Military Review

La Muerte Negra ("Black Death"). Episodes of the Falkland War

147



21 aerial victory without a single defeat!

The achievements of Sea Harrier fighters in the Falkland War are genuinely surprising and admiring. British pilots performed their exploits over the ocean, in 12, thousands of kilometers from their native shores. Taking off from the slippery swinging decks of aircraft carriers, in terms of the numerical superiority of the enemy in the air. Subsonic VTOL of anti-supersonic Argentine Mirage!

21 Account: 0

28 "Harrier Sea" of the 800th, 801st and 809th Royal Navy squadrons crushed the Argentinean Aviation, ensuring the British victory in the conflict!

Or have we missed something?

Crushed squadron

Sunk:
- Sheffield destroyer;
- the destroyer "Coventry";
- frigate "Ardent";
- frigate "Entiloup";
- amphibious assault ship "Sir Galahed";
- transport / helicopter carrier "Atlantic Conveyor";
- landing boat Foxtrot Four (from the composition of the UDC HMS Fearless).

La Muerte Negra ("Black Death"). Episodes of the Falkland War

Drowning destroyer "Coventry"


Damaged:
- the destroyer "Glasgow" - 454-kg unexploded bomb stuck in the engine room;
- the destroyer "Entrim" - unexploded bomb;
- the destroyer "Glamorgan" - PKR "Exochet" (the only one on the list, damaged by fire from the shore);
- the frigate Plymouth - four (!) Unexploded bombs;
- the frigate "Argonaut" - two unexploded bombs, the "Argonaut" was in the balance from death;
- the frigate "Elekriti" - unexploded bombs;
- Arrow frigate - damaged by aircraft cannon fire;
- frigate "Broadsward" - punched through the unexploded bomb;
- frigate "Brilliant" - shot by "Daggers" from a strafing flight;
- landing ship "Sir Lancelot" - 454 kg unexploded bomb;
- the landing ship "Sir Tristram" - damaged by bombs, completely burned out, evacuated on a semi-submerged platform;
- amphibious assault ship "Sir Bedivere" - unexploded aerial bomb;
naval British Way tanker - an unexploded bomb;
- transport "Stromness" - unexploded air bomb.


The explosion of the frigate HMS Antilope. Unsuccessful attempt to clear two unexploded bombs

It is obvious that "Sea Harriers" failed the task of covering the ships by air. Argentinean pilots managed to bomb a third of the squadron. If all the bombs had exploded, the Falkland Islands would now be called Malvinas.

8 was knocked out of 5 destroyers. From 15 frigates - 8. From 8 landing ships and UDC was sunk and damaged 4. Many ships were hit repeatedly.

Before being bombed, the Argonaut was attacked by the Argentine military-training Ayrmakki, which holed the entire superstructure through the frigate.

"Sir Galadad" could have died on the way to the islands: an 454-kg bomb dropped by A-4 "Skyhawk" attack aircraft got stuck in its hull. If the bomb had worked normally on a ship full of paratroopers, the British could lose the battalion of marines at once. Fortunately, fate was favorable: "Sir Galadhad" was sunk later, near the coast. Killed 48 people.


HMS Sheffield lit

The pilots of the Argentine Air Force and Navy attacked ships with free-fall bombs, launched anti-ship missiles, shot the poor pelvis from a strafing flight. It was as if they had never heard of La Muerte Negra - the Sea Harrier fighters who won the aerial victory of 21 without a single defeat!

How are the victorious reports of the British aces combined with twenty bombed ships?

Argentines called the Sea Harriers "black death" - and at the same time, as if not noticing the danger, attacked enemy ships from all sides. British sailors are very lucky that 80% of the Argentine bombs hit the target did not explode.

Curiously, the bombs were Mk.80 - made in the USA.

Harrier Success Secrets

The list of air victories of the British VTOL are as follows:
- 9 fighter-bombers "Dagger";
- X-NUMX A-8 Skyhawk attack aircraft;
- 1 fighter "Mirage III";
- 1 bomber "Canberra";
- 1 piston attack aircraft "Pukara";
- 1 military transport C-130 "Hercules".

Also in the trophy of "Sea Harriers" you can record one victory by combat maneuvering over a helicopter, as well as 1 "Pukar" and 2 of Argentine helicopters destroyed on the ground.



The British themselves also suffered losses: two "Sea Hariera" were shot down by air defense fire, three crashed for non-combat reasons, another slipped overboard in stormy weather.

Also in the conflict were ground-based 10 "Harriers" from the Royal Air Force. Due to the absence of the radar, they did not participate in air battles and were used exclusively as a means of fire support. Four aircraft were lost from 10: 3 was shot down by anti-aircraft fire, 1 crashed for a non-combat reason.

Debriefing

The myth of the "supersonic Mirages" is somewhat exaggerated - among the trophies of "Sea Harriers" is only one Mirage III fighter. About the rest should tell more.

Fighter-bomber "Dagger" - former. IAI Nesher, an Israeli unlicensed copy of the Mirage-5. Cheap "shock" aircraft for action in the daytime, in the clear sky of Palestine. By the end of the 1970-x "Nesher" were decommissioned and sold to Argentina under the designation Dagger.

The main drawback of the Daggers was the lack of radar. Under the conditions of the South Atlantic (stormy weather, poor visibility, “violent 50-e”) it was very problematic to conduct an air battle without radar. As a result, the Daggers became easy prey for enemy fighters.


IAI Dagger Argentine Air Force

Worse, they did not have an in-flight refueling system and were forced to carry the maximum amount of fuel with them. There could be no talk of any “supersonic” - overloaded with bombs and PTB, the “Daggers” cruised out to the coast about. Zap. Falkland to test their inertial navigation systems. La Muerte Negra was waiting for them there - combat air patrols of the British "Sea Harriers".

While the British aces filled their accounts, chasing the helpless Daggers, other Argentinean airplanes, specialized A-4 Skyhawk ground attack aircraft, made the 500-kilometer hook and went to the flank of the main forces of the British squadron. And the battle began.



“Skyhawk” is a light subsonic aircraft carrier-based vehicle equipped with an in-flight refueling system, thanks to which A-4 could operate on any remote theater of operations without any problems. Unlike the American bombs, the Skyhawk proved to be a reliable and unpretentious car - it was these planes that caused the main damage to the British squadron. It was noted simplicity and high survivability attack aircraft. The landing hook was very useful when flying from the icy runway of the Rio Grande airbase.

A known case of landing a damaged A-4. The plane independently touched the lane and, having swept over a given distance, stopped. Alas, his pilot was less fortunate: just before the landing, the pilot lost his nerves, he jerked the catapult lever and, when hitting the concrete tank, received injuries incompatible with life.



“Skyhawks” boldly flew forward into the open ocean - punching low clouds with a wing, through rain and snow charges. The tanker was waiting for them at the settlement point - the only active KS-130 of the Argentine Air Force. After refueling, the group set off to search for the enemy, to be removed over 1000 km from the coast. The main problem was to detect the British ships without the aid of radar and modern NCP. Surprisingly, in such extreme conditions the Argentine pilots managed to achieve great success.

On the way back it was necessary to find the tanker again, otherwise the plane would fall into the ocean with empty tanks. No insurance was allowed to pilots - the crashed turned out to be alone with the bitter spirit of the elements, without a chance for salvation. British Sea Harriers bombarded any tugboat sent in search of missing pilots.

Argentina has given the world not only first-class football players and 1 Formula drivers, but also courageous combat aviation pilots. The pilots of the Argentine Air Force flew at close range to ships equipped with modern air defense systems. Neither the anti-aircraft guns nor the vaunted "Sea Harriers" could stop them.



Despite losing the war, the pilots became national heroes. They did everything possible and impossible to win, but luck was not on their side. 80% bombs did not explode.

Skyhawks suffered heavy losses: the 22 aircraft did not return to Rio Grande. 10 were the victims of the air defense of ships. 8 shot down "Sea Harriers". 1 was hit by "friendly fire". Three more disappeared in the expanses of the ocean.

A detailed account of the English Electric Canberra and the Pukara attack aircraft can be omitted: the old bomber and the turboprop attack aircraft based in the Falkland Islands could not pose a threat to Sea Harrier. When they met, they became easy prey for the British.

The case of the interception of the “Hercules” is indicative (a four-engine military transport aircraft, analogue to the An-12). The Sea Harrier fired two missiles at him, but the Hercules, whistling with the three remaining engines, continued to pull toward the Argentine coast. Then the "Sea Harrier" approached, and thrust 240 projectiles at point blank range - the entire ammunition for onboard guns. The flaming debris of the "Hercules" fell into the waves.

The only worthy victory for British pilots is the Argentine Mirage III, shot down on 1 in May 1982. By the way, here, too, the Sea Harrier had 2 objective advantages.

Like all Mirages, the downed Argentine fighter did not have a refueling system and was overloaded with fuel. The presence of the PTB imposed restrictions on maneuvering and flying at high supersonic speeds.

Secondly, in view of the better financial position of the British armed forces, the Sea Harriers were equipped with rockets with an all-view homing head, the Sidewinder AIM-9L modification. Alas, the Argentines had nothing of the kind. All this gave Sea Harrier pilots a significant advantage in aerial combat.

Apart from the case described above, the Sea Harriers no longer managed to meet with the Mirage III fighters - all of them were withdrawn to protect the sky over Buenos Aires.

Results and conclusions

Everything connected with the Falkland War is permeated with a certain amount of irony. The conflict between the two not-so-secured powers on the edge of the Earth - improvisation, impromptu, unexpected tactical decisions. Argentina's flying junk against the rusty pelvis of Her Majesty.

All this is really funny.

The fact that tracking the sea situation was entrusted to the P-2 “Neptune” aircraft of the 1945 design of the year speaks well about the state of Argentine aviation. When he collapsed from decrepitude, the passenger Boeing-707 began to drive over the ocean.


Pay attention to the silhouettes of the ships. This is truly La Muerte Negra!

The intensity of the sorties of Argentine aviation due to the remoteness of the theater and the presence of a single flying tanker was small. But the main problem of the Argentine Air Force were bombs. What is the reason for such low reliability? On this account the opinion of the sources diverges. According to some data, the low height of the discharge affected - the fuses simply did not have time to get on the combat platoon. According to another version, it’s all about 30-year storage in the warehouse without proper maintenance. The third conspiracy theorizes that American export weapon will not explode a priori (which, however, is refuted by the success of Skyhawk attack aircraft).

But one thing is for sure - the bombs did not explode.


Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard of the Argentine Navy with the Exochet rocket suspended under the wing

It is noteworthy that the military core of the Argentine aviation - really modern fighter-bombers of the French production "Super Etandar" (with supersonic flight speed, radar, refueling system and air-based anti-ship missiles) - had no losses. They rushed over the ocean with an arrow, calculated the location of enemy forces with a radar - and launched rockets without entering the British air defense zone. The “Sea Harrier” pilots only shrugged their shoulders: “Super Etandar” is not a blind-minded Dagger or awkward Skyhawk attack aircraft.

The Argentines had only five operating "Super Etandars" and to them a set of six anti-ship missiles "Exochet". That was enough to destroy the Sheffield destroyer and the Atlantic Conveyor helicopter carrier without any loss. It is terrible to imagine what the outcome of the war would be if all of the 14 ordered Super Supertars and a full complement of 24 anti-ship missiles had arrived in Argentina.

Based on these facts, the British "vertical-riders" had to operate in extremely favorable conditions against the outdated aircraft of the Argentine Air Force. However, even the “handicap” in the form of the presence of radar and missiles AIM-9L did not help protect the squadron from the raids of subsonic Skyhocks. Nearly three dozen VTOL aircraft were uselessly flying over the ocean, unable to intercept rare groups of Argentine planes.

It got to the point that the aircraft carriers Hermes and Invincible could not approach the islands at all. The British had no illusions about the destructive qualities of "Sea Harriers". And they well understood what aircraft carriers would expect if at least one small bomb would fall on their deck. Therefore, the area of ​​combat maneuvering of aircraft carriers was located in 150 miles northeast of Falklands, outside the range of the Argentine aviation. That is why they are not in the lists of losses.



All of this made the work of Sea Harriers even more difficult. Providing effective air cover from such a distance turned out to be impossible. The fighters did not have enough fuel. At this time, the Argentine aviation continued to smash the main forces of the squadron, trying to land on the islands.

During the years of the Great Patriotic War, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers remained without awards, if during the sortie a group of escorted bombers suffered losses from the actions of enemy fighter aircraft. And no matter how many Messers were shot down, the main task was failed, the bombers did not bring their bombs to the target. A very telling example.

The Falkland triumph of "Sea Harrier" was in fact a disaster. The British squadron almost died under air strikes. The cost of one sunk destroyer exceeded the cost of all enemy aircraft shot down by Sea Harriers. What kind of success can we talk about?

The war on the outskirts of the Earth clearly showed that even such an “advanced” VTOLP as the “Sea Harrier” turned out to be completely ineffective when meeting with classical jet aircraft of the same period.





According to materials http://artofwar.ru
Author:
147 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. alexmaneger
    alexmaneger 4 February 2014 08: 09
    +21
    Gallant warriors got used to offend the weak, Ann didn’t get it themselves by the teeth.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 4 February 2014 08: 30
      +20
      I'm glad of course that the British grabbed into a pumpkin.
      1. Arberes
        Arberes 4 February 2014 09: 50
        +24
        Argentine falcon pilots! A large number of unexploded bombs cause bitter regret! It would have seemed to the Anglo-Saxons then - the sky with a sheepskin!
        1. Sirocco
          Sirocco 4 February 2014 15: 48
          +13
          Quote: Arberes
          A large number of unexploded bombs cause bitter regret!

          I will not go into details, but as history shows, the United States has all weapons exported with such surprises, an example of Iraq. So we draw conclusions gentlemen. USA in its vile repertoire. And I want to draw attention to the repeatedly discussed topic of AUG, some with foam in their mouth, prove the invulnerability and greatness of AUG, as the same story with Argentina shows,
          It got to the point that the aircraft carriers “Hermes” and “Invincible” were not at all able to get close to the islands. The British had no illusions about the fighter qualities of the Sea Harriers. And they well understood what the aircraft carriers would expect if at least one small bomb fell on their deck.
          The same story was repeated with the USA AUG during the attack on Libya. Quietly sit on the sidelines smoking cigarettes. Expecting the main forces (cannon fodder) from the EU. So they can, at least one, at least two, at least under the guise of the entire fleet of England ????? I repeat, these are all AUG horror stories for third world countries.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 4 February 2014 16: 29
            0
            And who won, then in this war of the poor? Without going into details? AUG with bad airplanes or bad ground aircraft, which was 8 times more?

            And the fact that they did not come close to the islands - but what, are land-based airfields being built on the front lines? Maybe Beyond the line behind enemy lines?
            1. Santa Fe
              4 February 2014 16: 36
              +6
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Without going into details?

              Pyrrhic victory - the expression did not appear casual
              Quote: Tlauicol
              AUG with bad airplanes or bad ground aircraft, which were 8 times more?

              The British fleet won -

              nuclear submarines neutralized the navy of Argentina and ensured the blockade of the islands

              83 surface ships, despite the loss, were able to break through to the islands and land

              AUGs with bad VTOL are like a fifth wheel. The most expensive ships in the squadron, and far from the most useful
              Quote: Tlauicol
              And the fact that they did not come close to the islands - but what, are land-based airfields being built on the front lines?

              150 miles were critical distance for VTOL aircraft
              Quote: Tlauicol
              or bad ground planes, which were 8 times larger?

              Can you prove it?))
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 4 February 2014 17: 17
                +2
                Argentines had three hundred combat aircraft and two hundred combat training aircraft. the principle of uneven distribution of forces along the front - the place of the main batch was chosen by the British, thanks to aircraft carriers. you can’t leave continental Argentina unprotected
                1. Santa Fe
                  4 February 2014 17: 30
                  +2
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  the Argentines had three hundred combat aircraft

                  Three hundred Fighting aircraft?
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  principle of uneven distribution of forces along the front

                  Yes, the 1 / 2 army was on the Argentine-Chilean border, the junta had great disagreements with Pinochet

                  But this has little to do with aviation, more or less modern cars were sent to the Falklands - 4 (5?) Super-etendars, 30 daggers, 17 mirages (but these were later recalled)

                  Skyhawks (60 units taking into account the aircraft group of the aircraft carrier 25 May) - they could not compete with the SeaHarriers at least. Light targets.

