Difficult fate "Vayntisinko de Mayo"

35
The Argentine aircraft carrier Veinticinco de Mayo (May 25, Veinticinco de Mayo) is a ship with a very ironic fate. Built in the UK, he fought against his former homeland, after which he went for disposal to the former British colony of India. Another irony is that all the states under whose flag he served, experienced the decline of their naval fleet: Britain, Holland, Argentina. He did not bring military luck to any country.



The Wenerable (the future Waintissinko de Mayo) belonged to the Colossus class and in many ways resembled a reconstructed civilian ship more than a ship originally built for the needs of the Royal Navy. He had an extremely weak booking and a small displacement even for aircraft carriers of the time - only 16 000 tons. Such savings arose under the conditions of the Second World War, when Britain (as well as other powers that fought at sea) required as simple an aircraft carrier unit as possible in the shortest possible time.

In January, 1945, the new ship entered service. His wing was made up of British "Barracuda" and American fighter "Corsair" in deck modification. Since the fate of Germany at that time was almost decided in the land battles, "Venerabel" had to fight in the Pacific against the Japanese Empire. But here, too, he did not take part, except in the capture of Hong Kong by the British - with the almost complete absence of Japanese resistance.

After the war, Great Britain found itself in a difficult situation: its empire was cracking, and its finances crashed and many ships went under the hammer, including the Venable, which was sold to Holland, where it underwent a radical modernization and was renamed Karel Doorman. If the Netherlands initially used it as an escort aircraft carrier, then in recent years of service it rather resembled anti-submarine because of a large bias towards helicopters and PLO aircraft.

The only relatively serious operation in which Karel Doorman managed to take part under the Dutch flag was a "demonstration of force" in 1960, off the coast of Western New Guinea, to which Indonesia claimed in those years. The Netherlands planned to grant this colony independence and unite it with the Australian part of the island, so it was decided to intimidate Jakarta and make it tremble before the power of the Dutch spirit. The aircraft carrier, accompanied by two destroyers and a tanker, nevertheless, did not cause much fright in Indonesians, and Western New Guinea was captured and annexed by them.

Of the other notable episodes in the Dutch part of the ship’s life, we can note the visit to Japan in honor of the 350 anniversary and the establishment of relations between the countries and the fire that became the formal reason for selling the ship to Argentina.

Difficult fate "Vayntisinko de Mayo"


It is worth mentioning that the Dutch invested heavily in the modernization of the ship, radars, air defense systems were replaced, the deck and mechanisms of the air finisers were strengthened, the “island” was completely rebuilt. However, after the loss of Pacific possessions, such a ship could not afford a small country and in 1968 it was sold to Argentina, where it again changed its name to “Veintisinko de Mayo”. In Buenos Aires, the purchase was considered successful. They got a relatively new and recently upgraded carrier deck aviationwhich is now based on the A-4 Skyhawk carrier-based attack aircraft.

The first conflict for the new ship under the flag of Argentina could have taken place already in 1978, when the leadership of this country planned to use it in the war against Chile over the Picton Islands, Lenox and Nueva. But then the war between the two military junta was miraculously avoided.

By the beginning of the 1980's, Argentines, not without reason, considered the British lion weak enough to be escorted from the South Atlantic. And first of all from the Falkland Islands, to which Argentina has claimed since its inception. “Veintisinko de Mayo” in this conflict was to play one of the main roles, first with the support of the landing, then when patrolling the area adjacent to the islands. Already after it became known about the withdrawal of the British squadron, plans for striking enemy aircraft carriers with Skyhawks began to be worked out. But 1 May 1982, when the strike was planned, the gale prevented the stormtroopers from taking off. The ensuing catastrophe with the torpedoing of the cruiser "General Belgrano" finally convinced the Argentinean command of the futility of the naval duel and the aircraft carrier was recalled from the combat zone. After that, the outcome of the conflict was actually predetermined.



