fleet, especially the Pacific.
        1. old man54
          old man54 10 August 2013 22: 14 New
          +1
          Another Jewish Troll Appeared? Oh well!
          Quote: Vitold
          Scrap metal can most likely be called the Russian fleet, especially the Pacific.

          Well, where is it for Jewish cans, of course! laughing
    5. Kibalchish
      Kibalchish 8 August 2013 11: 54 New
      12
      The fleet is quite sufficient for a serious country. I would be proud if Russia had a similar fleet.
    6. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 8 August 2013 15: 44 New
      +7
      You somehow confuse patriotism and pozreatizm. Patriot can critically look at himself. What is “Daring” with AFAR and “Aster” with an active homing head? And by the way, "The competitors of domestic 9M96 series missiles are the American ERINT missile and the French Aster-15 (Aster-30) family missiles. Both of these missiles have already been adopted by the developing countries and are on combat duty." “A new direct hit hit method for destroying air targets, which in the West was called hit-to-kill, required the 9M96 missile to be very maneuverable, which cannot be achieved using traditional aerodynamic control methods. With this in mind, the gas dynamic "A missile control method using an autonomous lateral control propulsion system. It is used in the final guidance phase when reliable information is available on the position of the target."

      Full article http://www.popmech.ru/article/4134-popast-v-boegolovku/
    7. eplewke
      eplewke 8 August 2013 16: 23 New
      0
      it's like ours have no analogues ...
    8. Santa Fe
      8 August 2013 16: 36 New
      10
      Why are you juggling?
      Nothing just happens
      Quote: serge-68-68
      “magnificent” and “ultramodern” (they probably wrote about it before 1982) Sheffield destroyer of the magnificent Royal Navy

      "Sheffield" was rubbish and everyone knew it perfectly, m. with the exception of the brittle British patriots

      Sheffield and Coventry are ordinary frigates pretending to be solid destroyers. The situation is aggravated by the lack of near air defense - a 4,5-inch universal in the nose with limited firing angles and 2 Erlikon from the Second World War

      Result - “Coventry” insolently bombed with a shaving flight
    9. cdrt
      cdrt 9 August 2013 00: 46 New
      +4
      Here are many thanks to the author for calmly surviving the description of the presence of AB in RN. wink

      Well, on the facts - more thoroughly necessary (as Zhvanetsky said) wink

      I did not describe it - the reason why RN had such "strange" destroyers, frigates ...
      It was - and very serious wink except design and admiral dolbo ... ma with alumin. By ships. The whole world, by the way, suffered the same nonsense with aluminum ships at that time wink

      Well ... Type 23. Well, it has nothing to do with wars of low efficiency. Well, it’s not at all sharpened for this. And just for the big war, with the transfer of American units to Europe, with the battles of convoys from the nuclear submarines of the USSR. Hence the powerful GAS, heavy efficient helicopters, excellent seaworthiness in the North Atlantic. The purpose of the creation is a cheap efficient escort ship - protector of convoys in the North Atlantic. And ... by the way it turned out. The average cost of building one ship is, in my opinion, something like 170 million pounds in the prices of the 90s. Those. Really very inexpensive.

      Well ... Sea Wolf is such a good full analogue of our Dagger, and not Stinger. And ... by the way - what are our best frigates of the 1980-1990's armed with, Yaroslav the Wise and Undaunted ??? Could it be a dagger ??? So - for the PLO ship, for the late 1980s - Sea Wolf is the most adequate air defense system for object defense.

      Well, in general ... but what is the fleet for 2013 with one cripple from birth a light AB without airplanes stronger than RN of the year since 1963? When Eagle and Ark Royal were, and Victories, in my opinion, was still in the squad, and F-4 Phantom and Bukanir were on AB ???
      Now, of course, it will be better than in the 1980s, 1990s (with two ABs), but ... this is not a fleet, but 2 AUGs and 1-2 AUGs. Those. Really a bit. Although ... given the traditionally strong British infantry, the trained and well-thought-out structure and armament of the commandos, the Argentines in the Volklands will be torn like a hot-water bottle :-))))
      1. Santa Fe
        10 August 2013 10: 50 New
        0
        Quote: cdrt
        By ships. The whole world, by the way, suffered the same nonsense with aluminum ships at that time

        Lumin has nothing to do with it. The main problem of British esm. and frigates - weak weapons
        Quote: cdrt
        The average cost of building one ship is, in my opinion, something like 170 million pounds in the prices of the 90s

        So it’s very expensive
        Quote: cdrt
        The purpose of the creation is a cheap efficient escort ship - protector of convoys in the North Atlantic. And ... by the way it turned out

        With a leaky air defense
        Quote: cdrt
        .Si Wolfe is a good such complete analogue of our Dagger

        WHAT???

        A multi-channel air defense system "Dagger", capable of simultaneously directing up to 8 missiles for 4 targets - to compare with the "Sea Wolf"?
        Quote: cdrt
        But what is the fleet for 2013 with one cripple from birth a light AB without planes stronger than RN of the year since 1963? When Eagle and Ark Royal were, and Victories, in my opinion, was still in the squad, and F-4 Phantom and Bukanir were on AB ???

        Instead, the Britons appeared "Axes" and "Daring" with PAAMS SAM
  2. Scandinavian
    Scandinavian 8 August 2013 08: 36 New
    +4
    I am still surprised that luck did not leave the Britons in the Falkland War and gave victory in quotation marks. Although everything was very terrible ... rather, again the media tried to do everything in their favor ....
    1. avt
      avt 8 August 2013 09: 07 New
      -10
      Quote: Scandinavian
      Until now, I am surprised that luck did not leave the Britons in the Falkland War and gave victory in quotation marks

      Not surprisingly, the Argentineans tango initially danced pederasts in taverns. Later, when Mouzon liked it, in Europe, the "elite" began to dance with the women. Here are their voivode and they fought like the tango danced through the anus.
      1. zennon
        zennon 8 August 2013 20: 23 New
        -2
        Not surprisingly, Argentineans tango originally danced buggers in taverns

        Great said avt! lol And in the case. I don’t understand why they are being minus. The “silvers” have a nursery group of kindergarten instead of the army. It was a revelation to me that they canceled the call.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 03 New
          +1
          The army is enough for them.
          Anyway - a great country, super people, fantastic aunts wink

          True, too, the whole of the 20th century. In fact, they were fond of socialist experiments. What is typical with a predictable result - began in the 20th century. The 6th country in the world in terms of GDP per capita, began in the 21st century. Already 57 wink
      2. Santa Fe
        8 August 2013 20: 29 New
        +8
        Quote: avt
        Here are their voivode and they fought as the tango danced - through the anus.


        Well, say it in the face of Roberto Kurilovich, who sank the helicopter carrier “Atlantic Conveyor”

        Or Captain Third Rank Augusto Bedacarratz and Fleet Lieutenant Armando Mayor who destroyed the Sheffield Essin
        1. zennon
          zennon 8 August 2013 21: 01 New
          -4
          Well say it in person ...

          You contradict yourself.
          "Sheffield" was rubbish and everyone knew it perfectly, m. with the exception of the brittle British patriots

          Sheffield and Coventry are ordinary frigates pretending to be solid destroyers. The situation is aggravated by the lack of near air defense - a 4,5-inch universal in the nose with limited firing angles and 2 Erlikon from the Second World War

          That's right. So, you need to be excellent professionals and heroes to drown this rubbish?
          1. Santa Fe
            8 August 2013 21: 16 New
            +3
            Quote: zennon
            So, you need to be excellent professionals and heroes to drown this rubbish?

            Yes of course. After all, to rubbish it was still necessary to fly.

            700 km over the Atlantic in each direction, with rain and snow. Cloudy 300 feet, 7 point storm

            On the way back, it is advisable to meet a tanker, otherwise the Super Etandar will crash into the icy water 300 km from the coast.
            1. zennon
              zennon 8 August 2013 21: 41 New
              +1
              Yes of course. After all, to rubbish it was still necessary to fly.

              Normal combat work. No heroism.
          2. cdrt
            cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 07 New
            +3
            That's right. So, you need to be excellent professionals and heroes to drown this rubbish?


            And you yourself have sank a lot of crappy warships going in a squadron with AB? Yes, even with the most famous sailors on board?
            Only in real life, not in a harpoon type toy laughing

            In other words - they are heroes, and who are you to scold their pederasts and weaklings ??? laughing
            1. zennon
              zennon 9 August 2013 17: 31 New
              0
              In other words - they are heroes, and who are you to scold their pederasts and weaklings ???

              Well, show me where I wrote "wimp" and "pederast"? SHOW! No? So what ...? From now on, filter the bazaar.
              In the case. The Argentine pilot on the “mirage” had radars that allowed him to find the target far beyond the horizon. He also had homing anti-ship missiles. Seeing the target on the radar, he could not know what it was, but just in case, launched two missiles at it. One of them flew by. The second hit the ship. Did he break through the layered, integrated defense? Yes, I beg you! Anti-ballistic radars were ... disconnected. The incompatibility of early warning systems and long-distance communications did not allow contact with London when this system was working. During communications, it had to be turned off. An unexploded missile fell into an extremely inconvenient place, which should not be on board. At Sheffield
              Yes, even with the most famous sailors on board
              , in violation of all conceivable fire safety rules, flammable substances, oxygen cylinders and other components of the explosive mixture were openly stored. This is just .... The Exocet did not even explode, but when it fell into this heap, the explosive mixture ignited.
              The resulting fire was of such force that it was not possible to localize it. The fire spread more and more. The team left the ship. According to an official report, Sheffield sank while towing. Well, what kind of Argentinean hero?
              1. Santa Fe
                9 August 2013 19: 24 New
                0
                Quote: zennon
                Well, show me where I wrote "wimp" and "pederast"? SHOW!

                very simple
                Quote: avt
                Not surprisingly, the Argentineans tango initially danced pederasts in taverns. Later, when Mouzon liked it, in Europe, the "elite" began to dance with the women. Here are their voivode and they fought like the tango danced through the anus.

                and then your comment:
                Quote: zennon
                Great said avt! And in the case. I don’t understand why they are minus.