                  The rest are even worse - Canberra (8), Pukara (26), Eirmakki (6). TCB and obsolete flying junk
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 5 February 2014 20: 58
                    0
                    why are they easy targets? as subsonic as harriers ...
                2. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 5 February 2014 20: 56
                  0
                  280 170 participated in the battles
                  53 of which are supersonic
                  and the English supersonic - not a single one. but all 28 are super-maneuverable.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    5 February 2014 22: 36
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    53 of which are supersonic

                    Yes, I do not want to

                    30 DAGGERS WITHOUT RADAR
                    And with obsolete rockets

                    How many chances would SiHarrier have if instead of the old Mirage, the args had F-15?)))))))))
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 6 February 2014 00: 19
                      +1
                      Are daggers and mirages (with radars) unlike harriers not supersonic?
                      maybe not 23: 0 but the F-15 is also forbidden to engage in close combat with the Harrier (Indian).
                      rackets were better in Argentina. French Mathras are the best. Siduinder, on the contrary, is the most sucker with a probability of defeating an actively maneuvering target of 10%, they were simply shot precisely in greenhouse conditions exactly from the tail, in this position they were caught using OBE.
            2. Sirocco
              Sirocco 4 February 2014 17: 22
              0
              You forgot about Syria, how unfair it is, maybe something on this occasion tell us? Only without pressure, and calmer.
          2. Zymran
            Zymran 4 February 2014 17: 50
            -4
            Quote: Sirocco

            I will not go into details, but as history shows, the United States has all weapons exported with such surprises, an example of Iraq.


            And what was in Iraq? Saddam did not have American equipment in service. But, for example, during the Iran-Iraq war, even left without service after Iran’s rupture with the United States, Iran’s American aircraft performed well.
          3. nnz226
            nnz226 4 February 2014 20: 37
            +5
            When, in (it seems) 1983, the United States bombed Libya with the aim of killing Gaddafi, then after the S-200 air defense system shot down 3 of the 4 planes that were flying again (just from aircraft carriers), a riot occurred on one of the aircraft carriers : the pilots refused to fly to the bombing of Libya. Enti "gallant American military" can fight only with defenseless Papuans, and, having received in the Mordas, refuse to fight at all! I wonder what happened to these piss-flyers then? Or nothing?
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 4 February 2014 08: 19
    +19
    Yes, the real war is very different from the ostentatious Hollywood film, human qualities come to the fore.
  3. invisibility
    invisibility 4 February 2014 08: 24
    +11
    Good article! Only here except Fangio, good racers in Formula 1 and I do not remember. Maybe the author confused with Brazil?
    1. Zymran
      Zymran 4 February 2014 11: 48
      +5
      Actually about the racers of Formula 1 is a remark of one of the English pilots who participated in the war. And besides Fangio there was also Carlos Roiteman, not a champion, but a good racer.
    2. Vital 33
      Vital 33 4 February 2014 23: 58
      0
      Is Ayrton Senna not an Argentinean?
      1. ABV
        ABV 5 February 2014 01: 25
        0
        Duc, Brazilian ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  4. EvilLion
    EvilLion 4 February 2014 08: 44
    +5
    Apparently in the comments Oleg got to the end.
  5. Irokez
    Irokez 4 February 2014 09: 01
    +18
    Here it is the much-praised quality of American military equipment where even bombs do not explode even 30 years ago. But this is precisely what probably played the main role in the defeat of Argentina. There, also from satellites, reconnaissance was not conducted in favor of Argentina, but they fought with dignity as best they could and with what they could, and quite competently.
    1. Onizuka teacher
      Onizuka teacher 4 February 2014 09: 34
      +16
      80% of unexploded bombs more likely looks like sabotage inside the Argentine Air Force.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 4 February 2014 13: 06
        +4
        The bombs were American, 40's release. So strikes were carried out from low altitudes, most fuses simply did not have time to cock, otherwise there would be many more sunken British ships.
        1. Evgan
          Evgan 4 February 2014 13: 12
          -1
          If this is the case, then there is at least a poor tactical training of Argentine pilots, and not "luck of the British" or shitty amerovsky b / n.
          1. Zymran
            Zymran 4 February 2014 13: 56
            +7
            It was believed that the Argentines simply did not know that if bombed from extremely low altitudes, the fuses would not have time to cock. On the other hand, they could not fly higher, because there they were guarded by ship's air defense.
            1. Evgan
              Evgan 4 February 2014 14: 00
              +2
              Perhaps, but this again does not speak in favor of the Argentines - they did not know the performance characteristics. Even if the Americans withheld it from them, all the same, such maneuvers must be worked out in advance.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  6. Horn
    Horn 4 February 2014 09: 06
    +9
    The main thing is competent PR. You won’t praise yourself - who will praise you? ... Arrogant Saxons are diligent students of the Khazars ...
  7. Fitter65
    Fitter65 4 February 2014 09: 12
    +14
    By the beginning of the conflict, Argentina received 5 Super Etandars and 5 (five) AM-39 EXOSET anti-ship missiles. Of the 5 missiles fired, 2 hit targets reliably, 2 presumably. The success of the Super Etandars was facilitated by the tactics of their use. At the same time, constantly receiving information about the enemy, in one case from the patrol "Neptune", in the second from the operational center on the archipelago. When approaching the target, a jump was made with the inclusion of the radar, the target was locked, the missile was launched, after that again the departure to the extremely small height and return to base.
    Some clarification on Skyhawk. The Antelope frigate was attacked by 4 A-4Qs, three dropped bombs but missed the target, the fourth failed the electrical release system and the plane returned to the base with a combat load. When landing Captain de Corbet K. Subisarret did not managed to take advantage of the brake hook, and the plane rushed along the runway. Trying to escape from the explosion of his own bombs, the pilot ejected, but the parachute did not open. The pilot fell on the concrete road and was fatally injured, and the plane completed the run receiving only minor damage. In total 22 Skyhawks and 19 pilots who piloted them. In total, the Skyhawks in that conflict made 249 b / v, destroyed a destroyer, 2 frigates, a TDK, a pontoon. Damaged up to one and a half desatki of other ships. As a result of Skyhawks' actions, 1 helicopters were destroyed and 5 were damaged.
    By the way, the British themselves admitted that if the Argentines used more modern weapons, their losses in the ship's crew would be significantly greater.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 4 February 2014 09: 56
      +6
      Quote: Fitter65
      that if the Argentines used more modern weapons, their losses in the ship’s composition would be much larger.
      - yes, we would have bought from the USSR the specialization of naval supersonic bombers TU-22 with the then well-known conscientious airborne anti-ship missiles (I don’t remember the name here, will the Formchane help?) - a couple of dozen such aircraft would have been enough for the British ... then they would already be called "the aborigines of a small and useless island." But better late than never.
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 4 February 2014 15: 12
        +5
        At that time, Argentina was not at all friendly to the USSR, an anti-national "regime. We did not sell weapons like that, even for very good money.
      2. Santa Fe
        4 February 2014 15: 38
        +3
        Quote: aksakal
        - Yes, they would have bought from the USSR specialized TU-22 marine supersonic bombers with the then famous air-based rocket-mounted anti-ship missiles already developed

        stop negative

        Argentine junta transfer such things ?? !!
        Secondly, it is useless - even if they were given to the Argam for free, they would still have neither the strength nor the means to service SUCH equipment. They Skyhawks and Daggers flew without radar, what kind of Tu-22 are you talking about)))
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 4 February 2014 15: 47
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Argentine junta transfer such things ?? !!


          Well, MiG-27 or Su-17 shouldn’t be given to them. Firstly, they don’t know how to use it. Secondly, they can still transfer the United States.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 4 February 2014 17: 01
            +3
            MiG-27 even in Sri Lanka successfully used.
            1. supertiger21
              supertiger21 4 February 2014 18: 32
              +2
              Quote: EvilLion
              MiG-27 even in Sri Lanka successfully used.


              Commendable good , a good drummer turned out on the basis of the MiG-23 fighter.
  8. Odysseus
    Odysseus 4 February 2014 09: 37
    +16
    The respected author is overly critical of Harrier; if the British had not had them, they would not have been able to wage (and win) a war for 12000 km. from their own country. Of course, sand is an unimportant replacement for oats and two light aircraft carriers with 30 VTOL aircraft without support from AWACS cannot "close" the entire sky and cannot completely replace a "normal" aircraft carrier, or even more so aviation operating from ground bases. Great Britain something like that (at most they could use one American base) had to fight only VTOL aircraft.
    On the whole, the main drawback of Harrier was the small combat radius. With his exception, the plane turned out to be very successful. And, by the way, he fought a lot where and besides Falkland and everywhere the military were pleased with him.
    1. Beck
      Beck 4 February 2014 17: 16
      +1
      Quote: Odyssey
      Dear author, he is too critical of Harrier.


      And not just Harrier. The author took the figure of the victories of the Harierrov 21: 0 and in order to reduce these figures to nothing, he led the loss of the ships of the English fleet. So the war is. War therefore exists to kill, smash, drown. Or, that the whole English squadron after the victory, was supposed to return to England as a whole, and without a single hole in the hulls of ships, and without soot and dust. So it would not be war, but a festive parade.

      Add one episode. When the English landing on the Falklands, the question arose of the capture of the three dominant heights. The English battalions took two heights and took them with battle. The third height was to be taken by a battalion of highlanders of Nepal, gurkhs, who have been in the military service of Her Majesty since 1816. And famous for their valor, fearlessness, courage, manifested in many military conflicts and especially in WWII.

      The Argentine military of the third height became aware that at dawn they would be stormed by a battalion of gurkhs. Far from sin, the Argentinean warriors at night removed their positions and left, having surrendered their heights without a fight and only as a result of the military glory of the gurkhs.
      1. Santa Fe
        4 February 2014 17: 34
        +1
        Quote: Beck
        after the victory, the English squadron was supposed to return to England as a whole, and without one hole in the hulls of ships, and without soot and dust

        Should not have lost 1 / 3 ships * from subsonic attack aircraft with free-falling bombs. In the yard 1982 year: ship air defense systems, radars, own fighter aircraft after all

        * and they would be 100% lost, explode all the bombs
        Quote: Beck
        So it would not be a war, but a festive parade.

        This should be the war with Argentina if Her Majesty’s fleet had normal equipment
        1. Beck
          Beck 4 February 2014 17: 43
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Shouldn't have lost 1/3 of the ships *


          Well, it already depends on a lot, including luck and God. We, too, should not have given half the country to the adversary in 1941-1943.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          This should be the war with Argentina if Her Majesty’s fleet had normal equipment


          No, not with Argentina. The English fleet would return home during the parade if it only fought against the Papuans and the Navy (pie).
          1. Santa Fe
            4 February 2014 18: 15
            +2
            Quote: Beck
            Well, it already depends on a lot, including luck

            It depended on the quality of the technique.
            The question of training British sailors can not be considered - it was brilliant, only therefore could win

            But how to fight off aviation, if instead of a ship's air defense system - SiCat, and in the place of the Phalanx - Erlikon.

            SiHarrier - nothing good either. The Britons hoped that this flying dwarf could compensate for the lack of normal air defense, but hell with two!
            Quote: Beck
            No not with Argentina

            With a country that had the entire fleet of 6 anti-ship missiles?
            And who sent civilian Boeings to intelligence?

            Than muchachos, financially, differed from the Papuans
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 4 February 2014 23: 50
            0
            Before talking about the 41st, study the materiel, otherwise it seems to me that words like "mobilization", "anticipation of deployment", etc. are an empty phrase for you.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 4 February 2014 23: 48
      -1
      If they hadn’t had these bestlock destroyers from which they had to shoot airplanes from rifles, they would not have sailed there at all. Only this does not follow them at all, that all sorts of third-rate weapons used not from a good life should be praised. It reminds one of almost useless anti-tank rifles, which forum fools admire so much that they don’t realize that if there were enough guns, nobody would have suffered such crap.
  9. tlauicol
    tlauicol 4 February 2014 09: 48
    +1
    would buy from the Swedes about fifty Rb04 - they could also operate missiles in the island zone without entering the ship’s air defense
  10. Alex66
    Alex66 4 February 2014 09: 49
    +3
    Strange bombs from America 80% did not explode, or maybe there is some secret?
    1. Yun Klob
      Yun Klob 4 February 2014 10: 41
      +7
      Americans abroad supply only illiquid assets. In this case, expired ammunition removed from storage. In Poland F-16 were delivered generally requiring repair, practically unable to fly. Repair to the Poles cost almost more than the new ones. So to get involved with America is not to respect yourself.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 4 February 2014 13: 33
        +3
        Quote: Yoon Klob
        So to get involved with America is not to respect yourself.


        That's it! wink
  11. kotvov
    kotvov 4 February 2014 09: 54
    +6
    Hero pilots, but the organization for BC-not in an arc.
  12. Normal
    Normal 4 February 2014 09: 58
    +7
    Many thanks to the author! Interesting article, plus.
  13. amigo1969
    amigo1969 4 February 2014 10: 10
    +4
    The article is very interesting. There is very little information about this war .. I would like to continue about the land phase of the operation. As far as my memory serves me, the land war was more tragic for the agents. The British, for all their stiffness, are tough warriors and, unlike their fellow Americans, they know how to take a blow. Read an article in Soldier of Fortune in the 90s about the SAS raid on the Falklands. Worked very efficiently ...
  14. uhu189
    uhu189 4 February 2014 10: 23
    +9
    In general, it remains only to marvel at the heroism of the Argentinean Skyhawk pilots, who flew in light attack aircraft to topmast bomb the British squadron with conventional bombs. In fact, they knew perfectly well that they were flying to their death, since those laden with bombs could not even do anti-aircraft maneuvers. In general, the war is very strange, full of contradictions - both heroism and inglorious failures in one bottle. The heroic actions of the Argentine aviation and the complete absence of any attempts at action by the fleet. British nuclear submarine torpedoed "General Bilbao" with a conventional torpedo during World War II. Argentina did not use its aircraft carrier, although it could significantly change the balance of power by reducing the time for the skyhawks to arrive ... And about unexploded bombs ... I think such accidents do not happen. The second attack of a pair of super-entdars (when they hit the Atlantic conveyor with missiles) almost led to the death of the main British aircraft carrier Hermes - Exocet missiles captured it, but the British managed to throw out the dipole reflectors and the missiles re-aimed at the Atlantic conveyor ... In general, a very strange war, and indicative
    1. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 15: 32
      +9
      Quote: uhu189
      One can only marvel at the heroism of the Argentinean Skyhawk pilots, who flew in light attack aircraft to bomb the British squadron in the top-masted way with ordinary bombs. In fact, they knew perfectly well that they were flying to death

      A cool shot, like some kind of battle at Guadalcanal, but no - on the calendar 1982 year
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 4 February 2014 16: 31
        0
        he would have a torpedo ..
  15. slon53
    slon53 4 February 2014 10: 49
    +5
    The article and the author are a plus. Indeed, very little is known about this war. Without going into details, since I don’t know, it should be noted that the personal courage and heroism of warriors always remain courage and heroism. And the fact that arrogance was brought down by the islanders is for sure.
    1. Doctor Evil
      Doctor Evil 5 February 2014 15: 28
      0
      There is a very detailed article "The Falklands War" on the Navy website in books. merkulof.com. I recommend.
  16. Nayhas
    Nayhas 4 February 2014 10: 58
    +3
    However, even the “handicap” in the form of the presence of AIM-9L radars and missiles did not help protect the squadron from the attacks of the subsonic Skyhawks. Nearly three dozen VTOL aircraft rushed uselessly over the ocean, unable to intercept rare groups of Argentinean aircraft.

    Oleg Kaptsov, the main opponent of the aircraft carriers, concludes that the failure of the X Harierov consists of two components:
    1. Si Harier in connection with its vertical orientation is inferior to the classic fighter in patrol time and combat load;
    2. The absence of an AWACS aircraft allowed Argentine pilots to remain unnoticed for a long time, thereby allowing them to prepare an attack while "Almost three dozen VTOL aircraft were uselessly rushing over the ocean" in search of the enemy.
    If in place of the British "aircraft carriers" there was at least one old USS Midway, the Argentine pilots would not have had a chance.
    1. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 15: 01
      +4
      Quote: Nayhas
      If in place of the British "aircraft carriers" there was at least one old USS Midway, the Argentine pilots would not have had a chance.

      the old man "Midway" cost more than the Argentine and British fleets combined))
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 4 February 2014 21: 34
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the old man "Midway" cost more than the Argentine and British fleets combined))

        As of 1982? Nine years later, it cost no more than scrap metal. And how to evaluate a ship in operation for 37 years? If according to the latest modernization, then $ 202 million, which is certainly not enough for the late 60s.
        But let's see the losses of GB, the destroyers Coventry and Sheffield cost the treasury 61,2 million pounds, which at the rate of 2,4 is approximately $ 147 million. These are only two destroyers. These are only two destroyers Oleg. I’m generally silent about the cost of living for sailors ...
        1. Santa Fe
          4 February 2014 21: 56
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          As of 1982?

          Ship 60 thousand tons
          To him a complete air wing (30 Hornetov + 3-4 AWACS)
          Crew - Thousands of 4 sailors and pilots
          Quote: Nayhas
          If according to the latest modernization, then 202 million dollars, which is certainly not enough for the end of 60's.