After the war, Buenos Aires did not have money to upgrade the ship. In 1997, the aircraft carrier was excluded from the fleet. Separate mechanisms were sold to Brazil. For example, a catapult was used on the Brazilian aircraft carrier Minas Gerais. Ultimately, "Weintisinko de Mayo" was sold and cut into metal in the Indian Alang. Replacing decommissioned "Weintisinko de Mayo" with a new aircraft carrier turned out to be too expensive.
35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    3 January 2015 08: 22
    “Charles de Gaulle”: ship-disaster — I highly recommend reading it, interestingly. Yes http://infoglaz.ru/?p=42613
    1. -7
      3 January 2015 09: 15
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      “Charles de Gaulle”: ship-disaster — I highly recommend reading it, interestingly. Yes http://infoglaz.ru/?p=42613

      The speed of de Gaulle decreased to 24 ... 25 knots, while the entire stern was unsuitable for the life and work of the crew - vibration and noise reached 100 dB.
      Nonsense. The author does not imagine what a noise level of 100dB is - a loud automobile signal at a distance of 5-7 m, a blacksmith shop, a very noisy factory;
      Aircraft carrier de Gaulle successfully completed its mission
      1. +13
        3 January 2015 13: 05
        A loud car signal lasts, as a rule, a second. Another thing is if 100 dB is hollowed in your ears continuously 24 hours a day. In accordance with the sanitary standards in force in our country (SN 2.2.4 / 2.1.8.562-96), the maximum permissible sound level at the workplace should not exceed 80 dB. This is true for ship systems.
        Well, vibration in dB is certainly not measured.
      2. ICT
        +5
        3 January 2015 14: 16
        Quote: professor
        blacksmith shop, a very noisy factory;


        woodworking workshops as an example, I think there are noises and more, but even there shifts last 8 hours with a break for lunch
    2. +11
      3 January 2015 23: 17
      If you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser!
      1. +5
        4 January 2015 05: 05
        Better yet, an aircraft carrier :)
        1. Kassandra
          +2
          4 January 2015 10: 01
          did England go bankrupt at Atlantic Causeway redoing it in 3 days from a container ship to an aircraft carrier?
        2. 0
          6 January 2015 00: 03
          Mistral, and preferably two, to give to Ukraine, without the right to sell.
      2. 0
        5 January 2015 21: 54
        If you have a foe - give him an old car.
    3. +1
      4 January 2015 21: 23
      This is the article of our Oleg Kaptsov (aka SWEET_SICXTEEN) !!!
      1. 0
        5 January 2015 11: 27
        Quote: viktorR
        This is the article of our Oleg Kaptsov (aka SWEET_SICXTEEN) !!!

        Well, it's fine!) good
  2. +4
    3 January 2015 08: 31
    At first it was unpromising to apply, then it is expensive to replace. Why is there a serious fleet at all for a country with thousands of kilometers of coastline? They would buy more faxes, and if anything, send out protest notes to all adversaries. Surely, after the Falkland War, the military thought, but if all the same .... And why wouldn’t they take a misral from the Hfransuz, at least one loan, they would buy helicopters from Russia, put a misral at the bay, and look at the boat for about eleven years , and then with India, where he does the most. You look, and the gastons found money to pay Russia. And what an idea.
    1. +4
      3 January 2015 08: 37
      Quote: Aleksiy
      And why would they not take the Misral from the Hfransuz, at least one from the loan,

      Nizza - the British would be very offended, they have not forgotten about the "Exocet" Folkland. And here such "swing" - land the troops - I do not want.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        3 January 2015 13: 45
        what i don't want? they will sink it like Belgrano and that's it, and the planes still knock it down without loss.
  3. +2
    3 January 2015 11: 18
    When do the Latins finally realize that they are just pawns on the Grand Chessboard.
  4. +6
    3 January 2015 11: 23
    Yeah ... it is a pity that the Argentines died and did not dare to attack the British. another large ship sunk by the Argentines would be tantamount to defeat.
  5. +1
    3 January 2015 12: 51
    Quote: Volozhanin
    When do the Latins finally realize that they are just pawns on the Grand Chessboard.



    So what ? Well, they realized that the pawns ... Then what? Raise your hands and go give up? Is this your method?
  6. +19
    3 January 2015 13: 05
    For the first time since World War II, someone independently fought a naval battle against Western aggressors (Vietnam and Korea fought on land and used our and Chinese help) - Argentina can be respected even for that.
    And I must say the battle was given in earnest - despite the US space target designation (the drowning of the cruiser by the British with the help of the states) and the general superiority of the Losax nags

    Could not then - But power is not in money but in truth - and of course Argentina will return Malvins illegally occupied by the aggressor