                You took the point of view and avt and agreed with the opinion that the Argentine pilots are homosexual
                Quote: zennon
                The Argentine pilot on the “mirage” had radars that allowed him to find the target far beyond the horizon. He also had homing anti-ship missiles. Seeing the target on the radar, he could not know what it was, but just in case, launched two missiles at it.

                You don't know anything about these events.
                But do not hesitate to say that "everything is around p *, and I'm D'artagnan"

                Though read about the actions of naval aviation and the sinking of Sheffield, Coventry, Entilope or Atlantic Conveyor

                Sheffield drowning scheme
                1. zennon
                  zennon 9 August 2013 20: 13 New
                  -2
                  very simple

                  Yes, I didn’t write that their pilots were fagots! Avt wrote “they fought like they danced.” Keyword
                  HOW
                  That's what I highlighted and agreed with
                  Not surprisingly, Argentineans tango originally danced buggers in taverns

                  And you cited the whole quote and wrote that I agree with all of this. I didn’t write anything about the pilots. I only liked these words. Why distort it? And what exactly is wrong with the attack on Sheffield? Vice-Captain KS-130N Pessane that they do not need refueling and, at 12:04 (exactly an hour after striking), he and his partner landed. This is about your remark:
                  On the way back, it is advisable to meet a tanker, otherwise the Super Etandar will crash into the icy water 300 km from the coast.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    9 August 2013 20: 43 New
                    0
                    Quote: zennon
                    Yes, I didn’t write that their pilots were fagots! Avt wrote “they fought like they danced.” Keyword HOW! That's what I highlighted and agreed with

                    You agreed with this:

                    quote // No wonder Argentineans tango originally danced buggers in taverns
                    answer // Cool said avt! lol And in the case


                    and then you poured slops on the Argentine army, clearly indicating that tango, homosexuals and the Argentine army are the same in your understanding
                    Quote: zennon
                    During the return flight, Bedakarrats informed the KC-130N Pessana vice captain that they did not need refueling and, at 12:04 (exactly an hour after striking), he and his partner landed. This is about your remark:

                    In, finally deigned to read! Continue in the same spirit and thoughts about Argentine homosexuals will gradually recede.

                    Sheffield episode - one of a thousand combat sorties of Argentinean aviation

                    A seven-point storm raged on the sea, and the lower edge of the clouds hung over the waves only 100 m. Despite such difficult weather conditions, the Argentines went at low altitude to provide maximum secrecy. For the same purpose, complete radio silence was observed during the flight and the Agava radar was not turned on. Information about the enemy continued to issue the crew of Neptune. At 10.04, “Super Etandary” went to the rendezvous site with a tanker and, having gained a height of 40-50 meters, replenished the fuel supply. Then they went down again
      3. cdrt
        cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 00 New
        +2
        You fly to Argentina, tell somewhere in the tavern that they are all pederasts, they will quickly and intelligibly explain to you who in this situation (you and your speech in the tavern against a couple of local people) are pederasts wink wink
        1. zennon
          zennon 9 August 2013 17: 49 New
          -1
          You fly to Argentina, tell somewhere in the tavern that they are all buggers

          The fact that originally tango was a dance of fagots is well known.
          ALL
          so don’t have to juggle. Well, about how they have enough armies, it was the Falkland / Malvinas conflict that showed it.
          The fuses of Argentinean aircraft that did not fire are a well-known fact.
          The Argentines themselves worked on it, did not take into account the fact that they would damp and freeze over the sea ...

          Well done, in a word ...
          1. Santa Fe
            9 August 2013 19: 30 New
            0
            Quote: zennon
            The fuses of Argentinean aircraft that did not fire are a well-known fact.
            The Argentines themselves worked on it, did not take into account the fact that they would damp and freeze over the sea ...
            Well done, in a word ...

            Guys, you don’t know anything about those events.
            I am ashamed to read your comments. At least for decency you asked what’s what

            "Damp and freezing bombs when flying over the sea" - sorry, but this fool
            1. zennon
              zennon 9 August 2013 20: 55 New
              -1
              Again juggling!
              The fuses of Argentinean aircraft that did not fire are a well-known fact.
              The Argentines themselves worked on it, did not take into account the fact that they would damp and freeze over the sea ...

              All this was written by cdrt. And you attributed all this to me:
              Quote: zennon

              You know, I’m ready to argue and defend my position. It has happened more than once! But unlike you, I never try to defame my opponent. And this is my own:
              "all around p *, and I'm D'artagnan"

              You leave for yourself a loved one. And I do not want to continue a dialogue with someone like you. stop
          2. old man54
            old man54 10 August 2013 02: 12 New
            0
            Quote: zennon
            The fact that originally tango was a dance of fagots is well known.

            for these words, even I wanted to give you a face, excuse me, so if you don’t have to fly far to Argentina, fly to Novosibirsk and tell me this again ... I will provide you with the rest! angry
            Arrogant amateurs have already gotten, such as know-it-alls, with the formation of a vocational school level, honestly! fool
      4. Su-9
        Su-9 9 August 2013 08: 29 New
        0
        Not minus, but where does the fagots to their army? And the air force and the navy fought very not badly with Argentina in that war. I would say that they fought better than anyone who generally fought against NATO since the age of 45. And the fact that their ugly junta caught up with untrained conscripts to the islands without food and supplies was not the fault of the soldiers.
        The Angles really surpassed Argentina in technical terms, if this was so 5. And all these newspaper articles that fending off the Falklands were a gamble for the Angles - nonsense. The planned and executed operation was excellent. Few could do that. For example, the USSR could not, even when the fleet was huge. We tried to simulate their BlackBack operation for our blood pressure - nothing worked in a real situation. Another thing is that the media all advertised them as they could, when the real situation was, as always, different.
        1. Santa Fe
          9 August 2013 21: 19 New
          +1
          Quote: Su-9
          for example, the USSR could not, even when the fleet was huge.

          The Navy of the USSR would not be able?)))
        2. old man54
          old man54 10 August 2013 02: 18 New
          0
          Quote: Su-9
          And the air force and the navy fought very not badly with Argentina in that war. I would say that they fought better than anyone who generally fought against NATO since 45.

          I agree, sensibly!
          Quote: Su-9
          Few could do that. For example, the USSR could not, even when the fleet was huge

          They made me laugh, honestly! laughing
          Until the 90 year, he would have been so able that even if the little shaves were sitting on the Falklands, and Argentina weren’t next to the British Isles themselves, they would have rolled them up, if desired, mom wouldn’t be sorry! Provided that no one else would climb, such as a state-va flying a flag from a prison robe! hi
          1. Su-9
            Su-9 10 August 2013 07: 00 New
            +1
            With respect to your opinion, I will be very interested to find out how we could repeat what the shaving did. And can do better?
            My position is this:
            1) Our aircraft did not reach the Falklands. No way. Maybe after about 6 months of transporting everything that is possible to Luanda, in order to support at least 30-40 sorties. I don’t really understand how this could be done, but these are the details. As I said, we didn’t get there directly. No way.

            2) Fleet: I will be glad to make a mistake, but there was no experience operating with large formations so far from the bases in the USSR. If there were - enlighten.
            So on the offhand shaved set:
            - 2 aircraft carriers with 28 si harriers (the si harrier cannot be compared with the Yak38) + 4 container ships with helicopters, one of them with 8 si harriers and 6 harriers.
            - 2 BDK
            - 8 destroyers
            - 15 frigates
            - icebreaker
            - 2 watchtowers
            - 6 submarines
            - 3 hospital ships.

            Plus they had 10 naval and 15 conventional tankers, 6 military transports, 5 transports, 8 ferries with equipment, 3 pass liners including Queen Elizabeth clogged with troops, a dozen other two transports and other rubbish. A total of more than 80 large ships.
            We had such long-distance group trips - not long-distance, namely group and long-distance? My sidekick who served as deputy commander of the BS-5 in Moscow says no. Plus our accident rate ...
            I honestly don’t know how the USSR could organize this quickly. I saw how the equipment was transported to Angola and Ethiopia and I know what difficulties there were with the organization of those transportations. This is my pessimism. Perhaps unreasonable. I know that there have always been battle groups in the Indian Ocean and the North Atlantic.
            Maybe we had better destroyers, but I don’t know how much it would help.

            And so, for 82 years we had 2 Kiev and 2 Moscow. 1 Kiev and 1 Moscow could be arranged for an exit. I am very not sure that both Kiev were combat ready at the same time. Again, I could be wrong. But as long as Minsk reached the Pacific Fleet, it would need repairs. Suppose both Moscow and Leningrad could go out with Kiev. How much could we really put the Yak38 on them? thirty? How would these Yaks stand to the Daggers and Skyhokam? Or would we fully rely on the local air defense of destroyers and cruisers - and how much was our air defense better / worse on ships? The losses would be higher than that of the British, since I don’t see how the Yak could efficiently bring down jet planes - from what I read about it.
            Now BDK. One of the horns is power. Let’s even fit Nikolaev. Total - 2 BDK, plus 8 Tapirs, plus a dozen 775x.
            We had a lot of cruisers and destroyers. The number of them in the order would be determined only by the number of naval tankers. But suppose we would send 10 cruisers and 10 destroyers.
            Where would we get a support fleet?