          Enter in 60's cost 450 million. Now it would be 14 billion (Ford).
          Accordingly - Midway as 7 billion. Sour! + cost of aircraft + maintenance and preparation of l / s
          Quote: Nayhas
          approximately 147 million US dollars.

          The cost of the ships of those years:
          http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1989/oct/23/research-establis
          hments#S6CV0158P0_19891023_CWA_517

          Midway crew 4000
          this number of sailors can be provided 15 CREWS Sheffield type destroyers
          Quote: Nayhas
          I’m generally silent about the cost of living for sailors ...

          You might think that there were no simpler and cheaper means to protect the squadron from subsonic Skyhawks.

          But the Britons didn’t even have enough money for this
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 5 February 2014 11: 06
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You might think that there were no simpler and cheaper means to protect the squadron from subsonic Skyhawks.

            But the Britons didn’t even have enough money for this

            The best defense against enemy aircraft is only its own aircraft, and in that situation it could only be carrier-based aviation. I will repeat your thought, if the British F-4S, not a single Argentine plane would reach the ships of Her Majesty. And in conjunction with the E-2C, they wouldn’t even fly close ...
            1. Santa Fe
              5 February 2014 14: 44
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              The best defense against enemy aviation is only its own aviation

              But not a fact. Suffice it to recall the story of Vietnam's Air Defense and 3000 downed Yankee aircraft
              Or the Bekaa-84 Valley
              Quote: Nayhas
              and in that situation it could only be carrier-based aviation

              Baby Midway was worth, like Her Majesty's entire fleet. There the number of one crew is like that of the 15 Sheffield destroyers.

              And do not forget that these machines often go for years of repair - to achieve constant readiness they need to build at least 2
              Quote: Nayhas
              had the British F-4S not a single Argentine plane would have reached the ships of Her Majesty

              And if the British had an orbital battle camp - they would at once burn all Argentos with a laser! Pew Pew

              The problem at the Falklands, where subsonic attack aircraft were engaged in top-mast bombing, was solved by installing the Phalanxes and normal air defense systems (such as Sea Wolf / SeaDart)

              What kind of crap is this? SiCat anti-aircraft missile launchers on the Plymouth frigate (above the helicopter anagar) - the Angles fired 80 of such missiles, but not one hit the target. They are subsonic. The Angels didn’t even have enough money for a sawn air defense system - what can be the midway
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 5 February 2014 16: 43
                0
                So at them and so SiWulf / SiDart were
                1. Santa Fe
                  5 February 2014 17: 15
                  0
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  So at them and so SiWulf / SiDart were

                  5 Sheffield, 1 Bristol, 1 Invincible - SiDart (one PU)
                  Broadsword Diamond - SeaWolfe

                  The rest of the 13 frigates and the 2 destroyer (County) are useless SeaCat and Erlikons. In fact, Argonaut, Antilof, Ardent ... - all of these air defense ships did not have
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 5 February 2014 17: 36
                    0
                    Well, how would you send Wangard with three destroyers? this is utopia in both senses
                    1. Santa Fe
                      5 February 2014 17: 43
                      0
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      Well, how would you send Wangard with three destroyers?

                      And submarines! - Vangard is too lazy to run after Bnlrano and "25MA")))))

                      Wangard is an advanced group. His task is to smash everything there, including air bases. Next, let the landing and support vessels go, everything as usual

                      On the way to Roy from the battleship they noticed a transport standing in the lagoon, through which they immediately gave several volleys, which caused fires from bow to stern. After the Japanese runways were disabled, the battleship fired at assigned targets at night and the whole next day

                      8 December, he participated in the shelling of the island of Nauru, firing 538 HE shells leading to the Japanese airbase railway line, radio station, shore fortifications and radar installations.
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 5 February 2014 19: 14
                        0
                        destroyers would not have reached 500 kilometers. and he would have been left without air defense ships and aircraft, with dependent vehicles. this is beating babies

                        the British also fired along the coast in Japan - King George fired 265 shells and hit 7 times. To the industrial quarter! Aptly!

                        New Jersey 6200 GK shells in Vietnam pulnul. Presumably killed 172 Vietnamese
                      2. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 5 February 2014 19: 23
                        0
                        in Lebanon in 1983 - only one whole village with from 800 to 1000 people
                      3. Santa Fe
                        5 February 2014 19: 46
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        destroyers would not have reached kilometers 500

                        Hmm .. What would prevent them from reaching?
                        Well they really reached
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        and he would have remained without air defense ships

                        The Argentos liked to gut frigates Linder and type 21

                        But to break through a closed air defense warrant ?? from pair 42 and pair 22
                        + Air defense of the battleship (which prevented the installation of a couple of packaged SeaWolves and Phalanxes on board Wengard, except for the absence of Wengard himself)
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        with dependent transport

                        Why carry them with you?
                        They are best left 300 miles to the north, under cover of frigates. There they would be absolutely safe

                        When the battleship spreads out the Falkland garrison and RioGrande - BDK and transports can come closer, land Marines
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        New Jersey 6200 GK shells in Vietnam pulnul. Presumably killed 172 Vietnamese

                        And Bismarck pulnul - and sank Hood

                        Indeed, there is no doubt about the accuracy of the shooting.
                        Especially when all the targets are in direct view, and the Rio Grande runway goes to the water
                      4. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 5 February 2014 20: 04
                        0
                        Sheffield is type 42
                        Bismarck then torpedoes from the slender biplane was enough. But Ripals and the Prince of Wales never pulled at all.
                      5. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 6 February 2014 09: 33
                        0
                        I see, your squadron is growing right before our eyes :)) and even the air defense is growing exponentially. and what shisha? impoverished Britain defeated impoverished Argentina, and now you are trying to prove that a rich and powerful Britain would also defeated impoverished Argentina? nothing to argue about.

                        pairs of 42 Argentines were few. and if Vengard had been left without cover, it wouldn’t have come to shooting along the shore
                      6. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 6 February 2014 12: 31
                        -1
                        The main thing is that without aviation ...
                        Without which small Britain with some helicopters and beat off the Falklands simply would not go.
  • Professor
    Professor 4 February 2014 11: 05
    +3
    Cheap "strike" aircraft for action in the daytime, in the clear sky of Palestine.

    Oleg, what Palestine? Yes, and with a clear sky? Have you read Thunder? wink
    Nesher fought outside of Israel and the West Bank. Yes, and with a clear sky in the Middle East, stress. There are sandstorms for 50 days a year, rain pours for three months, and the rest is haze. Rare days are given out with such a clear sky as, say, under Gomel.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 4 February 2014 11: 32
      +2
      It rains for three months? ”So the people panicked that Kinneret was growing shallow from year to year.
      Maybe you messed up with the rainy season 7 - so it is in India and in Indochina.
      Yes, I didn’t notice the haze. Khamsins, yes, there are, but sandstorms, thank God, are rare. If I live in Ashdod, you may have a different climate
      1. Professor
        Professor 4 February 2014 11: 52
        -2
        Quote: sivuch
        It rains for three months? ”So the people panicked that Kinneret was growing shallow from year to year.
        Maybe you messed up with the rainy season 7 - so it is in India and in Indochina.
        Yes, I didn’t notice the haze. Khamsins, yes, there are, but sandstorms, thank God, are rare. If I live in Ashdod, you may have a different climate

        In Indo-China, it rains for six months, and in Israel from November to February. If you live in Ashdod, you should know why Kinneret is becoming shallow. Correctly, consumption is growing. Desalination plants should solve this problem. By the way, this January is the driest in the history of observations. In other words, drought.
        http://www.ims.gov.il/IMSEng/Tazpiot/RainObservations/

        To notice the haze, climb Mount Carmel, at least to Stela Maris or to the university and try to photograph Hadera (40 km) or Rosh Ha Nikru (32 km). On a rare day you get a good photo.

        Khamsin, of course, is from your east carrying pure alpine air. I want to go to Ashdod. laughing
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 4 February 2014 14: 27
          -1
          I want to go to Ashdod. laughing
          Brukhim ha-baim. We still have better ecology than in Haifa.
          1. Panikovsky
            Panikovsky 4 February 2014 17: 13
            +6
            enough comrade the Israelis. There is no question of climate disasters in your homeland.
  • Gray 43
    Gray 43 4 February 2014 11: 33
    +4
    Yeah, mattress bombs are truly tolerant of the enemy, ours in Afghanistan also used similar ammunition-pensioners and seems to be more successful at firing
  • Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 4 February 2014 12: 02
    +4
    The British managed to ensure air superiority. SASovtsy and SBSovtsev more and did not have to, on the ground, Argentines stuck.
    Moreover, it is worth remembering that the conflict started precisely Argentina.
    And yes, the Argentine Navy also suffered losses.
    So do not be one-sided.
  • Delta
    Delta 4 February 2014 12: 03
    +6
    Kaptsov has everything as always: American bombs are bullshit, and the British won the war by accident.

    Firstly, as Gleb Zheglov said, "whoever is lucky, the rooster will blow it away." And luck means a lot in war. Secondly, the author himself cites versions according to which the bombs did not explode:

    "What is the reason for such a low reliability? On this score, the opinions of sources differ. According to some data, the low height of the discharge affected - the fuses simply did not have time to get on the combat platoon. According to another version, it is all about 30-year storage in a warehouse without proper maintenance. "

    Are there any grounds in these versions for accusing the British of not knowing how to wage war? NO. These reasons include the stupidity and incompetence of the Argentines themselves. Why blame the British? the Harriers' pilots did their job honestly.

    Thirdly, for some reason, the tone of the article (as well as many comments) boils down to hatred of the British, while forgetting that Argentina was neither the USSR nor Russia, and is not even an ally or partner even now. It is a capitalist country like the United Kingdom. As a result of such a biased attitude - attempts to whitewash and justify the failures of the Argentines and, in turn, attempts to present the victories of the British as an accident. Well, here, see above, about luck.

    And of course, as always, I walked around the aircraft carriers (where would Kaptsov be without them):

    "It got to the point that the aircraft carriers Hermes and Invincible could not approach the islands at all."
    this is why such a fright aircraft carriers will (in wartime) be within the reach of enemy aircraft? in the Pacific Ocean, in the war with Japan, American aircraft carriers, even having a tuy of hefty heavy aircraft carriers, a huge number of security ships, tried to stay farthest from enemy airbases, because the aircraft carrier is a floating airfield, and no more expect him to fall heroically on the embrasure as something stupid.

    Well and the last: not a method is important. The result is important. And he is famous
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Landwarrior
      Landwarrior 4 February 2014 12: 12
      +2
      Quote: Delta
      not the method is important. The result is important. And he is famous

      Join hi
    3. uhu189
      uhu189 4 February 2014 12: 26
      +6
      If you do not go into criticism of the Harriers and the British aircraft carriers, the result is actually unexpected and discouraging - large surface ships, even as part of formations, were unable to defend themselves from small groups of light attack aircraft armed with free-falling bombs, suitable at low and very low altitudes (i.e. e. essentially applying the tactics of World War II). This is the main thing. Those. The air defense of the ships simply could not cope, despite the fact that the skyhawks did not fly more than four at a time, and the most massive was the attack of Argentines from two groups of 4 skyhawks with an interval of 20 minutes (if my memory serves me right)
      1. Santa Fe
        4 February 2014 15: 29
        +6
        Quote: uhu189
        hull surface ships, even as part of formations, were unable to protect themselves from small groups of light attack aircraft armed with free-falling bombs

        And what did they expect request

        modern air defense systems (Sea Dart) were available only on 7 ships of the squadron (moreover, with limited ammunition - 22 missiles and the only launcher that covered only heading angles)

        also 2 frigates (Diamond and Broadsword) - are equipped with batch Sea Wolf, not bad for defense in the near field.

        The rest of the pelvis were covered by the SiKet air defense system with subsonic zur - as a result: 80 zur were released, all went into "milk", they could not even catch Skyhawk.

        Instead of anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance (such as the Phalanx) - Erlikonov WWII with manual guidance

        Start SiCat with HMS Intrepid
    4. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 19: 50
      +3
      Quote: Delta
      the British won the war quite by accident

      The poor quality of Argentinean bomb fuses is not a coincidence, but a regularity. A poor country on the edge of the earth - where to get quality ammunition?
      Quote: Delta
      Are there any grounds in these versions for accusing the British of their inability to wage war?

      Papuans bombed a third of the squadron
      It's not just ridiculous, it's funny
      Quote: Delta
      Why blaspheme the British?

      For the lack of a normal air defense system
      Quote: Delta
      Thirdly, for some reason, the tone of the article (as well as many comments) boils down to hatred of the British

      Tribute to the tastes of the Russian public
      Quote: Delta
      this is why such a fright aircraft carriers will (in wartime) be within the reach of enemy aircraft?

      And with what fright should the fleet be in the reach of enemy aircraft? Ships perform tasks in the database area.
      Quote: Delta
      if possible, tried to stay farther from enemy airbases

      They were held in the main forces of the squadron - to provide operational assistance and air cover.

      In this case, Hermes was hiding behind the landing ships, from where the Harriers could not stand. cover the main forces of the squadron
      That's the trick
      Quote: Delta
      not the method is important. The result is important

      How about Pyrrhic victories? It also happened ...
  • nikcris
    nikcris 4 February 2014 12: 49
    -7
    Even I didn’t understand anything. Falklands belong to Argentina? fellow wassat
    1. uhu189
      uhu189 4 February 2014 13: 17
      +2
      They belonged to Great Britain, the Argentines captured them, and then the British again knocked them out. Now it's British territory
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 4 February 2014 12: 51
    +2
    I read the article with pleasure, I put "plus". Oleg Kaptsov pleases readers with new stories about aviation.
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 4 February 2014 12: 56
    +5
    Despite the fact that the Sea Harriers "won" the air battles with a score of 21: 0, I will not change the opinion that VTOL aircraft are inferior to classic take-off fighters. Oleg correctly noted that the Sea Harriers were hunting for Mirages, which performed purely shock functions, whose pilots did not preparing for Dog Fight.
  • Fitter65
    Fitter65 4 February 2014 13: 04
    0
    Quote: Delta
    not the method is important. The result is important. And he is famous

    It should also be taken into account that the ratio of combat aircraft was 8: 1 in favor of Argentina. About the fact that the Argentines flew to the maximum radius and therefore the pilots were limited both in the choice of maneuver and in time it is a fact. But the English "Invisible" and "Hermes" were located 150-300 km from the islands, so the "Harriers" also experienced a lack of fuel.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 4 February 2014 13: 24
      +4
      Quote: Fitter65
      About the fact that the Argentines flew to the maximum radius and therefore the pilots were limited in the choice of maneuver and in time it is a fact.


      And what do you say about the fact that:
      1) The Daggers (Mirages V) did not have radars, so in the event of a fight, the pilots relied only on their eyes and ears.
      2) Argentina's planes were loaded with fuel, PTBs and a bunch of bombs (air-to-air missiles are either limited or not at all). Therefore, it was impossible to reach supersonic sound and maneuver on such an aircraft.
      3) The mirages of Argentina were used only as attack aircraft, their goal was to sink ships, and not to conduct air battles. This played into the hands of Harrier pilots.
      4) The Sea Harriers had radars, 2 melee and medium-range missiles, and were not loaded with bombs. Using the ships as bait, they unexpectedly attacked the Daggers (whose role was bomber). The Dugger carried a large load that did not reach supersonic sound. , not seeing the enemy (due to the absence of a radar), was doomed to certain death in a battle with the British Sea Harriers.
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 4 February 2014 15: 05
        -1
        1) the typical load of "SeaHarrier" during patrolling included 2 PTB and 2 UR "Sidewinder" AIM-9L.
        2) Harrier GR3 also did not have an onboard radar. The Sea Harrier FRS1 radar targets were detected very poorly against the background of the underlying surface.
        3) The Harriers delivered their first bomb attack on 22.04.1982/XNUMX/XNUMX in the fuel depot on West Falkland Island, that is, they were also laden with PTB and weapons.
        4) Taking advantage of the weakness of the SiHarriera radar (see p No. 2), the Argentines were able to break through fighter barriers at low altitude. But after flying over the sea, the Argentines went either to the northern or southern coast of the islands to correct the onboard navigation systems, which they used English "Harriers", loitering in these areas, they quite successfully conducted a VISUAL search.
        5) Most of the air battles took place at altitudes of 15 to 200 meters at speeds of 800-900 km / h.
        6) The pilots of the 8th IAG (armed with Mirage IIIEA) had the only task of fighting the air enemy over the archipelago. The suspension consisted of 2-3x 1300l PTB, or two 1700l plus 2-3 "air-to-air" missiles Matra R.530, Matra R.550. Duggers took a pair of Shafrir, and on the ground only 2e 227 kg or one 454 kg bomb. That is, the standard suspension. Usually, first of all, fuel is generated from the PTB, after which they are dropped (to improve aerodynamics, maneuverability, etc.) etc.) although many photos show that there are no missile bombs on Mirazh-Daggers, but PTBs are hanging!
        Outcome. 8 YAG made 91 B / W, 45 for air cover, 46 for patrols conducted 2 air battles, once used, to no avail, weapons, lost 2 fighters and 1 pilot.
        6 YAG (Daggers) 133b / v, 88 of which ended in a meeting with the enemy. They damaged 6 ships (frigates and destroyers), accelerating characteristics allowed them to escape from missiles, and sometimes from fighters. However, they suffered defeats in air battles, even when possessed the initiative and were the first to use weapons (in two cases, they did not achieve more than one victory. Lost 6 YAG-11 aircraft and 5 pilots.
        Conclusion: the quantity did not turn into quality (or as they say you do not know how to fart in water, do not scare crucians)
        1. Roman 1977
          Roman 1977 4 February 2014 15: 22
          +3
          First of all; UR "Sidewinder" AIM-9, which were armed with Argentine "Mirages" and "Daggers" were only of the early series, which allowed to attack the enemy only from the rear hemisphere. Having found an Argentine fighter or a missile launched by it, the pilot of the Harrier changed the thrust vector of the engine, due to which he sharply slowed down. The seeker missile lost its target, and the enemy fighter skipped past, and the Harrier was already in a favorable position for firing. Trying to break away from the British who were behind, the Argentinean pilots used their last trump card - afterburner, but this led to excessive consumption of fuel, and several aircraft fell into the sea, not reaching the base.