    "... During the Falklands Conflict, up to 60 personnel, over 000 ships and vessels and up to 180 combat aircraft took part in hostilities on both sides. During this period of the Falklands War, Great Britain lost two Sheffield-class missile destroyers. ", two Ardent-class missile frigates, a large amphibious assault ship, a container ship Atlantic Conveyor. British losses in aviation - 350 aircraft, 10 helicopters. Losses in people: 24 killed, 225 wounded.
    In the Falkland War, Argentina lost a cruiser, a submarine, a patrol boat, a frigate, three vehicles, a trawler and two boats. Loss of Aviation - 142 aircraft. Losses in people: 690 killed, 186 wounded. Noteworthy is the large difference in aviation losses between the two sides, which is associated with the active use by the British of electronic countermeasures, especially clouds of dipole reflectors, which Argentina did not have.
    1. Viktor Kudinov
      +4
      3 January 2015 16: 11
      In such a situation, using this aircraft carrier by Argentina was useless. He could hardly have changed the outcome of the war, and its losses would have been higher. sad
      1. +9
        3 January 2015 17: 33
        I agree Victor! They couldn’t win anyway - there would have been more victims - the Argentines did everything right - when they saw that the mattresses were targeting the Los Losax atomarians, they took the large ships and continued the air attacks by exosets - they didn’t drown the NATO ships for so long - well done!

        I read today an article about the priorities to whom the Chinese provide large-scale economic assistance - now the third country is named (of course, the Russian Federation - for the sake of the day) - but before that Argentina and Venezuela were on their list

        In 10-15 years, when the amerovsky and anti-American blocs will be formed, I am sure that Argentina and Venezuela with the Alba countries will become the "first attackers" in the team in the anti-American and anti-Western bloc
      2. Kassandra
        -1
        3 January 2015 21: 57
        if he had suddenly changed, then most likely they would simply fit in for the Saxon Saxons ...
      3. 0
        6 January 2015 21: 49
        But Americans still remember Japanese kamikaze with a shudder.
    2. +4
      3 January 2015 20: 43
      The British Falklands, the Russian South Kuril Islands feel a subtle connection, and what their loss means to each state (for example, the loss of Port Arthur was once a colossal humiliation for Russia), and as for military aggressors, decide without bias (Operation Rosario 2.04.1982 )
      1. 0
        6 January 2015 21: 54
        Port Arthur is not a good example. There are problems with the tides and the coastline. Yes, and communication and supply are under constant threat. Yes, and he was not the property of Russia initially.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. 0
      10 January 2015 12: 42
      Only here the Argentine infantry in that war showed no stamina, so that the Anglo-Saxons deservedly checked out on its axis Argentina. And the fleet command hoped mainly that after sinking several ships they would be able to force the British to abandon further operations - and it won’t work out.
      PS And if only if only - if only "Exocets" in Argentina would have a couple of dozen, and fresher bombs - it would be an order of magnitude more significant than the participation of one non-aircraft carrier in battles.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        20 January 2015 16: 52
        Are you sure that you know everything about that war? the Argentine infantry fought there without air cover from bombing attacks by harriers, for example.
  7. 0
    3 January 2015 18: 10
    Yes, the pale and dull combat path of an aircraft carrier, albeit a "pocket" one. crying
    1. +2
      4 January 2015 08: 08
      very similar to Kuznetsov and more like a pot .....
  8. +2
    3 January 2015 19: 25
    This story teaches - it’s not enough to have, you need to be able to correctly dispose. And if you can’t use it profitably, then there’s nothing to spend money on.
  9. +1
    3 January 2015 19: 53
    About vibration. On the German "pocket battleships", at full speed, in the wardroom, officers corresponded on special tablets. So if an hour, you can hardly endure, but if more ... That's it.
  10. +2
    3 January 2015 19: 53
    By hiding the fleet in the ports, the Argentines simply surrendered the Malvins without a fight, and actually "merged" the war.
    almost like in Russian-Japanese - they lost the fleet there was no sense in fighting anymore - only the Japanese army could be defeated, but not Japan
    if the destroyers of the Argentinean fleet were weak enough, but the English were no better, but the strike of the aircraft carrier’s wing could drive off the British landing ships, and even more so gain time by setting Latin America against Britain, and it was possible to defeat the same.
    1. +3
      3 January 2015 19: 58
      Well, a little bit wrong. The fleets of England and Argentina - they simply can not be compared. Yes, and with the materiel, the Argentines had big problems. Air bombs - almost 70 percent did not explode, etc. By the way, an interesting article about this conflict was pleased here. I remember how they studied it at the school. Once I studied at this time at VVMU.
    2. Kassandra
      +1
      3 January 2015 22: 21
      not quite the same as with Argentina and with Russia ...

      the aircraft carrier would most likely go to the bottom like the "Admiral Belgrano", and since it operated from the North, it is possible even without the Americans' satellite guidance
      in fact, small Britain would never have returned the Malvins if Argentina had placed at least one squadron of its supersonic aircraft on them.
      although the harriers were constantly beating them in the BVB, acting directly from the Falkland to break through at the supersonic sound to the English fleet and melt only 2-7 key ships (two LPDs, two aircraft carriers and another 3 conversion aircraft carriers) would not be a problem for the Argentines. knowing this RN would never have stuck at the islands.
      The model could only be South. George would be returned so that it would not be offensive at all.