            I have no doubts that our marines would have swept the Argentines out of the Falklands. the resistance would be slaughtered along with all the rams.
            1. Santa Fe
              10 August 2013 11: 04 New
              +1
              Quote: Su-9
              - 2 aircraft carriers with 28 si harriers (si harrier cannot be compared with the Yak38)

              We will not take “Kiev” on a hike - too gluttonous and ineffective; vseravo VTOL in that war did not weather
              in exchange will go nuclear "Kirov", whose capabilities in terms of air defense surpass the capabilities of all destroyers of the British squadron
              Quote: Su-9
              8 destroyers

              5 Bercut Berkut-A and Berkut-B, each of which is 2 times larger than the British Type 42, and their combat capabilities are generally not comparable
              Quote: Su-9
              - 15 frigates

              15 BOD of the second rank - project 61, 1135 or RRC 1134, switchgear on the basis of pr. 68 bis - in short, we will find whom to send to the distant islands
              Quote: Su-9
              - icebreaker

              no problem
              Quote: Su-9
              - 6 submarines

              so what, and this was enough for the USSR Navy
              send 16, so for sure
              Quote: Su-9
              - 3 hospital ships.

              Irtysh and others
              Quote: Su-9
              Plus they had 10 naval and 15 conventional tankers

              KSS "Berezina" and associates
              Quote: Su-9
              - 2 BDK

              No problem. at least 10
              Quote: Su-9
              5 transports, 8 ferries with equipment, 3 pass liners including Queen Elizabeth clogged with troops, a dozen other two transports and other rubbish

              There will be no problems with this. The merchant fleet of the USSR initially had a dual purpose. The same high-speed 25-node skipper "Captain Smirnov" from the line Odessa-Vietnam
              Quote: Su-9
              I have no doubts that our marines would have swept the Argentines out of the Falklands.

              No worse than British gurkhs
              1. old man54
                old man54 11 August 2013 07: 38 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                We will not take “Kiev” on a hike - too gluttonous and ineffective; vseravo VTOL in that war did not weather

                and why is it Oleg? So what gluttonous! And what are you going to support MP on the island with? With Ka-27 grenades f-1 packs rush? laughing It is clear that the Yak even as an 0 interceptor, well, perhaps only against their scouts, but as an attack aircraft he scans after all! repeat
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Switchgear based on 68 bis Ave. - in short, we’ll find someone to send to distant islands

                and what, besides the control panel, just a couple of 68 bis will not be needed or what? Are you Oleg ??? And their 12 GK 152-mm to suppress enemy bunkers and support during the onset of our MP is not needed? belayI would even plan for 2, while one of the vehicles ensuring the supply of ammunition is flooding, the other is working. The Nagosaks would have something like that in 82, they would be happy until shit. After the Falklands, they had a showdown on the unsuitability of modern frigates such as Broadsword I and II to support the landing. That is why the third series of Mark8 appeared. hi
                1. Santa Fe
                  11 August 2013 12: 49 New
                  0
                  Quote: old man54
                  and why is it Oleg? So what gluttonous! And what are you going to support MP on the island with?

                  six-inch cruisers 68 bis, 130 mm guns SM-2-1; MLRS A-215 (soaked "Grad")
                  after landing - with D-30 howitzers and land Grads - much more powerful and efficient than 100 kg of Yak-38 bombs
                  Quote: old man54
                  and what, besides the control panel, just a couple of 68 bis will not be needed or what?

                  the switchgear has good air defense, especially against subsonic A-4 +, the nasal artillery group of the Civil Aviation remained
                  Quote: old man54
                  The nagosaks would have something like that in the 82nd, they would be happy to be shredded

                  in the photo the destroyer "Cardiff" fired at the coast from its 114 mm gun
                  total British ships fired 8000 shells along the shore
            2. old man54
              old man54 10 August 2013 23: 02 New
              0
              Actually, I was not going to “fight” with Argentina at all, this line and its people are very nice to me, but you turned everything around like that. And I wrote the following:
              even if the little shaves were sitting on the Falklands, and Argentina weren’t next to the British Isles themselves, they would have rolled them, if desired, my mother

              And I am very sorry for the time, excuse me, to paint with you a possible plan of operation, plan it, prove the possibilities and describe a possible strategy and tactics. But Oleg helped a lot, answered more than half of your questions. good
              From myself I will add:
              Quote: Su-9
              Our aircraft did not reach the Falklands. No way.

              Wrong! With the deployment of the Tu-95 in Cuba, both in the maritime and strategic versions, it was excellently reached (its range is about 15 tkm). Especially since they often sat there, to rest. I think Fedel wouldn’t resist, I would understand. A lot of them would not have been needed, pieces 20 / 30, no more, including for RCs and for reconnaissance of military operations. It is not necessary to bomb freely falling islands and mainland Argentina, we were armed with missiles, air / surface, launch range from 150 to 400 km. Not nuclear !! A large salvo at the airfield and with a high degree of probability that its runway was broken. Chers another day. With such a launching range and their organization of the country's air defense, the counteraction of the Argentinean IA would be minimal, even without the cover of our fighter planes, losses would be unlikely for strategists. It would also be possible to peel on the islands themselves without entering their air defense zone. + we had a great number of nuclear submarines (675 project) and diesel-electric submarines with surface launch launchers for ground work (P-6), so if you wish you could arrange massive missile raids on their targets, I would see how they spin. wink I note that none of the shaves in 82 was even mentioned!
              Quote: Su-9
              I honestly don’t know how the USSR could organize this quickly.

              but speed is not necessary, there would be political will! for a month would swing, and normal. The Britons also tightened their strength for about a month, although they were closer.
              Quote: Su-9
              So the shaving offhand put: - 2 aircraft carrier with 28 si harriers (si harrier does not go in any comparison with the Yak-38)

              Well, not with 28, but with 38, in total on both! For 82, we had as many as three TAVKR Ave. 1143: Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk + 2 cruisers Ave. 1123. on 82 the oldest “Gyrfalcon” was only 10 years old, not age, I think I would have reached it, won it and would have returned! air wing on each from 36 LA. You can’t take a helicopter, the Aregnta diesel-electric submarines were not serious, admittedly, our Shuka-class submarines can also provide submarine squadrons from below. laughing and of that, with a strong desire, we can deploy a wing of more than 100 Yak-38 attack aircraft (if only there were enough trained pilots, of which I’m not sure). With a comparison of Harier And the “cucumber" ... as a destroyer, Yak is of course 0, but as an attack aircraft, not a dime is worse, or maybe even better.
            3. old man54
              old man54 10 August 2013 23: 58 New
              0
              Quote: Su-9
              Fleet: I will be glad to make a mistake, but there was no experience operating with large formations so far from the bases in the USSR.

              you’re not mistaken, it wasn’t, but once all for the first time! But there was a wealth of experience in the management of squadrons in the Indian that 5-th squadron in Middle East. There was no experience of lightning capture of the states either, but the Czechoslovakia and Hungary worked perfectly. They would have managed in the south Atlantic, if they wanted to.
              Quote: Su-9
              And so, for 82, we had 2 of Kiev and 2 of Moscow.

              you are mistaken, there were 3 of “Kiev” (pr. 1143), “Novorossiysk” entered the system in the 1982 year exactly. all new enough, I don’t think we could participate. By the Britons, the Hermes of the 53 year of construction was, and nothing, he fought well! wink
              Quote: Su-9
              How much could we really put Yak38 on them? 30? How would these Yaks stand to the Daggers and Skyhokam?

              36 for each. no matter how they interact with them, they are pure attack aircraft. If ... then they would beat. But they would be very useful for storming the Falklands themselves and the Argentinean supply ships.
              Quote: Su-9
              Or would we fully rely on the local air defense of destroyers and cruisers - and how much was our air defense better / worse on ships?

              group / squadron, and personal / object air defense of our NKs then on 2 the heads were better than the English ones! The ship-to-air missile is full, different, + AK-230 and AK-630, also AK-725 and AK-726. So at any altitude, but if in small groups, up to 5, well, 10 LA, then the Argentines would not have a chance. And for more they didn’t have opportunities, they attacked shavers in small groups, but those with ZA had full seams, so they drowned them effortlessly. We could be taken only by a very massive raid, of various angles, the number of aircraft from 30, no less, then yes, then things would have been bad! And it would be desirable to have abundant NURS or short-range anti-ship missiles in abundance, and they only had free-falling bombs.
              Quote: Su-9
              The losses would be higher than that of the British, since I do not see how the Yak could efficiently bring down jet planes

              it’s not his task to shoot down aircraft, he’s a stormtrooper, clean! NK would be repelled by its own air defense, wrote above already.
              and after the landing of ground forces on the islands, from the cloud of the BDK (if desired), we could create such mobile ground-based air defense on the islands that the Britons could not even dream of. good They have just this and then and now the problem, “Rapier” showed itself very poorly then, but here we have the “Cube” air defense system, the “Circle” and the “Arrow” and the “Needle” and “Shilka” and horseradish knows what else. something like this! hi
      5. old man54
        old man54 10 August 2013 02: 01 New
        0
        You from me "-", deserved! negative
        Quote: avt
        Not surprisingly, Argentineans tango originally danced buggers in taverns

        It’s always funny to read the comments of amateurs about what they don’t have a tooth at all in, but it’s important to cheek up! laughing
        Quote: avt
        Here are their voivode and they fought as the tango danced - through the anus.

        they fought normally, of course they could, but for the fact that they weren’t afraid of NATO, not the friendship of the arrogant Saxons with the p.i.d.dosami and actually declared war on them, they are worthy of respect, unlike YOU!
        Look at our World War II, with your eyes, it’s also possible to dump out that our generals only had a lot of vodka to thump, they almost thrashed the country!
    2. Gato
      Gato 8 August 2013 15: 22 New
      +4
      Quote: Scandinavian
      Although everything was very terrible ...