          In turn, the effectiveness of the all-aspect UR "Sidewinder" AIM-9L, which the British had, exceeded all expectations. The seeker of these missiles captured not only the engine, but also the heated elements of the aircraft structure. Of the 28 Argentine aircraft destroyed by the Sea Harriers, 22 were shot down by these missiles, which required only 25 launches. In attacks, the British often used the following technique. A pair of fighters, finding themselves behind and above the enemy, separated. The leader descended to the target's flight altitude and opened fire from the 30-mm Aden cannons, while the wingman went higher, captured the target of the Sidewinder GOS UR and waited for the leader's firing results. In case of a miss, he went to the side by a coup over the wing, and the wingman launched missiles.
          Secondly; The radar stations themselves "Sea Harriers" uncertainly detected air targets against the background of the underlying surface, and the enemy was able to break through fighter barriers at low altitudes. However, the British took advantage of the fact that Argentine pilots, after a long flight over the sea, sought to reach the north or south coast of the Falkland Islands to correct their onboard navigation systems. It was here that the patrolling "Harriers" were waiting for them, quite successfully conducting a visual search.
          Thirdly, the Argentines also used other types of aircraft against British ships, for example the frigate Argonot, which was initially attacked and damaged by the combat training MB 339, and then by the Skyhawks.

          In addition, the Argentines even tried to use the IA-58 Pukara turboprop attack aircraft as a torpedo bomber, armed with old American Mk.13 torpedoes. (By the way, the only official victory of the Argentines in the conflict is the English light helicopter Scout AH.1 from the 3rd brigade of the Royal Marines, shot down on May 28, just on account of "Pucara" shadow Jimenez from G3A). However, the Argentines managed to compensate for a certain amount of losses by supplying 10 Mirages-5Rs from Peru in the last days of the conflict, but they did not have time to fight.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 4 February 2014 23: 58
            +3
            Damn, where do you come from, a missile with an infrared seeker in the back hemisphere has a contrasting target in the form of a hot nozzle for guidance. How can slowing down prevent a rocket from finding it? These are not Doppler radars that select only speed targets.
        2. supertiger21
          supertiger21 4 February 2014 16: 05
          +2
          Quote: Fitter65
          typical load of "Sea Harrier" during patrol included 2 PTB and 2 missile launchers "Sidewinder" AIM-9L.


          The only significant load on the Sea Harrier was the PTB. The Sidewinder missiles were lightweight. This load was not comparable to that which the Daggers had to carry.

          Quote: Fitter65
          Harrier GR3 also did not have an onboard radar. The Sea Harrier FRS1 radar was very poorly detected against the background of the underlying surface.


          In fact, the land Harriers did not conduct air battles, so they had bombs on them to strike at the Argentine positions. And the Sea Harriers had only air-to-air missiles, since they were intended only to cover the British fleet.

          Quote: Fitter65
          However, they suffered defeats in aerial battles, even when they had the initiative and were the first to use weapons (in two cases, they did not achieve more than one victory. Lose 6 YAG-11 aircraft and 5 pilots.


          The Mirage pilots did not start air battles, their goal was to sink the ships. It's just that every time they took off, they were attacked by the Sea Harriers.
          Air combat is called a phenomenon,when enemy planes take concerted action to destroy each other.In this case, only the Sea Harriers did this, and the Mirage pilots in almost all cases simply tried to escape, retreating back to base.
          1. Fitter65
            Fitter65 4 February 2014 17: 00
            -1
            Quote: supertiger21

            The only significant load on the Sea Harrier was the PTB. The Sidewinder missiles were lightweight. This load was not comparable to that which the Daggers had to carry.

            That is, it turns out that the Matra or Shfrir missiles were an order of magnitude heavier? Again, when meeting with the enemy, who prevented them (the Argentines) from getting rid of the load?
            Quote: supertiger21
            In fact, the land Harriers did not conduct air battles, so they had bombs on them to strike at the Argentine positions. And the Sea Harriers had only air-to-air missiles, since they were intended only to cover the British fleet.

            If Harrier GR3 was in the air patrol, then he was in the role of a slave, that is, they definitely took part in the patrol. I repeat that the FR Harvesters delivered their first BOMB IMPACT on April 1, according to the fuel and lubricants warehouse on Za Falkland, on May 22 and 1, Sea Harriers from 12AE attacked the airfields at Port Stanley and Goose Green (well, etc., etc.).
            Quote: supertiger21
            Aerial combat is a phenomenon where opposing aircraft take concerted actions to destroy each other.

            And if they cannot coordinate their actions, Well, there the radio stations at different frequencies are tuned in, or the language barrier (there is Spanish, others have English, or Russian-German) At the beginning of World War II, we didn’t have rst on many especially fighters, they not that they could not agree with the enemy in a battle, but they fought aerial battles.
            Quote: supertiger21
            The Mirage pilots did not start air battles, their purpose was to sink ships.

            So they just did not have the task of sinking the ships. Their task was to destroy the air enemy.
            1. Santa Fe
              4 February 2014 17: 18
              +2
              Quote: Fitter65
              That is, it turns out that the Matra or Shfrir rockets were an order of magnitude heavier?

              Heavier were 1000 fnl. bombs
              Quote: Fitter65
              I repeat that Sea Harriers FRS1 delivered their first Bomb Bomb on April 22, according to the storage of fuels and lubricants on Za Falkland

              You might think it decided something

              The first real blow was struck on May 2, 1982 - the boat "Conkerror" cut the cruiser "Belgrano" into a nut. The Argentine fleet urgently returned to the bases, the supply of the garrison in the Falkleeds was interrupted. Now victory has become a matter of time
              Quote: Fitter65
              On 1 and 12 on May, 800AE Sea Harriers attacked the airfields at Port Stanley and Goose Green (well, etc., etc.).

              So what.
              During this time, bombers from about. Ascension drove 5 times to the Falklands, bombed the runway and airfield radar in Port Stanley (using anti-radar Shrikes)



              In any case, it all mattered little.
              Quote: Fitter65
              And if they cannot coordinate their actions

              There was no classic air battle.

              Fighters attacked by bombers following without fighter cover
              Quote: Fitter65
              So they just did not have the task of sinking the ships. Their task was to destroy the air enemy.

              Forget about Mirage III
              Already in early May, they were recalled to Buenos Aires, the junta seemed to be being bombed by volcanoes from about ascension

              In the list of SiHarrier’s victories, the entire 1 fighter, and he was overloaded with fuel and did not have modern missiles like AIM-9L
              1. Fitter65
                Fitter65 4 February 2014 17: 53
                -2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Heavier were 1000 fnl. bombs

                The question is who or what prevented dropping bombs when attacking an air enemy?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Quote: Fitter65
                I repeat that Sea Harriers FRS1 delivered their first Bomb Bomb on April 22, according to the storage of fuels and lubricants on Za Falkland
                You might think it decided something

                And what, then, decided? The chicken also pecks a grain, and the whole yard is filthy.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                There was no classic air battle.

                Fighters attacked by bombers following without fighter cover

                So this is also a classic of air combat!. Or do you think when a group of our fighters during the war attacked German bombers without cover, is that what you thought was shooting at a shooting gallery, or passing offsets?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                Forget about Mirage III
                They were recalled to Buenos Aires already in early May, the junta seemed to be being bombed by volcanoes from about. ascension

                But what about June 8? on that day, Mirages with three missiles were supposed to distract SiHarrieres, though damn it, rake again, Mirages went high, but the British were at low altitude, well ... there was no meeting with the aerial enemy. 13.06 Mirage pair from 8iag went to cover Canberra who were supposed to bomb the British position, but not at Buenos Aires, but at the Falklands. So we do not forget the Mirages.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                In the list of SiHarrier’s victories, the entire 1 fighter, and he was overloaded with fuel and did not have modern missiles like AIM-9L

                But where did they overload it with fuel, after flying over the Atlantic? The fact that Peron got off only one PTB, and the second prevented maneuvering, I agree, but the unfortunate PTB and overloaded with fuel were like different things. So the Argentines did not have missiles such AIM-9Ls are their problems, it was necessary to prepare from the beginning, and then wave their fists. And if it was not possible to get normal weapons, then why not jump on a bulldozer with a torn slipper.
                1. Santa Fe
                  4 February 2014 18: 38
                  +1
                  Quote: Fitter65
                  The question is who or what prevented dropping bombs when attacking an air enemy?

                  To start, the enemy must be noted.

                  And this is difficult without a radar. Moreover, when all the pilots' attention is directed to other things: the search for enemy ships, and most importantly, generally not to get lost on the ocean
                  Quote: Fitter65
                  And what then decided?

                  Drowning of the Belgian cruiser cruiser - Argentinean fleet was withdrawn from the war

                  And the main point is the landing on the Falkland Islands. The rest of the fuss (bombing raids, dismantling in South Georgia, the destruction of the auxiliary airfield on Pebble Island) was of little importance and could not affect the course of hostilities
                  Quote: Fitter65
                  when a group of our fighters during the war attacked German bombers without cover

                  This was called intercepting a group of enemy bombers.

                  It was only during the WWII that bombers tried not to fly without cover, otherwise there would be obvious consequences (raid on Schweinfurt, yeah)
                  Quote: Fitter65
                  So do not forget the Mirages.

                  8-IAG made 91 sortie: 45 for air cover in the area of ​​the archipelago and 46 - to patrol over the territory of the country and adjacent waters.

                  You can forget it. The participation of Mirages in the conflict was sporadic, due to their small numbers and the transfer of aircraft to the area of ​​the capital.
                  Quote: Fitter65
                  This is where, after a flight over the Atlantic, was it overloaded with its fuel?

                  And 700 km of the return trip - does it not count? + mandatory reserve in case the plane gets lost or has to engage in air combat
                  Quote: Fitter65
                  The fact that the Argentines did not have rockets like AIM-9L is their problem

                  No, this is a question to the results of the combat use of the Sea Harriers - their amazing performance in the battle with "supersonic mirages" is explained only by those. backwardness of the enemy. If there were some Phantom or F-15 in place of the Daggers (in fact, the same age as Sea Harrier), all 28 British VTOL aircraft would fly headlong into the waves
                  Quote: Fitter65
                  And if it was not possible to get normal weapons, then why not jump with a torn sneaker on a bulldozer

                  "Little victorious war" that can distract people from pressing problems (economy)

                  Count Witte came up with this for 80 years before the Argentines
            2. supertiger21
              supertiger21 4 February 2014 18: 46
              +2
              Quote: Fitter65
              That is, it turns out that the Matra or Shfrir missiles were an order of magnitude heavier? Again, when meeting with the enemy, who prevented them (the Argentines) from getting rid of the load?


              Argentine aircraft carried almost no air-to-air missiles, their mission was shock. They were not ready for air combat. Well, don't you understand? fool

              Quote: Fitter65
              And if they cannot coordinate their actions, Well, there the radio stations at different frequencies are tuned in, or the language barrier (there is Spanish, others have English, or Russian-German) At the beginning of World War II, we didn’t have rst on many especially fighters, they not that they could not agree with the enemy in a battle, but they fought aerial battles.


              Well, you’re not a child, I mean coordinated maneuvers. How does Dog Fight begin ?:

              1) Fighters approach each other from an average distance, and the first missile strike failed.
              2) Opponents reach each other and fly frontally side by side.
              3) Both the first and second opponents make a sharp turn either to the right or to the left.
              4) One of the opponents sneaks into the tail of the other.
              5) An adversary that has entered a tail destroys a front-flying target.

              This is an air battle, and not when the Sea Harriers pursue and destroy the retreating Mirages.

              Quote: Fitter65
              So they just did not have the task of sinking the ships. Their task was to destroy the air enemy.


              Read about the Falkland War. Understand that The main task of the Daggers and other Argentinean aircraft was to bomb the British ships.
              1. Fitter65
                Fitter65 5 February 2014 02: 38
                +1
                Quote: supertiger21
                Read about the Falkland War

                I read some literature, with the signature stamp of chipboard, back in the mid-80s. Therefore, who, whom, where and how I know is not so bad.
                Quote: supertiger21
                Well, you’re not a child, I mean coordinated maneuvers. How does Dog Fight begin ?:

                1) Fighters approach each other from an average distance, and the first missile strike failed.
                2) Opponents reach each other and fly frontally side by side.
                3) Both the first and second opponents make a sharp turn either to the right or to the left.
                4) One of the opponents sneaks into the tail of the other.
                5) An adversary that has entered a tail destroys a front-flying target.

                This is an air battle.

                He smiled! And at the construction there was also a squadron neighing (well, you yourself understand healthy as horses, one word flight-lifting personnel) Where do you get such definitions?
                I especially liked the phrase "one of the opponents sneaks into the tail of the other," and why not under the tail?
                Do not think that on the other hand there is a person who is less competent than you in this matter, because it may turn out to be the other way around.
                1. supertiger21
                  supertiger21 5 February 2014 12: 43
                  +1
                  Quote: Fitter65
                  And at the formation, the half-squadron was neighing (well, you yourself understand healthy as horses, one word flight crew) Where do you get such definitions? I especially liked the phrase "one of the opponents wade into the tail of the other," why not under the tail? one must think that on the other side there is a person who is less competent in this matter than you, because it may be the other way around.


                  You just told me that the "Daggers" went into battle with the "Sea Harriers", claiming that they conducted air battles. Here I am telling you what is called a classic air battle. In the Falklands, the Harriers simply intercepted and destroyed Mirages. The Dagger pilots did not even put up resistance, and you will still call it air combat ?!
                  1. Aljavad
                    Aljavad 5 February 2014 22: 19
                    +1
                    Interception is one of the types of air combat.
                2. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 5 February 2014 23: 16
                  0
                  Yes, in general, under the skirt immediately ... and they did not provide resistance :-)
              2. Aljavad
                Aljavad 5 February 2014 22: 14
                +1
                PLAY LETTERS LESS, READ MORE.
                Air combat - the use of aircraft weapons for an air target (other aircraft)
                dogfight is a phenomenon of WWII and Korea. Later - everything is somewhat different.
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 5 February 2014 23: 21
                  +1
                  Flying different happen, flight simulators for example.
                  on the Falklands it was worse than a dog fight - some kind of subsonic VTOL-"attack aircraft" took and made a strike 23: 0. in most cases, not for the same subsonic attack aircraft (but without OVT) but for supersonic fighters and fighter-bombers (also without OVT).
        3. Kassandra
          Kassandra 5 February 2014 23: 14
          0
          Harrier is subsonic but super maneuverable, therefore, almost always ended up in the tail.
          Matra rockets were better just the Argentines
    2. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 15: 18
      +3
      Quote: Fitter65
      the ratio for combat aircraft was 8: 1 in favor of Argentina.

      The tale is in order.

      TF317 had 28 CHarriers (+10 regular Hariers and 160 helicopters + about 10 base Nimrods from Ascension Island + reconnaissance Canberra from Agua Fresca base, with Chilean identification marks)

      Argentina:
      - 17 Mirage III (soon recalled to defend Buenos Aires)
      - 30 Daggers
      - 4 Super Etendar (5 was disassembled for parts)
      On this, the list of those who could give at least some resistance to the Nimrod and SiHarrieres ends.

      Of the drums, there was also the 60 A4 Skyhawk, but these could not and were not used massively, due to the presence of a single tanker tanker. Maximum - strike group of 4's in one raid

      The rest of Canberra, Pukara, Lirgeta, Boeing-707, Eirmakki, S-130 Hercules - did not pose a special threat to the British and were used only to a limited extent.