      The Russian Empire was quite able to throw Japan out of Korea and from China, and this was a victory for Japan, by no means bully . but without attack aircraft at that time it would have been extremely difficult to land through the narrow straits to Japan proper, unlike 1945.
      The war actually ceased in 1905 because all the same countries + the USA were already preparing to fit in with Japan as they had fit into the Crimean War for Turkey half a century before.
  11. +1
    3 January 2015 20: 21
    the fleets are different, but the Argentine bases are clearly closer!

    Yes, and it made sense to start everything if everyone ran away right away ??
    1. Kassandra
      +3
      3 January 2015 22: 36
      as if due to the fact that the Falklands were not in NATO’s area of ​​responsibility, the states had to be neutral, and in the event of any actions against Argentina itself (and British commandos landed there, who later left for Chile) they had to take its side. neither one nor the other happened. on the contrary, they began to supply the British with satellite intelligence - Belgrano was drowned on their tip.

      they did not have modern technology to combat British nuclear submarines, and even with American "eyes".
  12. Kassandra
    +1
    3 January 2015 22: 44
    Without bias, the Falklands are rightfully more Argentine than British, but keep in mind that the British have been living there for 180 years (at the time of the conflict - 150)

    As for the Kuril Islands, Russia even has rights to the northern half of Hokkaido (most of it), because the samurai at one time squeezed the Cossacks out of there.
    Hokkaido was not drawn on any Japanese map until the middle of the 19th century. there was only one Japanese village on it in the very south, when the Cossacks landed in its north, and the Yapis still fought with the Ainu with might and main, or rather, carried out their genocide.
  13. +2
    3 January 2015 23: 02
    The British were lucky in that war, like the Japanese were in the Russian-Japanese war of 1905. Well, most of the arg bombs did not explode. All torpedoes fired by her submarine turned out to be faulty. There were only 6 missiles (5 actually Argentine and 1 helped Peru). Well, a plus to that naval dumbass, when Argentine submarines were not given MANPADS. If there were MANPADS on the boats, they would not have lost the boats. Plus, the same naval principle led to the fact that the second boat was not sent on a military campaign, after all 4 released "SST" were faulty during emergency firing.
    Plus to this, to be honest, Argentina did not have a chance of winning all on the same naval dumbass. Suffice it to say that they placed minefields from a surface ship, not from submarines. As a result, the British boat followed the minefields and, almost immediately after they were completed, transferred the minefield plans to London. Plus, the outdated Mk-44 torpedoes of the Argentine anti-submarine aircraft could not hit the British nuclear submarines. Although the Argentine Navy tried as best it could. And attacked 3 British submarines. And even damaged 1 of them.

    But it is comforting that the USSR defeated Japan in the next war. So Argentina will defeat England in the next war. Soon, several dozen Su-24s will appear in the Argentine Air Force. Argentina may buy our MiGs for them. And then our anti-ship aircraft missiles. Argentina has already dealt with the torpedoes and all the remaining SSTs are already fully operational. They were sold by the Germans to be unfit for action initially. In general, the Argentine fleet has become smaller, but more combat-ready. So the second series is ahead.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      3 January 2015 23: 14
      the air force there was -ism and not naval - one squadron of supersonic fighter-bombers based not on the mainland of Argentina but on the Falklands and no English fleet would have approached them ...

      Argentina wanted in 1989 to buy a Yak, but they did not sell it to them - they gave it to Lokhida ... the market, you understand! laughing
      she will not recapture the islands with the Su-24 alone; rather, they will knock them down from eurofighter.
      1. 0
        3 January 2015 23: 17
        Su-24 are attack aircraft. It is clear that after them Argentina will buy fighter jets.