      Probably because the Argentines were even worse.
      The same Patients quote from the media of that time:
      "British ships landed on the islands. The Argentinean fleet could not go to sea due to the storm."
      The soldiers of the Argentinean regiment on the islands are recruits who have served several weeks. Here, even sensible officers did not help against SAS, Gurks, etc.
      Only the pilots pleased.
      1. Santa Fe
        8 August 2013 16: 42 New
        +6
        Quote: Gato
        Probably because the Argentines were even worse.

        The Args had only 5 Exozet anti-ship missiles, 6 Super-Ethandar combat-ready and the only KS-130 tanker

        The reconnaissance was carried out by Boeing 707 civilian airliners, as "Neptune" 1940s went out of order on the 15th day of the war
        Quote: Gato
        Argentine Navy due to the storm could not go to sea

        The Argentinean fleet could not go to sea due to British submarines

        After the massacre of May 2, 1982, the entire Argentine fleet urgently returned to base

        General Belgrano, unexpectedly sunk by a nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror
        1. Gato
          Gato 8 August 2013 17: 38 New
          +1
          So I am about the same.
          This passage just confused me a little:
          Her Majesty’s squadron was saved from complete defeat only by the traditionally high training of British sailors and the fact that 80% of the bombs that fell into the ships did not explode.
          1. Santa Fe
            8 August 2013 19: 00 New
            +4
            Quote: Gato
            Her Majesty’s squadron was saved from complete defeat only by the traditionally high training of British sailors and the fact that 80% of the bombs that fell into the ships did not explode.


            Frigate HMS Plymouth. He is famous for receiving 4 bombs, none of which exploded. However, “Plymouth” had enough of this - on board there was a sour fire and detonation of depth charges. Surprisingly survived
          2. cdrt
            cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 13 New
            0
            The fuses of Argentinean aircraft that did not fire are a well-known fact.
            Explain it to the fact that they were bombed with ordinary OFBs, the fuses of which were not particularly suitable for top-mast use. The Argentines themselves worked on it, did not take into account the fact that they would damp and freeze over the sea ...
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 09 New
        0
        And does our SF navigate a lot and maneuver in the Barents Sea in winter during a storm? The South Atlantic, by the way, is said to be cooler in storms than the Barents Sea. And at the beginning of winter - generally drain the water ...
        1. old man54
          old man54 10 August 2013 02: 24 New
          0
          Quote: cdrt
          The South Atlantic, by the way, is said to be cooler in storms than the Barents Sea. And at the beginning of winter - generally drain the water ...

          Well, you look at the geography of the theater of war, its rose of winds, huge open arrays of windows, that of the Atlantic, that of the Indian, chasing a wave with a uranium wind, then a swell! And Barents ... from the north, the people of the props are propping up, from the south of Scandinavia and the Kola Peninsula, and in winter a small little thing is not frost-free, in the south-west. That's the whole picture!
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 9 August 2013 00: 58 New
      +1
      Of course the media tried.

      And there was no heroism of the pilots (both strategists and sea), there was no political courage to fight for the distant lands, at the limit of the range of the ships, there was no skill of the admiral who was able to land a fairly large landing in the stormy South Atlantic (this is about the same as in Kola in November to land), there was no skill, courage and endurance of the marines ...
      Yet simple wink
  3. Gray-haired Siberian
    Gray-haired Siberian 8 August 2013 08: 43 New
    +1
    All the same, the British have a good fleet. Of course they can’t compete with us, but in some areas, it’s a good help to mattresses. Unfortunately.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 8 August 2013 11: 57 New
      10
      Can't we compete with us? In the ocean, we really have nothing to oppose them.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 20 New
        +1
        Can't we compete with us? In the ocean, we really have nothing to oppose them with.

        We can oppose them with only 4-5 submarines, 2-3 submarines, somewhere 3 cruisers (these are really good) and ... incapable Kuznetsov. Well, as many as 2 956 and 4 somewhere BOD.

        Those. From our side - heavy anti-ship missiles, somewhere 72 Granites on the PLACR, 20 Granites on Peter the Great, 32 Basalts / Volcanoes on the Kyrgyz Republic.
        While there are no 2 new AB in RN, we have nothing to answer for them (well, in the sphere of vacuum, where RN is fighting with the Russian Navy without the help of the US Navy laughing )
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 9 August 2013 02: 04 New
          0
          Quote: cdrt
          Those. From our side - heavy anti-ship missiles, somewhere 72 Granites on the PLACR, 20 Granites on Peter the Great, 32 Basalts / Volcanoes on the Kyrgyz Republic

          Granites have long been without target designation, missiles are old. They are going to change everywhere.
          Quote: cdrt
          Well, as many as 2 956 and 4 somewhere BOD

          What do you. As many as 3 and 956 BOD. wink
          True to bring them together will be problematic .....
          1. PLO
            PLO 9 August 2013 02: 12 New
            +1
            Granites have long been without target designation, missiles are old. They are going to change everywhere.

            TsU Granites even without Liana / Legends with Tu-95RC can be issued

            at least using ICAPL or Ka-31


            missiles are old. They are going to change everywhere

            still serve theirs before the shift
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 9 August 2013 02: 25 New
              0
              Quote: olp
              TsU Granites even without Liana / Legends with Tu-95RC can be issued

              It is possible, only the Tu-95RTS flying needs to be found)) They were withdrawn from the military in the 90s.
              Quote: olp
              at least using ICAPL or Ka-31

              Oleg also proposed an option with SSV. I don’t know whether it works witty.
            2. Su-9
              Su-9 9 August 2013 08: 33 New
              0
              No more RCs. NO.
  4. Edward72
    Edward72 8 August 2013 08: 56 New
    -6
    The decline of the British fleet began after Trafalgar
    1. Gato
      Gato 8 August 2013 15: 01 New
      +9
      Quote: Edward72
      The decline of the British fleet began after Trafalgar

      laughing laughing
      Yeah, but to World War I, RN was completely numb.
      And the cross on his grave was HMS Dreadnought.
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 23 New
      0
      Well, in vain you are so.
      They won a victory over the RI fleet.
      Our fleet, whose biggest victory over the British was the sinking of itself in Sevastopol, was driven into the base.

      In my opinion, even a monument is cast from our captured cannons.

      Although after that, the sunset began, but not how many fleets (he then skillfully and bravely fought in WWII, WWII, and the Volklands), and the empire
  5. Grenz
    Grenz 8 August 2013 08: 56 New
    18
    And still be honest with ourselves. Maybe some ship is not very good in combat characteristics, but the attitude to the fleet and the construction of ships is much better than ours. At one time, Admiral Ushakov, regarding victories over the Turks, said: "Turkish guns do not have Russian sailors!" He spoke correctly. But even Turkish guns cast in English factories would not have prevented us at that time.
    Nevertheless, new ships would not hurt us.
  6. Trailer
    Trailer 8 August 2013 09: 10 New
    17
    British fleet: degradation or flourishing?

    KhM, the construction of two new aircraft carriers, several nuclear submarines, helicopter carriers - complete degradation.
    1. military
      military 8 August 2013 09: 53 New
      +8
      Quote: Karavan
      the construction of two new aircraft carriers,

      and here, as it befits, "the president must decide on the construction of an aircraft carrier" ... repeat
    2. 0255
      0255 8 August 2013 10: 08 New
      -5
      KhM, the construction of two new aircraft carriers, several nuclear submarines, helicopter carriers - complete degradation.

      degradation will occur when the British buy the F-35 for their aircraft carrier and think that the F-35 are good aircraft)))
      1. vm68dm
        vm68dm 8 August 2013 14: 24 New
        +5
        there is another opinion.
        1. 0255
          0255 8 August 2013 15: 18 New
          0
          READ THE NEWS - THE PENTAGON AND THE CONGRESS EVEN EVEN CONSIDERED TO REFUSE THE F-35. BEFORE THE USA REFUSED TO CHANGE A-10 TO F-35. ADVANCED ELECTRONICS - IT'S GOOD BUT IN THE AIR BATTLES IT SAVED NOT ALWAYS, EXAMPLE - VIETNAM WAR.
          JSF Fighter planned to take up arms in 2007. OK, there would be ANYTHING DELAY BUT BUT THE F-35 WILL BE TESTED AND STILL UNKNOWN TO BE TESTED ANYWHERE. AUSTRALIA ALSO REFUSED FROM F-35, JAPANESE UNTIL TIME, INSTEAD OF IT ASK FROM AMERICANS F-22 RAPTOR.
          I WILL NOT BE SURPRISED IF LAUNCHING 1 HYPERSONIC ROCKET FROM THE F-35 WILL BE COST EXPENSIVE TO THE F-35.
          And EXPORT F-35 WILL BE LESS TO AMERICA ON POSSIBILITIES.
          ADD MORE THAT THE FACT THAT THE ELECTRONICS FOR THE F-35 WAS MADE BY CHINESES WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT TO IT AND GET IT DATA, OR DISCONNECT IT FROM THE STRUCTURE.
          ABOUT THE STATEMENT THAT THE RUSSIANS WATER THE F-35 DIRT, THINK HOW MUCH DIRTS THE AMERICANS SAID ABOUT RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT
          1. Joker
            Joker 9 August 2013 01: 33 New
            +1
            READ NEWS - PENTAGON AND CONGRESS EVEN THOUGHT TO REFUSE FROM F-35

            Please provide a link to US sites with this news, can you? This duck walks only with us and everything, it does not exist on any American website, I'm not talking about Lockheed Martin website, but the news that 71 F-35 has recently been ordered to eat, not bad, they refuse. And note, amers maximum can only reduce the amount of aircraft purchased, but can not refuse, as this is not their personal project, but joint with the allies and they can only refuse together.
            1. PLO
              PLO 9 August 2013 02: 01 New
              0
              How do you like this link?

              http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-01/canceling-lockheed-f-35-said-to-be-amon
              g-pentagon-options.html


              The F-35 was a program listed for potential elimination in charts at briefings held July 31 by the Defense Department, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing the closed-door sessions.
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus 9 August 2013 02: 17 New
                0
                Quote: olp
                How do you like this link?