      Exoset!
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 4 February 2014 16: 16
        0
        The fact that the Argentines could not properly organize the combat use of the light IA-58A Pucara attack aircraft, which incidentally carried 2e 20mm guns (IA-58B-30mm) 4 machine guns of 7,62 caliber and 1500kg of external-mounted weapons, does not mean that this aircraft is outdated, or it may not be counted as the Nimrod’s periodic appearance, or the Canberra from the Chilean base didn’t do much weather.
        Again, Argentina hoped for its 10th Canberra. Only after losing one, the Argentines decided that Canberram should fly at night. The last flight of the Canberra (Argentinean) in that war was made on June 13. Again, the ancient Trekkers made 146 sorties, again for long-range reconnaissance attracted Boeing-707 (2 pieces) and all 7 S-130s, they also used 2 (TWO) KS-130s for reconnaissance of the Air Force, although some sources say that the tankers were naval. At least not a single tanker is definitely clear.
        Therefore, we believe this, we do not think it does not roll. Just in skilled hands and a bull tail is a rope.
        Again, about the English CanberraPR.Mk9, it is alleged that they acted from a / bPunta Arenas. As for Ascension, refueling machines VictorK.Mk2 also worked. they were completely 600 refueling, in which 5443 tons of fuel was transferred.
        On Hermes there were 12 Sea Harriers FRS1, on Invensible-10, as well as 24 Sea King helicopters. The aircraft belonged to the 800,801,899 squadrons from the Yeovilton naval station. 809 were sent to the area of ​​hostilities (according to other sources, 8_Harriers GR10 from the 9st Air Force Air Force, and 3 of them remained on Vozneseniya Island to conduct air defense of the base.
        1. Roman 1977
          Roman 1977 4 February 2014 16: 20
          0
          Quote: Fitter65
          The fact that the Argentines could not properly organize the combat use of the light IA-58A Pucara attack aircraft, which incidentally carried 2 20-mm guns (IA-58B-30mm) 4 machine guns of the 7,62 and 1500kg caliber of weapons on an external aircraft, didn’t mean that or it may not be counted as the Nimrod’s periodic appearance, or the Canberra from the Chilean base didn’t do much weather.

          During the active phase of the Falklands Campaign, i.e. From May 1 to June 14, 1982, the Pukars flew 118 sorties for armed patrols, reconnaissance and enemy attacks. There are no data on the effectiveness of the raids. The only known success was the shooting down of a British helicopter on 28 May. The Argentines lost all 24 IA-58s that arrived in the archipelago. 2 pilots and 6 ground specialists were killed.

          If we talk about the combat effectiveness of the Pukar during the Falklands War, then everything is not as straightforward as it looks at first glance. First of all, the lack of a service of advanced aircraft controllers had an extremely negative impact on the effectiveness of their work. Responsibility for this miscalculation lies with both General Menendez and Brigadier Castellano, who commanded the island air contingent. In addition, the potential of the Pukar as a helicopter fighter was not fully exploited, although it was in this role that the IA-58 achieved the greatest success. It should be noted that the turboprop attack aircraft are unpretentious to the basing conditions and their good survivability. Although the losses were large, the enemy managed to shoot down only three Pukars during the sorties. Argentine pilots have repeatedly avoided such formidable weapons as MANPADS, and their aircraft were not equipped with any means of jamming. The main losses of the Navarro group suffered as a result of poor protection of the airfield from saboteurs, air raids and shelling. The losses could have been smaller, if the command of the Malvinas garrison had taken care of the appropriate engineering equipment for their airfields and provided aircraft parking with at least earth embankments.
          Five relatively intact stormtroopers were captured by the British after the surrender of the Argentine garrison in the Falklands. In 1983, they were brought to England for study. One of the aircraft was flown over at the Boscomb Down Test Center. The consequence of this was the emergence in Britain of the concept of a light maneuverable subsonic front-line fighter SABA (Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft), designed to intercept and destroy enemy helicopters, direct support of troops, counterguerrilla operations, air reconnaissance and target designation. Work on the SABA program, in turn, stimulated the emergence of similar programs in other countries (in particular, in Poland).


        2. Santa Fe
          4 February 2014 16: 48
          +4
          Quote: Fitter65
          The fact that the Argentines could not properly organize the combat use of the light attack aircraft IA-58A Pucara

          Of course they could not, because they were destroyed by SAS fighters during a raid on the airfield on Pebble Island
          Quote: Fitter65
          4 machine gun caliber 7,62 and 1500kg weapons on the external sling, does not mean that this aircraft is outdated

          Dare to attack the destroyer with an air defense system on it?
          ))))
          Quote: Fitter65
          At least not a single tanker.

          He flew only one.
          The second did not rise in the air
          Quote: Fitter65
          VictorK.Mk2 refuelers also worked with Ascension. they were completely 600 refueling, which was transmitted 5443t fuel.

          600 refueling - this is 5 raids of strategic bombers "Vulcan" and 111 sorties of "Nimrods" lasting 15-19 hours - they covered the coverage of the surface situation in the conflict zone
          Quote: Fitter65
          Again about the English CanberraPR.Mk9, it is alleged that they acted with a / bPunta Arenas

          Species reconnaissance of the captured islands is the most important task in the war.
          + another Nimrod - ELINT (RTR intelligence)
          Quote: Fitter65
          and 3 of them stayed on Ascension Island to conduct air defense base.

          You confused them with the Royal Air Force Phantoms

          British bombers on about. Ascension
          1. Roman 1977
            Roman 1977 4 February 2014 16: 56
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Of course they could not, because they were destroyed by SAS fighters during a raid on the airfield on Pebble Island

            Oleg you are wrong, on the Pebble Island the SAS fighters destroyed only six Pukar based on it: A-502, A-520, A-523, A-529, A-552 and A-556. And besides this, the Pukars from G3A (18 aircraft) were based at the Port Stanley airfield, from where they flew until the very end of the war. So, on June 10, 11 and 13, on the eve of the fall of Port Stanley, the pilots made a little more than 30 sorties ... Their main targets were the positions of British howitzers on Mount Kent. Once the "Pukars" raided a small bridge over which the enemy artillery was being supplied. As a rule, the pilots took the full load of the NAR and attacked from the very first approach. The lack of a service of advanced aircraft controllers made it difficult to detect and select suitable targets. In the case of the bridge, their gunners assisted in targeting it with smoke shells. Five relatively intact stormtroopers were captured by the British after the surrender of the Argentine garrison in the Falklands and tested in England. In other words, the Aregenians lost 24 Pukars during the war.




            Argentinean "Pucara" - Falklands War trophy on display in the UK
            1. Santa Fe
              4 February 2014 17: 02
              0
              Quote: Novel 1977
              That is, in total, the Aregentians lost 24 Pukars during the war.

              Ponomarchuk cites 26 data!

              IA-58 "Pukara" (15 + 11) - 1 shot down by fighters, 2 shot down by air defense systems, 7 destroyed on the ground, 3 lost for non-combat reasons, 2 lost for unclear reasons, 11 captured after the war

              15 May
              Six IA-58A Pukara
              Serial numbers A-502, A-520, A-523, A-529, A-552, A-556; 3 I Argentine Air Force Assault Group
              Four T-34C "Turbo Mentor"
              Serial numbers 0719 / 1-A-401, 0726 / 1-A-408, 0729 / 1-A-411, 0730 / 1-A-412; 4 Argentina Navy Assault Squadron
              One SC.7 Skyvan 3M-400
              Serial Number PA-50, Maritime Prefecture of Argentina
              Eleven Argentine aircraft were disabled as a result of an attack by a Special Aviation Service detachment on an airfield (Calderón auxiliary airfield) on Pebble Island.
          2. tlauicol
            tlauicol 4 February 2014 17: 13
            0
            I wonder how they are about. Pebble turned up? landed from an aircraft carrier or sailed on a battleship? request
            1. Roman 1977
              Roman 1977 4 February 2014 17: 28
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              I wonder how they are about. Pebble turned up? landed from an aircraft carrier or sailed on a battleship?

              How? It is known as they themselves flew. Practical range "Pukara" - 2305 km, before the war they were relocated to the airfield Komodoro Rivadavia, located at a distance of 889 km from the Falkland Islands, and from there flew to the airfield ("Calderon auxiliary airfield") on Pebble Island.


            2. Santa Fe
              4 February 2014 17: 40
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              I wonder how they are about. Pebble turned up? landed from an aircraft carrier or sailed on a battleship?

              You know, there wasn’t much difference. The same 45 fighters could be dropped off even by a HMS Onyx boat, which regularly landed special forces groups all over the Falkland coast

              In this case, 2 turntables arrived from Hermes, the operation was carried out under the guise of the guns of the destroyer Glamorgan
          3. Fitter65
            Fitter65 4 February 2014 18: 26
            +1
            I will answer without quoting.
            Pukars were actually not intended to attack ships, but they could well support their infantry.
            second GR3 Harriers stood on Ascension Island, like air defense planes until May 21, until they were replaced by Phantoms. Here, Phantom and Harrier are very difficult to confuse, it’s really not possible for me. By the way, the photo you brought here is not just bombers, and VictorK.Mk2 refueling planes, because there were no Victor Bombers in the RAF before the Falkland War, only the Volcanoes remained bombers at that time, but they look like Victor as a phantom to Harrier.
            And yet, the Argentines flew at least 2 KS-130.
  • Bongo
    Bongo 4 February 2014 13: 20
    +11
    Soon after the end of the Falklands, one of the Sea Harrier FRS.1, which flew in from the aircraft carrier HMS "Illustrious" near the Canaries, got lost, and almost ran out of fuel landed on the Spanish container ship "Alraigo". Oddly enough, the plane was later repaired and it took off until the early 2000s.
  • thrush75
    thrush75 4 February 2014 15: 34
    +2
    The data of this war are still largely closed, but mostly silent. But on the part of England, it was Pyrrhic victory. Even with the presence of nuclear weapons, the KVV forces did not prove themselves, moreover, the problem of convoy PQ-17 surfaced. and underestimation of the enemy, although the Angles motivated it by the remoteness of the theater.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 5 February 2014 23: 48
      0
      But is it nuclear weapons used shtol?
      in PQ-17, the convoy simply fed the Germans so that the Russians would get to know about it, and there RAF and RN, on the contrary, in the minority, overshadowed themselves.
  • Stasi
    Stasi 4 February 2014 15: 48
    +2
    The war is really instructive, there is something to think about. But as one clever German general used to say: "A broken army will learn a lot." I think the Argentines have taken into account the lessons of the Falklands conflict. And today, given the weakness of the British fleet, Argentina is again sharpening its teeth on these islands. I would like to compare the state of the British army and the Argentinean, it is also interesting to what extent the Argentines took into account the lessons of the Falklands.
  • Santa Fe
    4 February 2014 15: 57
    +2
    Ideally, of course, it was worth bringing HMS Vanguard there under the cover of a couple of URO destroyers - the battleship would have gouged out all Argentinean positions in the Falklands and about. George, burned warehouses, destroyed airfields in Port Stanley and on about. Pebble, and if necessary - wiped the Rio Grande airbase on Tierra del Fuego from his 381 mm bombard from the face of the earth

    Fat-skinned Wangard was ABSOLUTELY invulnerable to any Argentinean bombs and anti-ship missiles. The only threat is the ARA San Luis diesel submarine, but there was only one, and in those bad ones. condition - it was enough to keep high speed on the transitions and have towed traps, such as Nixie or something similar (the Britons had)

    Only one problem - British rogues cut their last battleship in 1960. After 20 years, I had to fool around with SiHarrieres, SAS raids on the Argentine airdrome, and Sheffield drowned from unexploded RCC

    HMS Vanguard, 1950 year
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 4 February 2014 17: 19
      +3
      A flaming Wangard would turn home, throwing the bodies of anti-aircraft gunners overboard and picking up sailors from the destroyers from the water
      1. Santa Fe
        4 February 2014 17: 46
        +1
        Quote: Tlauicol
        throwing overboard the bodies of anti-aircraft gunners

        Why exactly anti-aircraft gunners?
        Quote: Tlauicol
        with destroyers

        These yes, could drown

        But the compound needs long-range air defense systems, just in case Icarus PLUR. + turntables.

        This is York, type 42 third sub-series. Extended tank, increased b / w SeaDart
        but interestingly, at this 2 phalanx, be it on the Falklands, the Argentinean Skyhawks fell into the water a mile from the side of the destroyer
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 4 February 2014 18: 33
          0
          and this is he in fresh weather :)) SyDart "goes overboard" :))

          but in general I agree: to the Falanks - YES!

          armor in the furnace
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 5 February 2014 00: 08
        -2
        For the stupid, I inform you that it is unrealistic to pierce the battleship's armor with some kind of "exoset". We need something like "mosquitoes" that Muchachos could not even dream of.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 5 February 2014 23: 51
          0
          is the torpedo real? or fire with a napalm tank
  • Taoist
    Taoist 4 February 2014 15: 58
    +4
    I like the author ... As they say, "beautifully expresses." And most importantly, everything seems to be true and to the point ... That's just how he begins to draw conclusions so at least stop and fall.

    "The war on the outskirts of the Earth clearly showed that even such an" advanced "VTOL aircraft, like the Sea Harrier, was completely ineffective when meeting with the classic jet aircraft of the same period." (C)

    Tell me, how is Harrier's "verticality" related to his inefficiency under the Falklands? Illiterate use is understandable. The absence of a normal air defense control system - too ... But where the hell is the relationship between what exactly verticality prevented the Harriers from performing a combat mission?

    To begin with, the main problem was disgusting "target designation". The British found that they were usually attacked after the bombs had begun to explode. And in this case, be in the place of Harrier any other aircraft (up to the modern raptor), the result was exactly the same. Harrier surpassed any of his opponents in flight and aerobatic properties, moreover, the variable thrust vector gave Harrier absolute superiority in the BVB. And the Argentine pilots acting at the limit of the combat radius were generally deprived of the opportunity to get involved in the WB. The main thing was to "find each other" ... but this was the problem. After all, finding a fat target like a ship is much easier than a small and fast aircraft. By the way, the Harriers were puzzled not so much by air defense as by striking ground targets - being de facto practically the only fire support for the landing.

    In short, I read it with interest - but the conclusion "another owl" on the globe of the author's ambitions and prejudices ...
    1. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 16: 19
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      Tell me, how is Harrier's "verticality" related to his inefficiency under the Falklands?

      Restricting take-off mass → limiting fuel reserves, avionics and weapons, fuel and aircraft characteristics → general aircraft inefficiency
      Quote: Taoist
      Let's start with the fact that the main problem was the disgusting "target designation"

      Ktozh is to blame for the fact that there was no good radar at that time on VTOL aircraft
      Quote: Taoist
      be in the place of Harrier any other aircraft (up to the modern raptor) the result was exactly the same

      lol

      If Harrier Phantom had been, he would have shot the Argentine flying junk without even engaging in close combat. The Phantom had long-range Sparrow missiles. And a powerful radar controlled by a navigator-operator





      It’s not worth remembering the close battles with MiGs here - the ocean is not the jungle of Vietnam with countless jump airfields. The enemy is visible from afar
      Quote: Taoist
      And Argentine pilots operating at the limit of the combat radius were generally deprived of the opportunity to get involved in the WB.

      And even in such "sparing" conditions, the Harriers could not cover the squadron
      Quote: Taoist
      In the end, finding a greasy target like a ship is much easier than a small and fast plane.

      It all depends on the means of detection

      Pilots Skyhokov and Daggers searched with their own eyes in the fog
      SuperEtandars - they did not "get their hands dirty" at all - they calculated the squadron with a radar from five dozen kilometers, launched the Exocet and went on the opposite course
      Quote: Taoist
      being de facto almost the only fire support for the landing.

      Come on, compose you.
      The British fired during the war 14 000 shells caliber 114 mm
      And the landing had its own 105 mm howitzers, consumption up to 500 shots per gun

      Destroyer "Cardiff" after shelling Argentine positions, June 5, 1982
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 4 February 2014 21: 42
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        If Harrier Phantom had been, he would have shot the Argentine flying junk without even engaging in close combat. The Phantom had long-range Sparrow missiles. And a powerful radar controlled by a navigator-operator

        And the F-4S Phantom could only be there on board the aircraft carrier, there was no where else to come from.
        1. Santa Fe
          4 February 2014 22: 00
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          And the F-4S Phantom could only be there on board the aircraft carrier, there was no where else to come from.

          It was a more theoretical question, not about the Falkland War.

          Taoist "compared" Raptor and VTOL. assuming that:
          Quote: Taoist
          And in this case, be in the place of Harrier of any other aircraft (up to the modern raptor), the result was exactly the same

          ==
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 5 February 2014 11: 07
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It was a more theoretical question, not about the Falkland War.

            And how would this theory prove to be bad in the case of the Falkland War?
            1. Santa Fe
              5 February 2014 14: 46
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              And how would this theory prove to be bad in the case of the Falkland War?