        And in order that jet aircraft could be based on the islands there needed an air base capable of receiving them. There, during the war, the S-130 could land with great risk. Namely, naval hollowing led to the fact that a collapsible strip for aircraft could only be loaded onto transports in early May, when Argentine transports could no longer arrive on the islands.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          3 January 2015 23: 23
          it is clear that if "something does not change", then they will not be sold to her ...

          The United States and NATO are now doing everything possible to do this, so soon they can really start to gnaw around the edges ...

          S-130 is a heavy aircraft however ...
          ship modifications of planes quite fit on the one that was. when using non-short stripes of land aircraft with devices that are hooked on their landing gear, the resource is consumed only 4 times faster.
          1. 0
            3 January 2015 23: 29
            If we sold the Su-24, then we will sell the MiGs. In the current situation, the opinion of the United States will be of no concern to us. There is a great opportunity to test the latest NATO weapons systems in battle, and it would be a sin not to take advantage of this. I think that Russia may even give 40 pieces of old MiG-29s to Argentina. More precisely to sell. Also sell her modern missiles, torpedoes. Then to test it all in a real battle with NATO ships. And then - NATO hasn't started a war on the borders (Ukraine), why can't we return NATO to a small war for the islands?
            Argentina did not have jets capable of landing on that strip.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              3 January 2015 23: 36
              Yes, not a fact - they threw them with Yak in the late 80s ...

              I personally am sorry if 3 thousand Englishmen have to leave or make room on those islands, but English and American pride are not at all bully
              it would be my will, not only to Argentina but also to Mexico with Guatemala, I presented several NJBs - let the Republic of Texas be taken back and much more ...

              everything was with Argentina - the same planes still fly from much shorter Swiss lanes.
              1. 0
                3 January 2015 23: 40
                And I personally do not regret the British from the islands at all. When the English ships approached the islands, they generously gave the Argentines 48 hours to get out of the islands completely. Why is it also impossible to do with the British?

                Then there was a military junta in Argentina. Pure American strip. This is about the same if now Germany decided to buy our MiG-35s. They will not be sold to her either. And now Argentina has a normal government. Not US gasket.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  3 January 2015 23: 51
                  there was only one Argentine family, and only one baby was born on the islands. before that, everyone there was chasing others, but Argentina generally had more rights.

                  both then and now it's not about Argentina, but about the "pro-English" lobby in the Russian Federation
  14. 0
    3 January 2015 23: 58
    If a decision is made to sell weapons to Argentina, they will be sold. Because decisions on military-technical cooperation are always made by the head of state. We have it Putin. And if we sell Su-24 there, then Putin said that we will sell weapons to Argentina. And all the "lobbies" can go forest and field after that.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      4 January 2015 09: 17
      Well, why did you have to sell the Su-24, which Argentina does not really need, and not the Su-34 or Su-27 for example?
      1. 0
        4 January 2015 11: 42
        Su-24 bomber. Shock aircraft. Argentina needs him to sink and destroy the English ships of the British troops on the islands.

        We ourselves do not have Su-34 in sufficient quantities, and they are not for sale.
        And the Su-27 as a strike aircraft is not very good, to say the least.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          4 January 2015 12: 00
          without the Su-27, he would not accomplish his task.
          1. 0
            4 January 2015 12: 13
            The MiG-29 will cover perfectly. Su-27 will also be able to. And about the future deliveries of fighters to Argentina, I already wrote a little higher.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              4 January 2015 12: 25
              MiG-29e can not beat a jointly working pair of Typhoon and Harrier. It can only Su-27
              Are you sure they will be?
              1. 0
                4 January 2015 12: 33
                It may well. There are old MiG-29s and old Su-27s. All the first modifications. They may well be sold. Both those and those. For the MiG-29 Harrier is only a flying target.
                Well, plus to this, England had only 1 aircraft carrier. Yes, and the Harriers themselves ....
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  4 January 2015 12: 52
                  so what so far they have not sold them the su-27? ... is something bothering you?

                  cannot, however ... MiG-29 vs. Harrier in the BVB is a draw, and if you try to get out of it, the MiG-29 will be shot down by Eurofighter, or any other supersonic aircraft. when attempting to evade a missile attack of the latter, they are again pulled into the BVB with a subsonic harrier.