                They will reduce the volume of purchases. Fortunately, they will not be able to protect the entire program for the procurement of 2443 aircraft.
                But actually this is understandable. The number 2443 initially seemed fantastic. In such numbers more than one military aircraft was produced after the good old MiG-23.
                1. PLO
                  PLO 9 August 2013 02: 23 New
                  +1
                  They will reduce the volume of purchases. Fortunately, they will not be able to protect the entire program for the procurement of 2443 aircraft.
                  But actually this is understandable. The number 2443 initially seemed fantastic. In such numbers more than one military aircraft was produced after the good old MiG-23.

                  I don’t know what they will eventually do there, there was simply a link to a well-known American news site, which, in fact, was the primary source of this news
                  but calling it a domestic duck Joker obviously got excited
                  1. Odysseus
                    Odysseus 9 August 2013 02: 28 New
                    +1
                    Quote: olp
                    I don’t know what they will eventually do there, there was simply a link to a well-known American news site, which, in fact, was the primary source of this news
                    but calling it a domestic duck Joker obviously got excited

                    OK got it. Yes, this is not a duck.
                  2. Joker
                    Joker 9 August 2013 03: 49 New
                    0
                    but calling it a domestic duck Joker obviously got excited

                    Perhaps I’m not the truth in the last resort, so I can be wrong, unfortunately there is no page on your link, but I will take my word for it.
              2. Joker
                Joker 9 August 2013 03: 47 New
                0
                How do you like this link?

                Writes no such page.
            2. 0255
              0255 9 August 2013 23: 59 New
              0
              I read it on a Russian site. And what to read on American sites? It’s clear that they will always praise their flying iron under any circumstances. Or do you expect Lockheed Martin to admit on his website that he is unscrupulously pulling money from taxpayers, both American and NATO?
        2. Proud.
          Proud. 8 August 2013 16: 56 New
          +1
          It’s understandable for airplanes. The expert also speaks of rockets with hypersound. But we are also developing similar missiles, as well as creating anti-missiles. There was a rather old interview with Vladimir Grigorievich Svetlov, who has been Deputy Director General and General Designer of MKB OJSC since 2006 "Fakel". Interview from 2007. "RG (Russian newspaper) | The Americans recently stated that they are approaching a new generation X-51 hypersonic missile. Having analyzed the reasons for the unsuccessful attacks on terrorist leaders, they concluded: the thing is at a low speed" Tomahawks, "which takes more than two hours to defeat the Taliban camp somewhere in Afghanistan. That is how many cruise missiles launched from a submarine in the Indian Ocean fly. The new X-51 takes less than 20 minutes to do the same - its speed is over six thousand kilometers in The developers claim that it is she who will cover bin Laden and turn over the classical ideas about the capabilities of cruise missiles. And your missile will be able to shoot down the X-51, EU did she suddenly accidentally fly to us instead of bin Laden's camp? Personally, I doubt that they will be able to provide their rocket with the declared characteristics. But even if they can, and the X-51 will be created - Sobim.RG | And if its speed will be seven times higher than that of the Tomahawk? Svetlov | We hit ballistic missiles that fly at high speeds. But the situation with ballistic targets is more complicated than with winged ones: there it is also necessary to intercept a detached warhead, and it is very small in size. In general, there are no aircraft in the world able to get away from our missiles ... "Yes, the interview is old, but we, hopefully, do not stand still.
        3. zennon
          zennon 8 August 2013 20: 52 New
          +3
          You know, the trouble is that we have such "experts" as Shurygin. I was not too lazy to listen to all the x ... y that he carried, although it was disgusting. Here horses, people mixed up ... Deep-witted reasoning about the "fifth generation "which are in the tanks and God knows where else! Everything was waiting, when about the F-35 anything specific. I waited." Actually, the f-35 VERY GOOD PLANE.All! Is this called an expert assessment? If only the TTX of this ugly duckling brought. No shurygin this does not bother. And it should! As the not unknown Sergei Vladimirovich Ilyushin said "A duck can walk, dive, and fly and swim, but does everything this is HU..O "!
        4. TS3sta3
          TS3sta3 8 August 2013 21: 01 New
          +1
          the opinion of this “expert” will not make f-35 a real fighter (bomber, attack aircraft, etc.). and his liberalistic nonsense is so despondent that there is no desire to even comment.
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 32 New
        0
        degradation will occur when the British buy the F-35 for their aircraft carrier and think that the F-35 are good aircraft)))

        You can see better what kind of aircraft they buy. laughing
        Apparently your experience in military affairs, naval aviation, suggests that they are wrong.

        And by the way, what would you offer them as a carrier-based fighter? And why (with evidence only please) do you think that what you have proposed will be better than the F-35 ??? laughing
        1. 0255
          0255 10 August 2013 00: 15 New
          0
          Yes, read the article about the problems of the F-35. Since 2001, when the first F-35 took off, the Americans did not dare to use them in their small victorious wars. I repeat that the JSF fighter was supposed to enter the troops in 2007, and it is still being tested, which confirms the Russian articles on the F-35.
          And I would advise the British, like the United States and NATO, to reduce all of their air forces, including deck ones, and stop bombing oil-bearing countries. But such advice will not give anything.
  7. leon-iv
    leon-iv 8 August 2013 09: 26 New
    +1
    The fleet of small brites is part of the US fleet. That's all Amer plan 2 AB to cut the Angles 2 build in the future is possible.
  8. Russ69
    Russ69 8 August 2013 09: 34 New
    +9
    About a year ago I read a translation of an article by an English ex-admiral. So he was swearing in every way both the government and the command of the Navy, that by their actions they destroy the remnants of the fleet, even taking into account new ships, in his opinion the fleet is not capable of solving combat missions, not even with the strongest enemy.
    By the way, the bombing of Libya partially confirms his words. Then the shavers managed to use up 75% of precision munitions. Such an expense for not resisting Libya is already too much. Although maybe there were few high-precision missiles, which is also not ice.
    I do not belittle the power of the British Navy, I just remembered the article.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 40 New
      +1
      About a year ago I read a translation of an article by an English ex-admiral. So he was swearing in every way both the government and the command of the Navy, that by their actions they destroy the remnants of the fleet, even taking into account new ships, in his opinion the fleet is not capable of solving combat missions, not even with the strongest enemy.
      By the way, the bombing of Libya partially confirms his words. Then the shavers managed to use up 75% of precision munitions. Such an expense for not resisting Libya is already too much. Although maybe there were few high-precision missiles, which is also not ice.
      I do not belittle the power of the British Navy, I just remembered the article
      .


      Doesn't this remind you of articles by American or our former admirals / generals ??? laughing
      Oh, the military of all countries of the world does not like it when they cut money for real political needs / capabilities in the military laughing
      And the conversations are the same, and phrases laughing
  9. Nayhas
    Nayhas 8 August 2013 09: 41 New
    +8
    Well, Oleg is quite optimistic about the future of the Royal Navy, there is really no sign of degradation, but progress is somehow not visible, the rejection of the catapult on the HMS Queen Elizabeth definitely puts him in the category of "pre-aircraft" ...
  10. GELEZNII_KAPUT
    GELEZNII_KAPUT 8 August 2013 10: 10 New
    +6
    After 08.08.08, we also combed our turnips, it seems not only we hope for a chance! Until the thunder strikes, the man will not cross himself! laughing
  11. avt
    avt 8 August 2013 10: 10 New
    +8
    Quote: Nayhas
    Well Oleg is quite optimistic about the future of the Royal Navy,

    But doesn’t it seem that the article was not written by Oleg? laughing Where are the actually angry remarks about the stupidity of the Angles who invested in worthless aircraft carriers? And these vile UDC? What a vile ,, Okiyan, "what a worthless ,, Albion." Indeed, more recently, he wrote about the noble BDK of the times of the USSR and about all these stupid toys-UDK, invented by amers. laughing Right! This is not Oleg, not Oleg !! Well, he couldn’t so calmly miss this aircraft carrier, Queen Lizka! laughing
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 8 August 2013 14: 16 New
      +1
      laughing laughing laughing
      Thank! He laughed at the glory!
    2. Gato
      Gato 8 August 2013 15: 28 New
      +3
      Quote: avt
      But doesn’t it seem that the article was not written by Oleg?

      Judging by the pompous style and the fact that the article is still interesting - he is. And about the aircraft carriers and UDC - apparently he has a temporary truce with them. laughing
    3. Santa Fe
      8 August 2013 16: 54 New
      +3
      Quote: avt
      Where are the actually angry remarks about the stupidity of the Angles who invested in worthless aircraft carriers?

      As of October 2010, it is planned that the first of two promising aircraft carriers being built in the UK - Queen Elizabeth - will be introduced into the fleet in 2016 for three years and will be used as a helicopter carrier. At the end of this period, the ship will be mothballed or sold.

      The forecast was bad, right? "Queens" were born in terrible torment
      The Britons are not happy that they got involved with this project - they had to simplify them to the limit, remove the catapult - and all the same, the waffles remained useless and terribly expensive waffles
      Quote: avt
      and about all these stupid-UDK toys invented by amers

      Well, what's the question?
      "Albion" and "Ocean" - British ships

      And what about the stupid cloaks of "Uospa" and "Tarawa"?
      Quote: avt
      noble BDK times of the USSR

      Naturally noble. BDK knew how to work with heavy armored vehicles, while, compared with the Taraws, they cost a penny
      1. avt
        avt 8 August 2013 17: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The Britons are not happy that they got involved with this project - they had to simplify them to the limit, remove the catapult - and all the same, the waffles remained useless and terribly expensive waffles

        Wow! Feel better. All the same, Oleg! laughing
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        "Albion" and "Ocean" - British ships

        And what about the stupid cloaks of "Uospa" and "Tarawa"?