              To build a pair of Midway, the British would need a three-fold increase in the budget of the Navy
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra 5 February 2014 23: 53
      0
      face inefficiency 23: 0
      Argentines got involved, at first they even looked for them
  • Sarmat1972
    Sarmat1972 4 February 2014 16: 04
    +1
    By the way, about the actions of the Hariers from aircraft carriers; As far as I remember, the British tried to make "jump" airfields on the islands: they laid prefabricated metal GDPs for the takeoff of the vehicles not vertically, but with acceleration to increase the combat load. If I'm wrong - correct
    1. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 16: 29
      +1
      Quote: Sarmat1972
      the British tried to make "jump" airfields on the islands

      For a week, built a whole airfield in the bay of San Carlos (Harrier FOB - Forward Operating Base)

  • delfinN
    delfinN 4 February 2014 17: 07
    +1
    All the same, 80% of unexploded bombs are over the top. On the other hand, good anti-advertising to NATO ammunition.
  • USNik
    USNik 4 February 2014 17: 24
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    For a week, built a whole airfield in the bay of San Carlos (Harrier FOB - Forward Operating Base)

    And this is a question for Argentina's special forces. How could the redeployment and capture of the "jump islands" be missed, a more or less prepared defensive position would have been enough to repel the attack of British specialists. Plus, the main attention would immediately focus on this particular territory, and given the advantageous location of the islands for Argentina, direct target designation from the defenders, the same "flying trash" described in the article would show the British "kuzkin mother" ...
    1. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 18: 45
      +1
      Quote: USNik
      How could the redeployment and capture of the "jump islands" be missed, a more or less prepared defensive position would be enough to repel the attack of British specialists

      Here, one comrade on the site was interested in why the args were not delivered to the island after all. Unforgivable miscalculation

      Regarding the airfield in the bay of San Carlos, the Args knew about it, sometimes they bombed - but they could not do anything. The airfield was protected by tanks (Scorpio lungs), special forces, air defense missile systems (Rapira). It was impossible to destroy it - funnels from bombs were dug up and covered with new slats, a fuel storage (rubber bags with kerosene) were hidden on a nearby beach in the water
  • Taoist
    Taoist 4 February 2014 17: 28
    +1
    /Takeoff weight limitation → limitation on fuel reserves, avionics and weapons, flight characteristics → general aircraft inefficiency, If Harrier Phantom were in place, he would have shot the Argentinean flying junk without even engaging in close combat. The Phantom had long-range Sparrow missiles. And a powerful radar controlled by a navigator-operator/.

    "Well, you really decide here or there, and this is your" here and there "- annoying" (c)

    1) In order for Phantom to suddenly appear as a Phantom, then at least one full-fledged aircraft carrier that you don’t like so much should appear in the Royal Nevi. And in the existing ship's crew there was no alternative to Harrier.
    2) the radar (quite a full-fledged one) was present on board the Harrier - though it sucks revealed low-altitude targets - but this is a common misfortune of all radars of that time, which is why the actions of air-to-air radars are always provided by ground targeting. And I very much doubt that the Phantom (by the way, which did not prove to be a carrier-based aircraft) would have any serious advantage under the indicated conditions except for a slightly longer patrol time.
    3) Taking into account the fact that the losses of the Harriers in those cases when they still found their opponents are equal to 0 and the enemy was destroyed, we can talk not about the "inefficiency of the Harriers" but the ineffectiveness of the air defense control of the ship's formation. And the effectiveness of Harrier when they acted in conditions and according to schemes corresponding to the "project assignment" can be assessed as excellent. In any case, the Argentine aviation and ground-based air defense did not manage to provide any serious resistance to the actions of the Lunei. In the end, Argentina's 240 combat aircraft were opposed by only four dozen machines. The overall loss ratio of 10/80 also does not look like the actions of an "ineffective aircraft".
    1. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 19: 07
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      And in the existing ship's crew there was no alternative to Harrier.

      Yes, the Britons tried to compensate for the lack of a normal air defense system with these little birds. But in general, the benefit of this venture did not work out - the squadron almost died. thanks to unexploded american bombs

      This whole story shows that in the face of a lack of funds, the construction of a light replica aircraft carrier ("Invincible") with VTOL aircraft is a useless undertaking. The air group of such a ship is too weak to cover the squadron even from subsonic Skyhawks.

      The British could have been more useful by purchasing six-barreled Falanx anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance instead of Harriers (which, by the way, was done urgently in the summer of 1982). And instead of Invincible - they built a couple of additional destroyers, similar to the American escort "Legi" - and not a single Argentine bomb would have fallen on their ships.

      As for a real aircraft carrier, it would be worth, like the entire British fleet combined. The Britons didn't have that much money. but to buy the Phalanxes would be quite enough
      Quote: Taoist
      And the effectiveness of Harrier when they acted in conditions and according to schemes corresponding to the "project assignment" can be assessed as excellent

      Shoot planes of the previous generation, against those. the remaining enemy, in the most favorable conditions for themselves - that’s the reason for the success of the SiHarrier VTOL, if you do not take into account that the squadron nearly died under air strikes

      If the Argentine Air Force were equipped with Phantoms with AIM-7 and AIM-9L SDs with an all-perspective GOS, SiHarrier would be in a very delicate position. (And what would happen if the F-15 args were essentially the same age as SiHarrier? belay )
      Quote: Taoist
      In the end, 240 combat aircraft in Argentina confronted only four dozen aircraft

      240 BATTLE AIRCRAFT ??? Where ???
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 5 February 2014 00: 15
        0
        Better yet is an air defense cruiser, which our Atlantes are in essence. A 3-tier AA defense would finish off anyone who got in, and to support the landing, bring in any vessel with good guns.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 6 February 2014 00: 01
          0
          within the limits of coastal or carrier-based aviation, not a single ship's air defense will last long, will be saturated, or until it shoots out the entire arsenal of missiles by harassing actions.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 4 February 2014 17: 43
    0
    By the way, how many Argentinean aircraft were based on the Rio Grande? Probably not all 280. Okay, the Pukars flew directly to the archipelago, but the rest could essentially use only 1 ae. Even Rio Gallegos is too far — more than 900 km to Port- Stanley
    args used not only American bombs, Spanish too.
    http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6053&p=105
    Forum »Naval rivalry 1946-2011» The Soviet Navy at its peak: myths and reality
    The point, it seems, was not old age-rust. The Argentines attacked too low - the fuses did not fire for this reason.
    Well, this clarification isn't worth the time. Anyone who drags such a slag will not understand anyway. Poor fellows do not suspect that a good half of Argentine bombs were made in Spain, such as the BR-250. And the "sea" Mk82 snakeye was carried only by A-4Q, 35 of them were dropped, 30 at sea targets, 1 Antelope was hit (did not explode) Ardent 5-7 pieces (1-2 did not explode) + Intrepid received damage from a close rupture
    Skyhawks had good horizontal maneuverability, although they looked weak on the verticals.
    The F-4K / M phantoms were unlikely to be able to shoot from afar Argentine aircraft, even with the super station AN / AWG-10/11. However, this is a separate conversation. But in the BVB, the Phantom would have looked better. But on the whole I agree, it would be useful incomparably more than from the Harriers.
    I would also like to recommend the analysis of spans here
    http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?id=1479&p=12
    Forum »Naval rivalry 1946-2011» Anglo-Argentine conflict.
  • Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 4 February 2014 17: 59
    0
    “The British sailors were very lucky that 80% of the Argentine bombs that hit the target did not explode.

    Curiously, the bombs were the Mk.80, made in the USA. ”
    What can I say about this ??
    drinks
  • moremansf
    moremansf 4 February 2014 18: 36
    +2
    Britain and Argentina, it is difficult to compare in power, but what the Argentine pilots did on the old "Skyhawks" can not be called except as a feat !!!!
  • Leshka
    Leshka 4 February 2014 19: 29
    0
    the English were very lucky
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 February 2014 20: 04
    +1
    Surprisingly, the fact is the second consecutive article by Oleg Kaptsov with which I warmly agree! :)))) And plus, of course.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 4 February 2014 20: 31
    +1
    And what would await our Yak-38s in the Kiev and Minsk aircraft carriers in the event of such a remote war? So the bet on naval variants of regular Air Force fighters is fully justified. am
    1. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 21: 02
      +4
      Quote: xomaNN
      And what would await our Yak-38s in the Kiev and Minsk aircraft carriers in the event of such a remote war?

      We would have gone "Kirov" (with four Ak-630 batteries, two Wasps and a blasted version of the S-300) with the support of BOD 1134A (B)

      And not a single bomb would fall on the heads of our sailors

      In 1982, the USSR Navy was superior to the British fleet, we had a completely different level of equipment
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 6 February 2014 00: 08
        0
        maybe it wouldn’t fall (if you stay away), but the Falklands wouldn’t take. if only with absolutely terrible losses for themselves on stanley forehead.
  • rubin6286
    rubin6286 4 February 2014 21: 00
    0
    In my opinion, the outcome of the war for the Falklands is logical. Politics is a reflection of the economy. War is a continuation of politics by other, violent means. Economically, logically and technically and militarily (strength, combat strength, equipment, experience in conducting combat operations on land, at sea and in the air), England significantly exceeded Argentina and won. There is no war without loss. Even if one could sink the entire English squadron, would England retreat? Nothing like this. On the part of Argentina, this war was stupid and led to unnecessary casualties. It showed the complete lack of command, the weakness of the economy and its unpreparedness for war, the dependence of the army on the supply of weapons from abroad.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 4 February 2014 21: 05
    +1
    topic 23: 0 because of what harrier was nicknamed "Black Death" not disclosed
    ..
    of the entire "defeated squadron" of 100 ships and vessels, 5 were lost
    another flooded like war grave. Not a single UDC, aircraft carrier, or war grave floating barracks like Belgrano became, despite the fact that Argentina exceeded the British quantitatively in aviation by 10 times.
    on the withdrawal and construction of 6 ships from Argentina spent 80-86 of the 170 participating in the raids

    AIM-9L are not all-aspect, but they hit a little farther away (L - long), which did not allow supersonic Argentines to tear some kilometers on the afterburner from the subsonic harriers and then escape.
    The Argentines had all-round attacks from behind the French Matras with radar seekers. the British did not have it.
    All victories were achieved solely due to the super maneuverability of the Harriers (VIFFing), also operating at the limit of their radius.

    there is a zombie so that the VTOL and aircraft carriers under them the Russian Federation did not have. and on occasion, Russia went after Aragentina because of
    Harichem in case of conflict, it will not be about some kind of Franz Joseph Land
    1. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 21: 16
      +2
      Quote: Kassandra
      23 theme: 0

      Yes, I already realized that you stuck on 23-0 (although where did 23 come from? In fact, 21)
      Quote: Kassandra
      out of the entire "crushed squadron" of 100 ships and vessels, 5 were lost, another was sunk as a war grave

      Now think about what could happen if the remaining 80% of the bombs that hit the target exploded.
      Quote: Kassandra
      Argentina outnumbered the British in aviation in 10 times.

      fool
      Quote: Kassandra
      AIM-9L are not all-aspect, but they hit a little further away (L - long)

      About L - Long you wrote it yourself

      In 1971, work began on the creation of a fundamentally new missile "Sidewinder" AIM-9L.

      In the homing head of the AIM-9L rocket, the photo-resistance of lead sulfide is replaced by the photo-resistance of surfactant indium. This significantly increased its sensitivity and the ability to capture targets not only from the side of their back, but also the front hemisphere. Another improvement of the homing head is to increase the maximum deflection angle and tracking speed of the target coordinator.

      A cryogenic photoresistance cooling system is installed in the homing head of the AIM-9L missile. The argon used in this system is located in a cylinder placed in the rocket body, which makes it possible to hang it on airplanes without modifying their launchers (in earlier versions of Sidewinder missiles, the cylinders were in launchers on carrier aircraft).

      In the electronic circuit of the AIM-9L rocket, microcircuits are used, and a thermal battery is used as a source of electricity.

      The AIM-9L missile became the world's first air-to-air missile equipped with a proximity laser fuse. Its main elements are transmitting and receiving parts. A diode made on gallium arssnide is used as the emitter of laser energy, and the signals reflected from the target are received using a silicon photodiode.

      The warhead of the AIM-9L rocket is also newly developed. It has notched steel rods located in the 2 layer to form fragments of a given weight. Undermining is carried out by supplying initiating pulses from the fuse simultaneously to both ends of the explosive charge, which makes it possible to form a stream of fragments accordingly.
      The missile "Sidewinder" AIM-9L was put into service in 1976. It was in service with aircraft F-4, F-5, F-14, F-15, F-16, "Tornado", "Sea Harrier" and < Hawk>.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 4 February 2014 22: 01
        0
        Yes, leave him Oleg, he will repeat the same thing anyway. I tried to explain to him that the VTOL aircraft are not super-maneuverable, but he claims the opposite.
        1. Fitter65
          Fitter65 5 February 2014 02: 51
          -1
          Quote: supertiger21
          I tried to explain to him about the fact that VTOL aircraft are not super-maneuverable, but he claims the opposite.

          The change in the thrust vector (which is present in Harrier) is one of the signs of over-maneuverability. It was just that there was no such concept in the early 80s, which did not prevent Harrier pilots from using this moment.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 5 February 2014 12: 33
            +1
            I'm tired of explaining already. What the Harrier family knows how to do is not super-maneuverability. Super-maneuverability is when a fighter is able to reach supercritical angles of attack in battle.
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 5 February 2014 17: 44
              0
              harrier can go to supercritical angles of attack
              but the Su-35 and the F-22 have real super-maneuverability only at the top of the bell
              short-term supercritical quirks alone are not enough.
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 5 February 2014 17: 42
            0
            :-)
            and he also has a gas-jet system ...
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra 5 February 2014 17: 40
          0
          you did not try to "explain" it, you simply asserted it unfoundedly.
          write specifically why it’s suddenly VTOL is not super-maneuverable, although it has ... ATS. and besides him also a gas-jet control system.
          they were supersonic and not super-maneuverable until the Yak-141 and the F35 stripped from it.
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 February 2014 17: 37
        0
        Well, you can see even such a dry bill is not a decree.
        from 23: 0 or 21: 0 does not go crazy only for fools. Anyone with a strike, including 12 fighters, cannot be accidental.
        in the event of the operation of those bombs, nothing would have happened - not one of them got stuck in the UDC, aircraft carrier or floating ship.
        all these tricks in the GOS for better selectivity of IR traps. The infrared trap is smaller than the nozzle but burns brighter. the first infrared rocket that became possible (but not worth it) to be launched into the forehead - the Soviet one, appeared in 1983 at the same time and was used.
        It was not the British but the Argentines who could launch rockets into the forehead - they had Matras with radar seeker. IR-Matry were also and they are MUCH better than AIM-9L, France did not share this technology and there was even a series of spy scandals.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 4 February 2014 21: 08
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    240 BATTLE AIRCRAFT ??? Where ???


    http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/folkl/harrier/harrier.html

    By the way, another remark about the "efficiency" of Harrier. (For what it was actually created)

    GR.3 Harriers awaited calls from ground forces at FOB [FOB (forward operating base)]. Having received such a call, the pilots of the pair on duty planned a flight directly in the cockpits and immediately took off. As a rule, they found themselves above the target within 20-25 minutes after the mission was set, which clearly demonstrated the advantage of the Harrier over other front-line aircraft.
    Until now, no classic aircraft can provide such efficiency of work on "land requests". Not to mention the fact that to disguise the runway from a retaliatory strike, or even more so an aircraft carrier.
    1. Santa Fe
      4 February 2014 21: 37
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      240 BATTLE AIRCRAFT ??? Where ???
      http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/folkl/harrier/harrier.html

      It should not be forgotten that Argentina launched an armada against the British in 240 combat aircraft. At the end of April, the ratio in her favor was 8: 1.
      Airwar this time is mistaken, this is the number of ALL Argentinean Air Force planes - including transport, administrative, reconnaissance (Neptune), screw counterguerrilla Pukara, TCB, etc. junk

      Of the combat aircraft, there were 52 aircraft capable of at least somehow resisting the Harriers:
      17 Mirages
      30 Daggers
      5 Super Etendars

      Moreover, the daggers did not have a radar, and the Mirages - missiles similar to AIM-9L and, due to the lack of refueling systems, were limited in manners and flight time (turning on the afterburner meant falling into the ocean with empty tanks)

      Of the reactive ones, there were 60 Skyhawks (I don’t remember how many of them were combat-ready), but they needed a refueling tank, which was one for the whole theater

      8 Canberra, 6 TCB Eirmakki, 26 Pucar - that’s, in fact, all Argento combat aircraft
      Quote: Taoist
      Until now, no classic aircraft can provide such efficiency of work on "land requests".

      )))))

      Modern vehicles of generation 4+ provide fire support from the "air watch" position. They do not need to take off and fly anywhere - they are already in the DB zone. Highlight (mark) the target - they will immediately drop the JDAM

      Not to mention drones - these babies can continuously "graze" the area for 20 hours and shoot on the first order.