        Powerfully pushed back! laughing , the main thing is that the British mean their UDC amnesty, and the more sophisticated Amer’s rioting is still. Normal, logical. laughing
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Naturally noble. BDK knew how to work with heavy armored vehicles, while, compared with the Taraws, they cost a penny

        And therefore ,, dumb "our admirals were looking for other ways of delivering assault forces than they were from the time of the Patriotic War, atomic landing boats were ordered, for secrecy, large SVPs, all kinds of ekranoplanes, and the UDC also wanted Ivan Tarava." That’s how they didn’t understand their happiness when, for example, they landed from the cruisers on the Black Sea in the Russian landing. Oleg! The stupid "experience of landings has historically more experience than you have on breeches and throughout the Kiev Treasury" laughing and the system of beyond-the-air and even vertical landing with helicopters, unfortunately, the dream of our admirals, which did not take place yet, has not yet taken place. Here are the Angles, after the Falklands, having eaten on the ,, classic ”DC from the times of World War II, not listening to you, it’s up to us to set up the UDC as far as possible, as far as we could. We also probably are still glad that the Amer’s bombs didn’t explode the Argentines. Yes, and "Lizka", with all the high cost, they still build - they rest, again, contrary to your forecasts, well done. They are trying to make a balanced fleet, so that Senka has a hat.
        1. Santa Fe
          8 August 2013 18: 51 New
          +2
          Quote: avt
          the main thing is that the British, mean their UDC amnesty

          You look at their characteristics and price. And compare with Wosp
          Quote: avt
          and the more perfect Amer’s rioting is still

          They are no more perfect. They are just excessively large and expensive.

          To pacify the Papuans in Sao Tome and Principe, the possibilities of Ocean and Albions are enough. Uosp in such a situation is a waste, and more UDCs are good for nothing
          Quote: avt
          our admirals were looking for other ways of delivering troops than the times of the Patriotic War, atomic landing ships were ordered, for secrecy, there were large SVPs, all kinds of ekranoplanes were there, and the UDC also wanted ,,, Ivan Tarawa "

          It should be so. The appetite of the generals nemeryan
          Quote: avt
          The stupid landings experience has historically more

          Dieppe they have not forgotten, that's for sure
          Quote: avt
          The stupid landings experience has historically more

          Have landed a lot in the last 50 years?
          Quote: avt
          and a system beyond the horizon and even vertical, with helicopters, landings, unfortunately the dream of our admirals, which did not take place so far,

          Well then, let the Yankees land this way somewhere in Iran. Or even better - on the coast of China
          Quote: avt
          Here are the Angles, after the Falklands, having eaten on the ,, classic ”DC from the times of World War II, without listening to you, it’s up to us to set up the UDC as much as we could along the Amer path.

          Do you know what kind of ship?
          1. avt
            avt 8 August 2013 19: 27 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You look at their characteristics and price. And compare with Wosp

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            They are no more perfect. They are just excessively large and expensive.

            laughing fool Amers built their UDC under SPECIFIC military formations, hence the size and, accordingly, the price. Maybe something has changed in the new century, but when the Wasps laid, they had such a concept - an expeditionary division, an expeditionary brigade and an expeditionary battalion. So the UDC and were built on the basis of picking up and landing an expeditionary battalion, exactly somewhere around or more than 700 people.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Well then, let the Yankees land this way somewhere in Iran. Or even better - on the coast of China

            laughing Well, try to wean something like that on a Soviet-built BDK. One thing pleases - no one will give you your research on living people.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            To pacify the Papuans in Sao Tome and Principe, the possibilities of Ocean and Albions are enough. Uosp in such a situation is a waste, and more UDCs are good for nothing

            And how our BDK is enough for this purpose! Even Okiyanov is not vile and Albienov, Here, as I have already said, the Angles why ate their own, and sisters Golykhkhedov UDC and moved, stupefied as amers laughing , after the Falklands.
            1. cdrt
              cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 48 New
              0
              . So the UDC was built on the basis of picking up and landing an expeditionary battalion, exactly somewhere around or more than 700 man

              Only not 700, but 1800-2200.
              The expeditionary force includes the usual battalion of the MP, aviation, supplies, staff, etc. , well, like something a little bit to strengthen their heavy weapons
      2. Gato
        Gato 8 August 2013 17: 30 New
        +2
        apparently he has a temporary truce with them

        No, after all it was just a fire pause.
    4. cdrt
      cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 43 New
      0
      Right! This is not Oleg, not Oleg !! Well, he couldn’t so calmly miss this aircraft carrier, Queen Lizka

      So I think they stole the login, and under a false name they praise aircraft carriers. laughing
  12. 0255
    0255 8 August 2013 10: 13 New
    +4
    In fact, the fleet of Her Majesty has not belonged to Her Majesty for a long time. It is not even the English government that drives them, but the American one, it doesn’t matter, under Bush, Clinton, Obama (I do not even want to write their names with a capital letter) or another president
  13. sasha.28blaga
    sasha.28blaga 8 August 2013 10: 50 New
    +1
    Our fleet is still better!
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 8 August 2013 11: 11 New
      +8
      Quote: sasha.28blaga
      Our fleet is still better!

      Due to the underwater component - yes. On the surface - a separate issue. And with the current dynamics of replenishment of the ship’s composition, the frigate will become the main ship of the Russian Navy (for the future years in 15). If earlier the US Navy was the only opponent for comparison, now Her Majesty’s Navy and even Chinese ...
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 8 August 2013 12: 01 New
        +2
        Yes, and now we can’t boast of an underwater component. New boats are still being built, that Lada, that Yasen ... and half of the old ones are fun. Just we have more of them, which is logical.
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 8 August 2013 13: 46 New
          +2
          Quote: patsantre
          .Just we have more of them, which is logical.

          Well yes. just when comparing the Navy take into account, first of all, the quantitative composition. As for the quality - even experts will not figure it out. On the negative side, the Russian Navy is in poor technical condition (not even age, namely service) + significant heterogeneity. In fact, what remains is what we use. The system crumbled. I can’t compare the training of personnel.
          Other things being equal (in the "laboratory"), the British Navy will most likely be destroyed by the Russian Navy. It is impossible to imagine such a situation in practice (for various reasons). This is from the series "my folder will beat yours." The comparison is only of theoretical interest. Our Navy has its own problems in the Asia-Pacific region, in the North and in the World Cup ...
  14. user
    user 8 August 2013 11: 31 New
    0
    Pacific Fleet of Russia: the fifth most powerful in the Pacific
    http://rusplt.ru/policy/tof-rossii-pyatyiy-po-sile-na-tihom-okeane.html

    http://newsland.com/news/detail/id/1226245/
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 8 August 2013 13: 53 New
      +3
      Quote: user
      Pacific Fleet of Russia: the fifth most powerful in the Pacific

      Yes and no. But the trolling attempt is good. It has a basis under it. Well, the article there is excessively Wikipedia ... especially on China.
  15. user
    user 8 August 2013 11: 32 New
    +1
    Congo-class Japanese destroyer during US-Japanese exercises near Kauai, Hawaii
  16. user
    user 8 August 2013 11: 33 New
    0
    The destroyer Harbin during the Russian-Chinese exercises in the Yellow Sea
  17. user
    user 8 August 2013 11: 34 New
    +2
    American nuclear carrier “George Washington” in the port of Busan, South Korea
  18. user
    user 8 August 2013 11: 35 New
    +2
    Large anti-submarine ship "Admiral Panteleev"
  19. wheel
    wheel 8 August 2013 12: 20 New
    12
    if the fleet constantly receives new ships, it cannot be said that it is degrading. new technologies are being developed on them and the size of the fleet can be increased at any time. Compared to the Russian fleet, it can be small, but the tasks are different. suitable Russian ships, then the picture, as it is said on the face. so it is better not to engage in self-comfort, but to take and build, build and build again.
  20. Mikola
    Mikola 8 August 2013 12: 39 New
    +5
    1. Everything is relative, in terms of large ships it can be said that it is not inferior to the Russian Federation.
    2. Kaptsov laughed at the Trafalgar submarines, but in vain they are less equipped but equipped with “phase hydrophones” which is not available in Russian. submarines. That is, the British detect Rus. submarines, but they don’t. Aya-yai-yy supporter of the sub-fleet does not know this.
    3. Efficiency, Britain inherited a system of naval bases around the world, and soon the Americans will give their base leased to World War II. So the British flag flaunts around the world all the time.
    4. Aircraft carriers such as Elizabeth are pre-aircraft carriers without a catapult, so here Britain has clearly missed. But in Britain there is a saying - we are not so rich as to buy cheap things. This flaw is still taking hold of the British Navy.
    1. Mikola
      Mikola 8 August 2013 12: 46 New
      +5
      And further. Despite the "crushing" criticism of Kaptsov aircraft carriers as a child prodigy. The Japanese are actually introducing an aircraft carrier into operation.
      The Japanese Navy launched the Type 22DDH helicopter carrier at the Yokohama shipyard, mil.news.sina.com reports today (the ship was launched on January 27, 2012, construction is currently underway - approx. “VP”). As expected, the ship with a displacement of 27000 tons and the name Izumo (n / a 183) will enter the Japanese fleet in 2015.
      What is being done in the world smile
      1. Santa Fe
        8 August 2013 17: 00 New
        +2
        Quote: Mikola
        The Japanese are actually introducing an aircraft carrier into operation.