      Harriers with their FOB are, on the contrary, an example of their inefficiency, because of the small combat radius they could not be in the air for a long time
      Quote: Taoist
      Not to mention what to mask from runway retaliation

      In the sense - to mask the runway?
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 5 February 2014 03: 05
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        Modern vehicles of generation 4+ provide fire support from the "air watch" position. They do not need to take off and fly anywhere - they are already in the DB zone.

        Any aircraft in the air (no matter what zone it is in) is an air target. The only question is when and by whom it will be detected and shot down. Working from the "air watch" position is good in short periods of time. You forget, about the resource of the engine, fuels and lubricants, I'm just silent about the physical capabilities of the crew. Again, again, the detected target can be hit by the type of ammunition that the aircraft is in the "airborne" position, is absent. Well, etc., etc.
        1. Santa Fe
          5 February 2014 03: 12
          +1
          Quote: Fitter65
          Any aircraft in the air (in whatever zone it is) is an aerial target.

          Well, what did you think. It's a war

          As a rule, it is understood that when attack aircraft appear in the air, enemy air defense should be suppressed (C-300, etc.), otherwise why?
          Focal air defense (MANPADS, PGI) is of great danger to modern aviation and does not represent
          Quote: Fitter65
          Working from the "air duty" position is good in short periods of time. You forget about the engine resource, fuel and lubricants, I just keep quiet about the physical capabilities of the crew

          What about the AUGs, who cover day and night from the air AWACS-Hokai and Hornets
          Quote: Fitter65
          Again, again, the detected target can be hit by the type of ammunition that is absent from the aircraft in the "air watch" position

          As a rule, a kit from Mauritius and KAB Payway is quite enough for any identified goals on the battlefield (clearing the gorge from the Taliban or disrupting the offensive of Gaddafi’s troops)
          1. Fitter65
            Fitter65 5 February 2014 05: 38
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What about the AUGs, who cover day and night from the air AWACS-Hokai and Hornets

            How many days and nights in a row and by what outfit?
            After what period of time of the active phase of flights (striking) does the AUG go to replenish ammunition, fuel, lubricants, conduct regulations, maintain and repair aircraft.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            As a rule, a kit from Mauritius and KAB Payway is quite enough for any identified goals on the battlefield (clearing the gorge from the Taliban or disrupting the offensive of Gaddafi’s troops)

            Of course, the use of anti-tank missiles for infantry, or concrete-bomb bombs on a convoy of trucks, or OFAB for armored vehicles, in your correct and rational use of equipment and weapons. There are nothing to discuss. There is nothing to discuss.
            1. Santa Fe
              5 February 2014 14: 53
              0
              Quote: Fitter65
              How many days and nights in a row and by what outfit?

              Amer aircraft carriers in Vietnam stuck out at the Yankee Station position on 50 days. a hundred departures per day
              Quote: Fitter65
              the use of anti-tank missiles for infantry,

              There are no anti-tank Hullfires in the nomenclature of the Hornet b / p

              The destructive action of the CAB Payway dropped from a height of 5 km is equally good against manpower and armored vehicles
              Quote: Fitter65
              or concrete bombs

              Vsezh depends on the situation. If there are no bunkers / mountain bases of the Taliban in the area - why take BETAB? request
            2. Kassandra
              Kassandra 5 February 2014 17: 52
              0
              AWAC is also an airplane. which can be shot down
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 February 2014 17: 49
        0
        170 participated in raids
        VTOL does not need a runway, in principle, it can take off with a lift-and-go PRD with full tanks and then fly off vertically to sit on the platform back
        or vertically without PST but with underfilling.
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra 5 February 2014 21: 05
      0
      it's useless!
      it’s just a political officer who has been tasked with the fact that the Russian Federation / USSR has a maneuverable aircraft similar to the one from which Argentina snatched off from small Britain with a 23: 0 light never. moreover, in the case of it, the brook will go worse than losing the land of Franz Joseph to someone and losing 80 of the 240
      and this provided that there were 52 supersonic fighters and not a single among the British
      he will draw a bombed squadron of 5 ships (really sunken)
      will explain for the all-aspect IK of the Sidewinder, although the British had the "all-aspect" radar of the GOS Matra, well, and all that ...
    3. Kassandra
      Kassandra 5 February 2014 21: 24
      0
      ... and his harriers rushed about in pitiful attempts to intercept some of these 80 aircraft lost by Argentina, but for some reason they were intercepted by supersonic aircraft and were not shot down by them ... but for some reason they shot down their "interceptors" ...
      oh, and that small Britain would do if it had run out of stock of AIM-9L missiles, which actually even inferior to the French IR Matras from Argentina were inferior and inferior significantly.
      don't hang around here - your brains will go sour <: - /
    4. Kassandra
      Kassandra 5 February 2014 21: 33
      0
      and being met by subsonic harriers, the Argentines did not accept the battle, so everyone went to the / c bombing and went, and their harriers shot down, but they all did not accept the battle and went ... until they were all multiplied by "0"
      and this non-super-maneuverable harrier for some reason constantly knocked down meanly behind ...
      so if the fuel is running out, what's the difference to show the tail to the harrier and run away to be shot down or spin to the last drop of benzinekerasin and then knocking down this mountain-harrier (or even all two or three) to eject well, or sit there on the belly?
      23:0
      although the military of the USSR seemed to sit that 1 harrier was a radar of the GSN Matra all the same, shot down from afar.
  • Ro-man
    Ro-man 4 February 2014 21: 44
    0
    Quote: nnz226
    When, in (it seems) 1983, the United States bombed Libya with the aim of killing Gaddafi, then after the S-200 air defense system shot down 3 of the 4 planes that were flying again (just from aircraft carriers), a riot occurred on one of the aircraft carriers : the pilots refused to fly to the bombing of Libya. Enti "gallant American military" can fight only with defenseless Papuans, and, having received in the Mordas, refuse to fight at all! I wonder what happened to these piss-flyers then? Or nothing?

    That was in 1986. There was nothing like it there. Unfortunately, the Libyans were gouging then, losing not 3 out of 4, but 1-3 (according to various estimates) out of 27.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 4 February 2014 22: 08
      0
      As far as I know, in 1986, the Americans used the F-14 in an aerial battle against the Libyan MiG-23. Two Libyan twins were shot down. The Libyans themselves also announced two victories over the F-14.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 February 2014 18: 04
        0
        Syrian MiG-23 shot down more. AIM-54 is an anti-bomber missile and MiG thrust ratio was higher.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 4 February 2014 22: 47
    +3
    Dear, do you even know what a "watch in the air" is? And after how many days of such "watch", even without hostilities, will the resource be completely consumed and all this "Pepsi generation" will turn into a million dollar scrap metal? I am still an airplane technician - and I will be able to tell the pancake "advertising brochures" from reality.
    Even drones (which to this day are far from truly combat vehicles, even such primitive ones as the Harrier) cannot hang in the air continuously - this involves such a strain of forces and means that it is unrealistic for any noticeable time. If we are talking about a special operation lasting several days, then somehow you can keep a couple of other cars "under steam". But in the case of regular combat? Do you know how many hours of technical work need to be done to ensure 1 hour of flight time? These are numbers that differ by orders of magnitude ...
    Okay, I already understood ... You don’t like aircraft carriers, you don’t like vertical aircraft, in my opinion you don’t like modern warships yet ... I’m sorry ... but the age of the armored sail and the pair will not be back. hi
    1. Santa Fe
      5 February 2014 02: 44
      +2
      Quote: Taoist
      And after how many days of such "duty" even without hostilities, the resource will be completely consumed and all this "Pepsi generation" will turn into

      Well, amateurs of AUGs insist that a combat air patrol consisting of AWACS and a pair of Hornets hangs day and night above them (augs)

      Seriously, why are you so surprised? After all, the plane is not alone. There are usually dozens and hundreds of aircraft in the theater of operations - what is the problem with keeping the "duty unit" somewhere over the Pandersher Gorge for several days in a row, where an operation is underway to eliminate the detachment of spirits

      The only way to provide fast and high-quality fire support
      Quote: Taoist
      But in the case of relational fighting?

      There are thousands of aircraft
      Quote: Taoist
      Do you know how many hours of technical work you need to spend to ensure 1 flying hours?

      40-50-60 man hours
      This is normal. After all, the technician is not alone.

      And there are enough planes


      Civil airliners - those like wound riders across the ocean, without unnecessary stops and downtime
      Quote: Taoist
      Even drones ... cannot hang in the air continuously

      10-20 hours sag. Then it will be replaced by the next
      What is the problem?
      Quote: Taoist
      in my opinion, do not like modern warships yet ... I'm sorry ... but the age of the sail armor and the pair will not return.

      Combine armor with the gas turbine power plant in the design of the ship - how do you like this

      Regarding duty on the air - this is what everyone has always done. Ours in Afghanistan - barraged over BTT columns. Now the Yankees are doing it

      A pair of Hornets over Afghanistan, flew with AB in the Arabian Sea. The duration of a combat mission with patrolling over a given square and several refueling is up to 15 hours. 15 DECEMBER 2008
  • Pimply
    Pimply 4 February 2014 23: 31
    +1
    And again Oleg. Who would doubt that. Fewer words "vaunted". The fact is that without the Sea Harriers, the British would have lost that war. That's all. The fact that the Argentines turned out to be not ready enough with the available ground advantage is a minus to them. History has no subjugal mood
    1. Santa Fe
      5 February 2014 02: 30
      +3
      Quote: Pimply
      The fact is the following - without the "Sea Harriers" the British would have lost that war

      The British 100% lost the war if 80% of the Argentine bombs that hit their ships exploded

      No one said that without the SiHariers, the Britons would be better off than with them.
      Another thing - were the costs worth the result? Or instead of building the Invincible, it was worth building a couple of additional destroyers and frigates of URO. And instead of SiHarrieres - to equip the ships ZAK Falanks. British losses would be less at times

      Building VTOL and replicas like Invincible - a waste of money. Even with the small number of subsonic stormtroopers could not cope
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 5 February 2014 05: 29
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The British 100% lost the war if 80% of the Argentine bombs that hit their ships exploded

        If yes, if only. If I understood correctly, the Argentines won by returning the islands to the British?
        Why didn’t the bombs explode? Didn’t they think the rockets came out of the blocks, the sea salt settled, the bombs didn’t come down, again the sea spray and its mother settled the salt, it interferes with the correct operation of the Argentinean aviator systems, the bombs don’t explode, the fuses do not have time to come into a fighting position. Why did the British, in whom the planes generally stood on aircraft carriers, did not interfere with the use of sea salt and spray. Maybe the reason was different? Maybe it was necessary to service and operate the equipment and weapons correctly and in a timely manner. In a nutshell , for example, they put the fuse to use from a height of 3000 m, and throw it from 300 m, as a result of hitting the target, the fuse fails (during 2MB such cases were common), the bomb does not explode. So let the Argentines rejoice that they managed a slight fright.
        1. Santa Fe
          5 February 2014 14: 58
          0
          Quote: Fitter65
          .If I understand correctly, the Argentines won by returning the islands to the British? Why didn’t the bombs explode?

          It turns out that the Britons should say thanks to the stupid gunsmiths of the Argentine Air Force - all other countermeasures (fighter / air defense) were useless, only illiquid bomb detonators saved the situation

          Quote: Pimply
          without the Sea Harriers, the British would have lost that war

          They would lose if the Argentine gunsmiths and warrant storekeepers were a little more quick
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 February 2014 18: 08
        -1
        just lying the other way around
        there were more Argentines in 10 times
        Harrier - subsonic but super-maneuverable
        A mirage is supersonic, but not super-maneuverable. that's why they raked
        not a single unexploded bomb in the UDC of an aircraft carrier or floating shipyard jammed
        1. Santa Fe
          5 February 2014 18: 18
          +1
          Quote: Kassandra
          there were more Argentines in 10 times

          How many Mirages III were in the Argentine Air Force by the time the war began?
          Quote: Kassandra
          not a single unexploded bomb in the UDC of an aircraft carrier or floating shipyard jammed

          Stuck. "Sir Galahad" and "Sir Lancelot" were also bombed on the way (if it exploded - minus 700 marines and equipment)

          And do not forget, if bombs exploded and ships died, as expected, the following bombs would be intended for other ships. With each attack, the squadron’s fighting efficiency decreased, and Argentine attacks became more effective.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 5 February 2014 19: 04
            0
            All that remained for almost the entire war was recalled with an interesting wording "since the Falklands had no goals for them", and the Argentines began to avoid the battle using almost only Skyhawks
            Dagger on LTX - the same mirage, even better
            Harrier - Supersonic? Which was at the peak of only 22pcs?
            None of these two boats just got stuck - they worked.
            Why are you all starring again like Trotsky!
            It is bombed when the flood. Itself.
            Both of them were struck already after landing at San Carlos, after moving to a parking lot near PortStenley when the infantry relaxed on foot, decided to ride them, and then also sent them to cu officer, did not begin to unload and began to play soccer in the hold! English fools, the law is also unwritten.
            ..
            Bombs including unexploded bombs would still be dropped no longer.
            1. Santa Fe
              5 February 2014 19: 11
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              All that remained for almost the entire war was recalled with an interesting wording "since the Falklands had no goals for them", and the Argentines began to avoid the battle using almost only Skyhawks

              HOW MUCH Argentina had Mirages and Daggers

              Can you at least answer this question?
              Quote: Kassandra
              None of these two boats just got stuck - they worked.

              Stuck.

              On 24 May 1982 she was attacked by A-4 Skyhawks of the Argentine Air Force's IV Brigada Aérea and was hit by a 1000 pound bomb dropped by Lt. Luis Alberto "Tucu" Cervera's A-4, (which did not detonate) then strafed by Dagger fighter bombers. After removal of the unexploded bomb, she carried out supply runs to Teal Inlet along with RFA Sir Percivale.

              On the June 8 1982 while preparing to unload soldiers from the Welsh Guards in Port Pleasant, off Fitzroy, together with RFA Sir Tristram, the Sir Galahad was attacked by three A-4 Skyhawks from Argentine Air Force's V Brigada Aérea. [1] At approximately 14: 00 local time RFA Sir Galahad was hit by two or three bombs and set alight.[2] A total of 48 soldiers and crewman were killed in the explosions and subsequent fire.
              Quote: Kassandra
              Both of them were struck already after the landing at San Carlos,

              Do not lie
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 5 February 2014 19: 57
                0
                see here:
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_air_forces_in_the_Falklands_War
                note that this is "engaged" and not "all".
                it turns out that there are only 2 times as many supersonic engineers as there are Subsonic Harriers + 50 skyhoks
                Satisfied?
                all Latin America was about to harness for them, and Peru even tried with their AS-30.
                The only hit (in addition to triggering) in a ship carrying infantry was on 8 of June
                So you're lying - you. When did San Carlos land? It is impossible to be mistaken.
                1. Santa Fe
                  5 February 2014 20: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  note that this is "engaged" and not "all".

                  In order to "pay attention" and draw any conclusions, you need to know - how many Daggers were acquired? Mirages? Super Etendar for Aregentina Air Force? How many were there TOTAL?
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  all Latin America was going to harness for them

                  Chile offered its bases to the Royal Air Force - the proposal was rejected due to the reluctance to escalate the conflict
                  (however, British Canberra intelligence was based at the Chilean base of Agua Fresca)
                  The only hit (in addition to triggering) in a ship carrying infantry was on 8 of June

                  4 amphibious assault ship fell under the blows, of which Sir Galahad was attacked twice - on 24 of May and 8 of June.

                  This is a burnt out Sir Tristram - the landing party was lucky that the fuse at the bomb worked late, most managed to jump overboard
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 5 February 2014 20: 10
                    0
                    Looked at the link?
                    that's because not all but almost all engaged does not equal "everything" but supersonic aviation is deployed quickly.
                    and he’ve already unloaded to three hundred, it’s played football on Sir Galahad.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      5 February 2014 20: 17
                      0
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      from because not all but almost all engaged does not equal "all"

                      How many Argentina had Daggers and Mirages?
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 5 February 2014 20: 30
                        0
                        think less than was engaged?
                      2. Santa Fe
                        5 February 2014 20: 35
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        think less than was engaged?

                        Argentina had only 17 mirages, 30 daggers and 5 super ethandars

                        Is it 10 more than 38 harriers?
                      3. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 5 February 2014 21: 11
                        0
                        why did you forget about SUBSCRIBE (what were the harriers)?
                        the same Skyhawk on Bl.Evostok fought very much ..
                        Harriers there were 28 in total. more than 22 immediately engaged was not
                        farts tried to do the same as the infantry harriers
                        Canberra were still such British bombers from the Argentines
                      4. Santa Fe
                        5 February 2014 22: 39
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        why did you forget about SUBSCRIBE (what were the harriers)?