        "Izumi" is not an aircraft carrier, in its usual sense

        This tool is for special operations, often not of a marine nature; such high-speed "landing helicopter-anti-submarine ships" - a long-standing Japanese practice
        1. Mikola
          Mikola 8 August 2013 18: 14 New
          +3
          Well, yes, and the possibility of basing the F-35B inherent in the project was just pinned for laughs by the Japanese.
          1. Santa Fe
            8 August 2013 19: 10 New
            0
            Quote: Mikola
            the possibility of basing the F-35B inherent in the project was just pinned for laughs by the Japanese.

            Probably
            Japan does not plan to buy F-35

            Future F-35 Operators
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 8 August 2013 20: 46 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Probably
              Japan does not plan to buy F-35

              Why
              On 20 December 2011 the Japanese Government announced that it intended to purchase 42 F-35s for approximately US $ 8 billion, with initial delivery to begin in 2016 to replace its existing F-4 Phantom II aircraft.
              Although Izumi is really not an aircraft carrier.
              PS The article is good, that's just from a salvo of 4 Vengards life on earth fortunately does not stop))
              1. Santa Fe
                8 August 2013 23: 23 New
                +1
                Quote: Odyssey
                Japan does not plan to buy F-35
                Why

                F-35B

                Yapi buy only land F-35A
                Quote: Odyssey
                from a salvo of 4 Wangards, life on earth fortunately does not stop))

                Let's not check, ok?
                1. Odysseus
                  Odysseus 9 August 2013 01: 54 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Yapi buy only land F-35A

                  Yes, land. I thought you were talking about the F-35 as a whole.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Let's not check, ok?

                  Ok, I’m a humanist) Although in Chernobyl nature without people recovered it was kindly expensive to see))
                  PS From the European I remember your excellent reviews of the Italian, Turkish fleets. Do you plan reviews of French / German?
                  It would be interesting.
        2. avt
          avt 8 August 2013 18: 21 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          "Izumi" is not an aircraft carrier, in its usual sense

          Yes, this is such a UDC, which is also bad. laughing
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          old japanese practice

          Well, seriously, the countries that signed the surrender were PROHIBITED to manufacture certain types of weapons. It is quite understandable and accepted practice, such as for the Germans after both world wars. So the Japanese perverted for a long time in ,, self-defense forces "instead of the army and navy, before turning out, here they are slowly, after their own aviation and armored vehicles, approaching aircraft carriers. But perhaps the amers will not allow them to build full-fledged attack aircraft carriers for a long time, although technically they are already completely recovered and ready.
          1. Santa Fe
            8 August 2013 19: 21 New
            +1
            Quote: avt
            Yes, this is such a UDC, which is also bad.

            UDC?
            No, not like that. He has no dock camera. neither sloop beams, nor the ability to accommodate heavy armored vehicles.

            The Japanese quite clearly explain the names of their "Hyug" and "Izumi":
            Japanese officials say it will be used in national defense. Specifically, they cited anti-submarine warfare and border-area surveillance missions. Additionally, it is intended to bolster the nation's ability to transport personnel and supplies in response to large-scale disasters.

            The usual technique created as part of the concept of a multinational US Navy is the transportation of peacekeepers for limited participation in local operations. A small high-speed helicopter carrier can be involved in the battle against the sea, patrolling the sea borders and providing assistance in the accident at the next Fukushima
            Quote: avt
            it was FORBIDDEN to manufacture certain types of weapons

            Yapi have been built by helicopter carriers since the 1960s

            JMSDF Haruna destroyer
            1. avt
              avt 8 August 2013 21: 19 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Yapi have been built by helicopter carriers since the 1960s

              request So what ? Is this stump a full-fledged aircraft carrier? Dead end branch. Like ours, including the series from Kiev, although Grechko said that they would do it like Nimitz, they went their own unprecedented way, cut a circle and returned to the solid deck.
              1. Santa Fe
                8 August 2013 23: 24 New
                -1
                Quote: avt
                Is this stump a full-fledged aircraft carrier?

                Is Izumo better than that?
  21. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 8 August 2013 12: 46 New
    +6
    Any island state claiming to be obliged to have a strong fleet, otherwise it is simply impossible. So the fleet for England and Japan is the number one necessity.
  22. Iraclius
    Iraclius 8 August 2013 14: 06 New
    +5
    Oleg, thanks for the article and for the neutral tone. The admiration for the Dering air defense destroyers is justified. yes
    The British drew conclusions from the Falklands.

    PS It’s a pity that they didn’t save Vengard - the best battleship in history - it would be necessary to create a museum. There would be another good reason to go to the Islands.
    1. Santa Fe
      8 August 2013 17: 02 New
      +2
      Quote: Iraclius
      Wangard - the best battleship in history

      What is your opinion based on?
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 8 August 2013 18: 59 New
        0
        Balance is perhaps the most appropriate definition.
        High speed - 31,5 knots (about 30,5 knots in full load). Slightly less than that of the American Iowa class non-linkor.
        Good armor protection. Powerful air defense. Reasonable ship value.
        There are also disadvantages, of course ...
        1. Santa Fe
          8 August 2013 19: 59 New
          +2
          It would be dishonest to compare Wangard with Iowa - the American (by the way, why short-sighted?) Appeared a few years earlier, and Wengard was completed after the war.

          If you do not take into account the progress in radio electronics and other high-tech chips introduced on Wengard after the war, the British battleship would be ashamed to compare with the American one - it was absolutely inferior to Iowa in terms of the capabilities of the air defense system

          GC artillery? Eight 15 'inches against nine 16' Americans

          Finally, he, unlike Iow, is the only one built in his class. Short fate. The complete lack of combat history.

          Wangard also had its advantages - somewhat better seaworthiness. Well, beautiful, of course, the infection))
          1. Iraclius
            Iraclius 8 August 2013 21: 18 New
            +1
            Yes, 15, of course, were inferior to 16 to the Iowa guns. But if you recall the weight of a high-explosive shell for an 406-mm gun - 861 kg, it turns out that the Wangard gun is slightly inferior. Yes, and these trunks have been tested many times already. Good gun.
            I constantly call them a nedolincor because the Americans made many sacrifices in terms of security for high speed, which brings these ships closer to battlecruisers.
            Very beautiful. graceful ship turned out. And the deck didn’t flood, by the way. Finally, they abandoned the stupidities with zero deviation of the trunks of the GK towers.
            Why was inferior to the Iowa air defense system?
          2. cdrt
            cdrt 9 August 2013 01: 58 New
            -1
            Wangard also had its advantages - somewhat better seaworthiness. Well and beautiful, of course, the infection

            That's right. And armed weaker than Iowa, and air defense weaker, and did not fight a day. A handsome, no strength laughing
            1. Selevc
              Selevc 9 August 2013 22: 24 New
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Wangard also had its advantages - somewhat better seaworthiness. Well, beautiful, of course, the infection))

              Nifiga - this is the most beautiful battleship of all time !!! Though enemy but beautiful !!! The Germans have always been able to build complex technical products better than anyone else in the world !!! The Americans and the British and Japanese also built large battleships - but the emphasis was not on quality but on the speed of construction - so they look kind of hastily done ... And the Germans probably just do not know how to do the technique in haste and blunder ...

              And about the article - the modern fleet of Britain has a pale shadow from what is shown in photo No. 2 ...
              But Britain is no longer the same !!!
          3. The comment was deleted.
            1. Kars
              Kars 9 August 2013 22: 23 New
              +1
              _____________________________
              1. svp67
                svp67 9 August 2013 22: 37 New
                0
                LC type "Yamato" is certainly beautiful, but how much did they live up to their expectations?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 9 August 2013 22: 56 New
                  +2
                  Quote: svp67
                  how much did they live up to their hopes?

                  conceived, built, fought - what else can you expect from them? Japan from the very beginning was weaker economically than the United States, and the fact that it won the beginning of the war in the Pacific Ocean is more to the shame of the Yankees, even much more than the loss of the USSR border battle 1941.

                  And probably the biggest mistake of the Japanese in relation to the Yamato lx is their too great secrecy - they did not get a psychological effect on the Yankees.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 9 August 2013 22: 59 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    conceived, built, fought - what else can we expect from them?
                    What they always expect from military equipment is victories over the enemy ...
                    1. Selevc
                      Selevc 9 August 2013 23: 05 New
                      0
                      I would say that from the battleships they expected more than just being targets for enemy aircraft or floating artillery batteries ... But life ordered otherwise - by the middle of the 20th century this superweapon was completely out of date ...
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 9 August 2013 23: 18 New
                      +2
                      Quote: svp67
                      What they always expect from military equipment is victories over the enemy ..

                      Japan had no chance. Although a one-on-one battle between the Missouri and Yamato, I would watch Bismarck-Yamato.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 9 August 2013 23: 20 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Japan had no chance
                        Yes there were, were ... just "did not grow together" ...
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 9 August 2013 23: 24 New
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        Yes there were, were ... just "did not grow together" ...

                        There were none, it was even Admiral Yamamoto who wrote this to mine.
                      3. svp67
                        svp67 9 August 2013 23: 29 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        There were none, it was even Admiral Yamamoto who wrote this to mine.
                        There were - if not to win, then at least reduce to a draw ... There are a lot of forks:
                        - Do not leave the Pere Harbor aircraft carriers, and America was in a much more unfavorable position.
                        - have time for the Japanese submarines to take their positions before the passage of the American fleet, at the Battle of Midway, etc., etc.
                      4. Santa Fe
                        9 August 2013 23: 33 New
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        - Do not leave the Pere Harbor aircraft carriers, and America was in a much more unfavorable position.
                        - have time for the Japanese submarines to take their positions before the passage of the American fleet, at the Battle of Midway, etc., etc.