                        Argentinean Skyhawks had no missile weapons. And radar
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        farts tried to do the same as the infantry harriers

                        And were engaged
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Canberra were still such British bombers from the Argentines

                        Already 8 pieces
                        Could they have done something to Hariera?
                      5. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 6 February 2014 00: 23
                        0
                        definitely not? because red eye radar is not needed
                        ..
                        Well, the harriers were engaged - from this only military losses and suffered
                        ..
                        I think - no, since even mirages failed
                      6. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 6 February 2014 00: 24
                        0
                        ... although the B-52 might be able to.
  • Rubon
    Rubon 5 February 2014 00: 39
    0
    Thatcher phoned hysterically to Paris and in far from diplomatic language demanded that the French deactivate Exocet anti-ship missile codes, only recently Washigton admitted that he supplied all intelligence to the British. And as regards unexploded bombs, these are the costs of their long storage.
    1. Santa Fe
      5 February 2014 02: 31
      +2
      Quote: Rubon
      Thatcher phoned hysterically to Paris and in far from diplomatic language demanded from the French codes for the deactivation of anti-ship missiles Exoset

      ))

      Thatcher demanded to carry out the landing of special forces on Tierra del Fuego, burn the Super-Standards and kill all the pilots (Operation Mikado)
      This is really tin
      1. Rubon
        Rubon 5 February 2014 04: 50
        0
        Tin - this is what she threatened to use a limited nuclear strike, even the Americans asked her not to escalate passion. bully
      2. Rubon
        Rubon 5 February 2014 04: 50
        0
        Tin - this is what she threatened to use a limited nuclear strike, even the Americans asked her not to escalate passion. bully
        1. Beck
          Beck 5 February 2014 08: 48
          +1
          Quote: Rubon
          Thatcher phoned hysterically to Paris and in far from diplomatic language demanded from the French codes for the deactivation of anti-ship missiles Exoset


          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Thatcher demanded a special forces landing on Tierra del Fuego,


          Quote: Rubon
          Tin - this is what she threatened to use a limited nuclear strike, even the Americans asked her not to escalate passion.


          Thatcher never was hysterical, otherwise she would not have been given the nickname "Iron Lady". And she never threatened to use nuclear weapons in the Falklands conflict. At the beginning of the conflict, the United States, as an ally of England, offered military assistance, Thatcher refused.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 5 February 2014 18: 31
            +1
            The US has offered mediation! under the Pan-American treaty, they generally had to fight for Argentina if there was a blow to its territory or a raid on it. rather than fighting around the controversial.
            If Argentina wiped across Scotland, the Belize Gibralt or the Jersey Islands - then for England
            Ascension is no longer NATO’s area of ​​responsibility
      3. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 February 2014 18: 11
        0
        after this tin, the United States would be obliged, in accordance with the Pan-American Treaty, to help Argentina with military force
        1. Beck
          Beck 5 February 2014 18: 28
          0
          Quote: Kassandra
          after this tin, the United States would be obliged, in accordance with the Pan-American Treaty, to help Argentina with military force


          It would be if Argentina was a victim of aggression and it would be attacked. In the Falkland case, Argentina itself was the aggressor, it was she who first unleashed hostilities.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 5 February 2014 18: 51
            0
            the conflict was around the disputed territory, and they were already obliged to help, did not, and thus violated the contract.
            and if the blow was on her own, then according to the contract - unconditional participation in the database on the side of Argentina
            it was not in vain that all sorts of Exclusion Zone were conceived and Great Britain was not officially at war with Argentina. the fact that they scolded Belgrano outside it was also not very strong in their hands
            1. Beck
              Beck 5 February 2014 23: 25
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              the conflict was around the disputed territory,


              To assert this, one must not know history, but repeat the Argentinean pearls.

              Falkland Islands were discovered in 1591-1592 by the English navigator John Davis, the commanding ship on the expedition of the English corsair Thomas Cavendish, however, the Spaniards also claim the right to be the discoverers of the archipelago. Subsequently, the islands repeatedly passed from hand to hand. The indigenous population was not on them.

              The territory of present-day Argentina has been a colony of Spain since 1535. In 1816, this territory declared its independence from Spain and was called the United Province of South America.

              And only in 1853 the Constitution was adopted, according to which the United Provinces began to be called Argentina (that is, Argentina arose).

              And like the deserted Falkland Islands discovered by the British in 1591, they could belong to the state that did not exist at that time, Argentina. NONSENS.

              This is the fascist junta of Argentina in order to divert the attention of the people from the disastrous internal situation, called these islands not that disputed, but its original territory and unleashed a war.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 6 February 2014 00: 38
                0
                These are not Argentinean pearls but a fact. These islands were not discovered by the British or the Spaniards.
                The indigenous population there was only one who managed to be born there Argentine. Selected by England by force (they rummaged through armadillos along Argentine rivers)
                Now this is the homeland for thousands of British.
                The UN believes that they are controversial. at least it used to be so. Find and look at the old Soviet maps - painted over in white and below it says what’s what.
                1. Beck
                  Beck 6 February 2014 01: 32
                  0
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  The indigenous population there was only one who managed to be born there Argentine. Selected by England by force (they rummaged through armadillos along Argentine rivers)


                  Sucks! He has historical facts, and he is nonsense. Thousands of people have never lived in the Falklands. On the strength of 200 people of English citizenship.

                  You’d better rummage through the materials of history before carrying nonsense.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 6 February 2014 01: 39
                    0
                    first understand the concepts and look at wikipedia how many live there now.
                    1. Beck
                      Beck 6 February 2014 01: 49
                      0
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      Wikipedia how many live there now.


                      Zero did not print. It happens.
                  2. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 6 February 2014 03: 23
                    0
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands
                    see
                    some Indians seemed to be swimming there
                    they appeared on Portuguese maps as early as 1516; Magellan was still marking the islands, the first French colony in 1764.
                    then almost everyone immediately pushed their own, then the Spaniards who settled later the British bought the French, then they threw the British out by force, then the British returned with a roof, then because of the American Revolution the roof went away and a few years later the Spaniards squeezed it out again and stayed until 1780 alone, then because of the Napoleonic Wars they left the islands themselves too. then there are up to 1811 of whalers who just did not live. then from 1000 they began to shove in a new way, the Brazilians blocked the islands, then the Americans didn’t crush everything in 1820 and, frightened by this, in 1831 1833+ Argentines (one family and farm laborers) threw the British out and announced everything to their own. Since then they live there.
                    if briefly, and humanly ...
                    such a mess.
                    but the Argentines have very complicated relations with the British, even without Malvin, because then they, having cut their river monitors, roamed, looted and ruined everything they had, even on the continent, on all any navigable rivers. both wild semi-colonized patagonia and the densely populated core of the country.
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra 5 February 2014 18: 10
      0
      fuses are checked from time to time
      none of the bombs stuck in the UDC, personnel ship or aircraft carrier
  • Fitter65
    Fitter65 5 February 2014 07: 54
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Regarding duty on the air - this is what everyone has always done. Ours in Afghanistan - barraged over BTT columns. Now the Yankees are doing it

    Barrage over the column is one of the options for direct prikritie, but you as a specialist can call it a duty in the air.
    1. Santa Fe
      5 February 2014 14: 59
      0
      Quote: Fitter65
      Barrage over the column is one of the options for direct prikritie, but you as a specialist can call it a duty in the air.

      Does this somehow change the essence of the matter?
  • Ro-man
    Ro-man 5 February 2014 08: 28
    0
    Quote: supertiger21
    As far as I know, in 1986, the Americans used the F-14 in an aerial battle against the Libyan MiG-23. Two Libyan twins were shot down. The Libyans themselves also announced two victories over the F-14.

    They used F-111s from airbases in the UK and A-6s, A-7s from aircraft carriers. The attack was sudden and it did not come to air battles.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 5 February 2014 12: 46
      0
      Quote: Ro-Man
      They used F-111s from airbases in the UK and A-6s, A-7s from aircraft carriers.


      And why didn’t they mention the F-14s that intercepted the Libyan aircraft? There was no secret to anyone that there was an air battle.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 February 2014 18: 29
        0
        at a glance, cadets training over the sea with one PTB were shot down
        Su-xnumx is not a fighter to bring him down is not a problem
        in terms of thrust-weight ratio, the Tomkets were able to catch up to the level of the instant of 1983 only in 1994 when those traces got cold, and the AIM-54 is an anti-bombing missile
        1. Santa Fe
          5 February 2014 18: 54
          +1
          Quote: Kassandra
          Su-xnumx is not a fighter to bring him down is not a problem

          Dagger is not a fighter, knocking him down is not a problem
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 5 February 2014 19: 13
            0
            Dagger is a fighter. This is a lightweight mirage-5.
            However, "Multi-role fighter aircraft"
    2. Aljavad
      Aljavad 5 February 2014 23: 18
      0
      there were also "incidents in the Gulf of Sidr", Gaddafi declared its territorial waters, but the states did not recognize it. Not Migi, but Su-22.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 5 February 2014 12: 43
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Seriously, why are you so surprised? After all, the plane is not alone. There are usually dozens and hundreds of aircraft in the theater of operations - what is the problem with keeping the "duty unit" somewhere over the Pandersher Gorge for several days in a row, where an operation is underway to eliminate the detachment of spirits


    You know, I personally "had the pleasure" to take part in such operations, watching the picture from the point of view of an aviation specialist providing such work. So I can definitely tell you - everything is far from what is shown in Hollywood. Or rather, not at all.

    Firstly, it is possible to support any operation from the "air watch" position only if it is ours, a pre-planned operation. (and it is highly desirable that she would go and develop according to the plan - which is fantastic in itself). Because the duration of even the simplest ground operation such as wiring a caravan is measured in days and in the air the plane can hold for a few hours, and even from this time you need to throw out the time to take off, fly to the patrol area and then leave a reserve for the return, bearing in mind the stock for combat maneuvering. Those. to provide a continuous air umbrella over the column with at least a couple, at least a regiment must work. And even in this case, the umbrella will not turn out to be solid. Equipment failure, disruption of service time. gouge the driver with ABATO who punctured the TK wheel and did not submit it on time ... Thousands and thousands of reasons that lead to the fact that one pair has already flown away and the second has not yet arrived. And even reservation will not help - because in order to put the reserve into operation, you still need to understand that the schedule is disrupted - and this usually becomes known when it is too late. + accumulating fatigue l / s - after all, "air watch" for an air unit is like a continuous battle. The intensity of resource consumption is absolutely the same. By the way, for this reason, they even try not to apply the "duty in the cockpit" mode without urgent need. It is impossible to keep a person in a state of constant "brute".
    And this is all true for our operation. Unfortunately, the enemy, such a bastard, does not inform us at what point and where exactly he plans to strike. (Not to mention the fact that the first thing he will try to do is to block all the airfields he knows - remember I wrote about the camouflage of the runway?) And at the same time, the "pair on duty", even while in the air, most likely stupidly will not have time to get accurate target designation, not to mention the fact that she can simply run out of fuel at the very moment when the "earth" will hysterically demand to inflict a bomb attack on the "spirits" hollowing out the checkpoint. For this reason, both during the Second World War and later, the problem of "jump airfields" - reducing the "reaction time" of requests for air support was extremely important. That is why no one even thinks of abandoning "vertical aircraft" as well as "convertiplanes" and "high-speed helicopters" - because only machines of "non-aerodrome start and landing" can provide operational support in a rapidly changing operational situation and at the same time not ruin their Air Force ...
    1. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 5 February 2014 15: 27
      +1
      How many chances does the Harrier \ Yak-38 \ Mi-24 \ AH-1 \ "yes-anything-without-aerodrome-start-and-posad
      ki "to support the ambushed troops until the death of the unit / column / checkpoint, or until the enemy safely retreats, with a reaction time of 20 minutes? What is the duration of the battle, for example, when spirits attack a convoy in Afghanistan? Why is this iron needed on the ground? If it should already be in the air? Let it be half the time. Third. On the most dangerous sections of the route / during the most probable attack.
      There is a risk that we will be on earth when we need to be in the sky. But if you are always on duty on earth, then will the soldiers really have more chances to survive? After all, no vertical line is singing if the count goes on for minutes. And if there is no special hurry, then why all this hemorrhoids? Call normal airstrike. There are tasks for which air watch cannot be replaced. My vision of the matter, with respect. hi

      PS When other characteristics are satisfied, then, of course, vertical take-off is a fairy tale. But did Harriers take off vertically? Why such a vertical take-off, if you don’t take anything to the sky with you, then you will have to fight back with your bare ass then smile
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 February 2014 18: 26
        +1
        Yaks managed to do before in Afghanistan
    2. Santa Fe
      5 February 2014 15: 30
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Those. in order to provide a continuous air umbrella above the column, at least a couple should work at least a regiment

      And ok
      Quote: Taoist
      The intensity of resource consumption is absolutely the same. By the way, for this reason, they even try not to apply the "duty in the cockpit" mode without urgent need. It is impossible to keep a person in a state of constant "brute".

      Quote: Taoist
      Failure of equipment, failure of service time. gouge the driver with ABATO who punctured the wheel of the TK and did not file it on time ..

      Wow

      Just look at any major airport - for 300 take-offs / landings per day. Boeings without unnecessary conversations load fuel, food, luggage, check systems, take on board hundreds of people - and again in the air, 11 hours across the ocean, without stopping and landing.

      Delays happen - but VERY rarely and almost always due to the weather. (In the case we are considering, this would not matter, because neither the VTOL aircraft nor the hornet fly in a strong fog, regardless of the time spent in the air). moreover, civilian airlines operate without reservation - Airbus is not nearby, ready to fly right away instead of a Boeing

      Elephant Parade at Heathrow, planes arrive without stopping - and the same line for takeoff
  • Taoist
    Taoist 5 February 2014 17: 11
    0
    It is difficult to explain to the deaf the whole charm of music, but we will argue about the taste of oranges with the person who ate them.

    By the way, after commissioning in 1989, I worked for a while at our airport as a technician ... So I’ll reveal a "terrible secret" - delays at airports often happen and not at all because of the weather. Despite the fact that comparing the combat work of a regiment with regular flights of an airline is like comparing flat to soft ... (as well as comparing the resources and regulations of civil aircraft with their combat brothers). Yes, and working in an airport is somewhat different than working from a military airfield (especially if it is not a "native" airfield - and in fact, in the conditions of hostilities, "native bands" cannot be enough) - you know the infrastructure is different and the number of personnel is also different.
    1. Santa Fe
      5 February 2014 17: 30
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      delays at airports often happen and not at all because of the weather

      Not as often as you scare it
      Quote: Taoist
      While comparing the combat work of a regiment with regular flights of an airline is like comparing a plane with a soft

      What is the fundamental difference?

      The fact that civilian airlines fly without reservation? And they have more than% of their time in the air?
      Quote: Taoist
      regulations of civil aircraft with their war brothers

      They have different time in the air - a Boeing can spend in flight over 12 hours. And without a long stop, go back
      Quote: Taoist
      working in an airport is somewhat different from working from a military airfield (especially if it is not a "native" airfield - and you cannot find enough food in the battlefield) - you know the infrastructure is different and the number of personnel is also different.

      The load of the international airport and airbase is disproportionate. Take-off / landing every few minutes - without stopping, for months

      Nobody requires this from the military - organize a vigil in the air for the duration of the operation, and you can relax
      Quote: Taoist
      It is difficult to explain to the deaf the whole charm of music, but we will argue about the taste of oranges with the person who ate them.

      So what about the AUGs that constantly cover combat air patrols?
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 February 2014 18: 22
        -1
        are you friends with your head? the man explained to you who did it all with his hands! Yo
        in AUG, most planes are on deck or in the hold and pilots rest on their bunks and spit on the ceiling
        1. Fitter65
          Fitter65 6 February 2014 03: 31
          0
          This comrade has two opinions on this issue. One of them, and the second is not correct.
    2. Fitter65
      Fitter65 6 February 2014 04: 52
      0
      Why throw a bisser in front of a person not competent in this matter. If he doesn’t understand the elementary. It’s not for nothing that a knowledgeable person speaks not who knows a lot, but who knows what’s needed. he equates to flying along a route, what is there to discuss.
      And, for the all-knowing, at large airlines, at the base airports there are always on board the reserve, which are ready to fly to replace the failed one. Several times in the same Emelyanovo, had to change from one side to another, once the engine failed while taxiing, returned to the peron , after boarding a backup plane, we flew to Novosibirsk, the second time after boarding a plane at launch, one of the systems failed, we had to change planes again (by the way from Airbas to Yak-42). Once in Tolmachevo we were transferred to the other side ... Years (in my opinion) two years ago, after landing at our airport, one of the systems failed, after 6 (six) hours the other side came and completed the flight. So dear SWEET_SIXTEEN if the plant (garden plant-horseradish) understand the issue, or do not know him at all, do not sport with those who are in this matter (maintenance, operation, use