                        What did it matter when the USA built 30 heavy aircraft carriers, 50 cruisers and 850 destroyers in a couple of years.

                        Even if the yapes had burned the American fleet and Pearl Harbor, together with Hawaii, this would not have solved anything. The war would drag on for a year or two with the same result
                      5. svp67
                        svp67 9 August 2013 23: 40 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Even if the yapes had burned the American fleet and Pearl Harbor, together with Hawaii, this would not have solved anything. The war would drag on for a year or two with the same result

                        The USA is a very interesting country, which endures very bad luck and at some point “breaks”, as happened during the Vietnam War. So that these couple of years could turn out to be that straw that would break "the ridge of the American camel ..."
                      6. Santa Fe
                        9 August 2013 23: 46 New
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        The USA is a very interesting country, which is very difficult to endure failures and at some point “breaks”

                        In the list of losses of the U.S. Navy during the WWII years are 783 positions

                        Pearl Harbor Yankees survived calmly. Like a pogrom in the Java Sea or a night slaughter near Fr. Savo. Calmly survived the fall of MacArthur
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 9 August 2013 23: 51 New
                        +1
                        Calmly passed Fort Drum
      2. svp67
        svp67 9 August 2013 23: 13 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        conceived, built
        And then they added the proverb “There are three biggest and most useless things in the world - the Egyptian pyramids, the Great Wall of China and the battleship“ Yamato “”
        1. Kars
          Kars 9 August 2013 23: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          “There are three of the biggest and most useless things in the world - the Egyptian pyramids, the Great Wall of China and the battleship Yamato.”

          what?
          1. svp67
            svp67 9 August 2013 23: 18 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            what?
            A measure is needed in everything ...
          2. Kars
            Kars 9 August 2013 23: 22 New
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            A measure is needed in everything ...

            And where is it? Build a jam instead of two Yamato Yamaha 4 smaller battleship would not change anything. Build more aircraft carriers on 6, also nothing would change.
          3. svp67
            svp67 9 August 2013 23: 24 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            And where is it? Build a jam instead of two Yamato Yamaha 4 smaller battleship would not change anything. Build more aircraft carriers on 6, also nothing would change.
            It would be better if they directed money for the development of their electronics and the creation of radars, then they would have had more opportunities, and would have been more responsible for the security of ciphers ...
          4. Kars
            Kars 9 August 2013 23: 27 New
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            It would be better if they directed money for the development of their electronics and the creation of radars, then they would have had more opportunities, and would have been more responsible for the security of ciphers ...


            Well, of course, everything ran into Yamato. Especially the security of ciphers.
          5. svp67
            svp67 9 August 2013 23: 31 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Well, of course, everything ran into Yamato. Especially the security of ciphers.
            And money, money is finite ...
          6. Kars
            Kars 9 August 2013 23: 35 New
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            And money, money is finite ...

            and did they end precisely on Yamato?
            Quote: svp67
            There were - if not to win, then at least reduce to a draw ... There are a lot of forks:

            there was none.
            and nicknames of forks. The victory of the USA was guaranteed. therefore Roosevelt did everything possible to make this war begin.
          7. svp67
            svp67 9 August 2013 23: 43 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            and did they end precisely on Yamato?
            They VERY contributed to this ...
            Quote: Kars
            The victory of the USA was guaranteed. Therefore, Roosevelt
            In our world, only DEATH is guaranteed, everything else is permissible, with one degree or another ...
            The US chances to win were very high, but not 100%.
          8. Kars
            Kars 9 August 2013 23: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            They VERY contributed to this ...

            So the money on Yamato didn’t run out. Then we return to the beginning. So what?
            Quote: svp67
            In our world, only DEATH is guaranteed, everything else is permissible, with one degree or another ...

            As one mathematician said - there is a possibility that a monkey threw a set of fonts from the typography window and it is folded into the Iliad, but I don’t even hear when someone starts to talk about it.

            Quote: svp67
            The US chances to win were very high, but not 100%.
            Well 110-120%
            When I was rushing around with the option of landing in Hawaii - but no, the pipes were all covered with a copper basin. Only success in the development of biological weapons killing exclusively American citizenship.
          9. svp67
            svp67 9 August 2013 23: 58 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            So what?

            Because...
            Quote: Kars
            As one mathematician said
            Shakespeare in his sonnets and did not talk about this ...
            Quote: Kars
            Well 110-120%
            Starting the war against Vietnam, that the USA, that China had 999% to win, but 1% of their loss was really realized ...
          10. Kars
            Kars 10 August 2013 09: 19 New
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            Because..

            Because what?
            Quote: svp67
            Shakespeare in his sonnets and did not talk about this ...

            so then he is a man of art.
            Quote: svp67
            Starting the war against Vietnam, that the USA, that China had 999% to win, but 1% of their loss was really realized ...

            And let's not compare Vietnam, which was the Soviet Union and Japan. At the same time, if the USA was NECESSARY, it would win the war with Vietnam, simply by killing them to zero.
  • starhina01
    starhina01 8 August 2013 14: 14 New
    +5
    Article + always needs to know the potential adversary and what he can do soldier
    1. asadov
      asadov 8 August 2013 20: 46 New
      +1
      and it’s better to praise him on paper than to crap with him in battle
  • Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 8 August 2013 19: 44 New
    -3
    Well, let's compare:
    - helicopter carrier "Izumo" 2013 year 248 meters long
    armament xnumx helicopters
    - Aircraft carriers of the type “Invincible” 1973 of the year length 209,1 meters
    armament 22 type aircraft X Harier
    TAKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" length 270 meters
    Armament of 50 aircraft and helicopters
    - Helicopter carrier Mistral length 199 meters
    armament 16 heavy or 32 light helicopter
    1. Santa Fe
      8 August 2013 19: 52 New
      +1
      What do you want to say by this?
      1. Fofan
        Fofan 8 August 2013 20: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What do you want to say by this?

        he thinks, if there are airplanes on an aircraft carrier, then these ships perform the same functions
    2. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 8 August 2013 20: 05 New
      +3
      Quote: Kibalchish
      TAKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" length 270 meters
      fool Even Kiev was 273 meters
      1. Santa Fe
        8 August 2013 20: 31 New
        +2
        Quote: Ruslan67
        even Kiev was 273meter

        The length of the flight deck of Kuznetsov is a little more than 300 m
        1. old man54
          old man54 10 August 2013 23: 29 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Quote: Ruslan67
          even Kiev was 273meter

          The length of the flight deck of Kuznetsov is a little more than 300 m

          304,5 meters! hi
  • alekseinew
    alekseinew 8 August 2013 20: 24 New
    +1
    "Construction of the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth"
    Is it really so small, or is this the photo?
    1. Fofan
      Fofan 8 August 2013 21: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: alekseinew
      "Construction of the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth"
      Is it really so small, or is this the photo?

      Vika writes that it is quite at the level - about 300m.
      In addition, the British love two-tower aircraft carriers. so the first tower is visible in the photo.
  • GUSAR
    GUSAR 8 August 2013 21: 46 New
    +3
    Normal, strong, mobile fleet
  • GEO
    GEO 8 August 2013 21: 46 New
    -6
    is the author of this opus melkobrit? Already saliva chokes with happiness when he writes about someone else's fleet
  • pinecone
    pinecone 9 August 2013 08: 52 New
    +3
    The fighting efficiency of the British fleet was significantly weakened after the ban on military service was lifted by “open” pederasts, next to whom normal sailors did not want to be in cockpits. Serious difficulties arose in manning crews, including officers, talked about a drop in the level of combat training and discipline, about the need for separate ships to display latrine and showers, etc.
  • gerafak
    gerafak 9 August 2013 11: 25 New
    0
    Well done Britons, of course, you can really evaluate equipment only after combat use (God forbid, of course), but their fleet is updated faster than the Russian one, and the rank of new ships is higher. I hope we just harness for a long time ...
  • Alexey M
    Alexey M 9 August 2013 12: 59 New
    0
    Big torpedo ship. We will take out weapons into space and cover everyone in one gulp!
  • Alexey Prikazchikov
    Alexey Prikazchikov 9 August 2013 19: 00 New
    0
    Finally, a worthy enemy ...
  • Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 9 August 2013 20: 06 New
    +1
    and I do not care, I love and respect Kaptsov very much. Uv.Andrey, I look forward to your posts.
  • old man54
    old man54 10 August 2013 08: 56 New
    0
    The article is somehow not very good for me, but for the works I put a “+”, Oleg!
    Why not really? I don’t understand and don’t share your piety before the Anglo-Saxon British fleet, sorry! And I don’t really believe in its effectiveness, there are more advertisements and “old yeast”, still the former power of the empire. This is how it is. request
    The strange characters in front of the name of every British warship (HMS) are nothing more than the abbreviation for Her Majesty's Ship (Her Majesty's Ship).

    I didn’t know this, inters, thanks for the enlightenment. hi
    1. 0255
      0255 10 August 2013 14: 07 New
      0
      And I don’t really believe in its effectiveness, there are more advertisements and “old yeast”, still the former power of the empire.

      This is a controversial issue. But it was the fleet and English Channel that saved the British from Napoleon in 1812, William the Second in 1914, and Hitler in 1940-1945.
      1. old man54
        old man54 10 August 2013 23: 33 New
        +1
        Quote: 0255
        It was the fleet and English Channel that saved the British from Napoleon in 1812, William II in 1914, Hitler's 1940-1945 years.

        yes give up! It was precisely from Hitler that the Naglosaksa saved the USSR, since the little shavers could reorient him, Hitler, into an attack on the alliance, while he had Britain in priority, but ... MI-6 intelligence, the fear that Stalin would hit him in the back, at a delicate moment, and ... again, at our Russian expense, the arrogant Saxons left, alas!