                  Harriers themselves (70pcs) the United States on occasion will sell them back ... there are pilots.
                  and with such an aircraft, an aircraft carrier of special construction is not particularly needed; it, like during WWII, can be based on any conversion ship from a civilian vessel.
                  this was done in 1982 in just a few days at the port plus 2 weeks on the way to the islands.
                  1. +4
                    4 January 2015 13: 15
                    They still haven’t sold it, since Argentina itself didn’t ask us. I sometimes read args and their discussions. There the problem is that for the operation of Russian equipment it is necessary to restructure the work of the Ministry of Defense of Argentina, and the Argentines are too lazy to do it. Therefore, they are trying to preserve the weapons service system to purchase Western weapons. Moreover, knowing well that they either will not sell it to them at all, or they will sell it to the defective and faulty.
                    And Harriers for the MiG-29, even in 1991 during the war in Iraq, were not the enemy.
                    The Args also had a discussion about the need to update the PLO forces. They understand that the West will not sell them anything of high quality, and that buying Russian weapons will need to rebuild their armed forces. So the best offer for the PLO is the Russian "Ka-27PL". There is also a Russian proposal for anti-submarine torpedoes for verts. Only now the "Ka-27PL" does not fit in height into the hangars of Argentine ships. And they need to upgrade ships by increasing the height of the hangars. So far, I have seen the words that if it is not possible to buy anywhere, then the roofs of hangars will be remodeled. But so far they have not started this.
                    Nor did they begin to buy Russian tanks for the same reason of the need to rebuild the entire Argentine Defense Ministry. And the Su-24 has now been requested purely to verify whether Argentina can effectively operate Russian weapons. If it can, then Argentina will begin to purchase weapons from us. And if he can’t, then first the args will rebuild their defense ministry to operate Russian weapons, and only then buy weapons from us.
                    On the submarines of Argentina, the same situation. A few years ago, he spoke on this issue with the Argentines. Their boats are western. Therefore, our Russian export weapons do not go there. Torpedo tubes on Argentine boats are shorter, and our weapons do not climb in length there.
                    With surface ships the same crap - you need to rebuild the entire ship-based system for our projects.
                    In general, in Argentina, there is a clear understanding that the West will not sell them good weapons, but it’s scary to remodel all its defense ministers under Russian weapons. Judging by the order for the su-24 Argentina decided on this.
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      4 January 2015 13: 28
                      contacted back in 80-90 .. every year several times to contact chtoli?
                      they weren’t sold, citing just the conflict with the islands ...

                      Harrier is what kept the Serbian MiG-29 on the ground almost all the time in 1999

                      How does the Argentine Ministry of Defense conflict with Russian tanks by standards? winked

                      Russian ships like that at ports around the world call ...
                      TA on the submarine - yes, it’s difficult. only here to shorten a torpedo for them in the Russian Federation - it’s not enough complicated.
                      1. +4
                        4 January 2015 13: 38
                        I have never read Argentines about the fact that Argentina turned to Russia for airplanes. Args often write who or what they tried to buy, but I never read about calls to us there. All just moaning about the fact that the armed forces of Argentina can not buy Russian weapons. And the last order for Swedish aircraft was just from this opera (Western weapons). And the order for the Su-24 was discussed. But the order for the su-27 or MiG-29 - I have not read this. Discussions were. And there were no orders or appeals. I can also say that they also discussed the procurement of Russian submarines, but decided to first repair and finish building their submarines.

                        As for the Serbian MiG-29s - this is probably the mark of victories on their MiG-29s from the Harriers appeared. ;)

                        I'm not talking about the building of the Ministry of Defense of Argentina, but about the system of material and technical maintenance of equipment. It is fundamentally different for Western technology and ours. In everything. Starting from spare parts and repair plants and ending with fuel and oils. I'm not talking about ammunition. As well as about the fact that it will be necessary from scratch to stockpile ammunition for Russian equipment. Under the same our tanks will need to rebuild the tank repair plant. Build new warehouses for new ammunition and equipment. Carry out bulk purchases of spare parts, fuels, oils, ammunition and other things. Argentine tankers will have to learn anew to use Russian tanks. We'll have to learn how to shoot anti-tank missiles from tanks and so on ...

                        As for ships, it’s one thing to go in — another thing to constantly be based on. I can simply say that ship power systems of the Russian and American (Western standard) are different. And in order for the ship of our project to be based in a base in Argentina, it will be necessary to change the power supply system of the base and build new transformer stations. Plus, new purchases of fuel, oils, spare parts, ammunition and so on. Plus, there are fundamentally different weapons systems under which you need to retrain sailors.
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        4 January 2015 14: 23
                        I read in passing even with them about all this ... even interested in "Rhombus" with Yaks in Afghanistan.

                        and the marks of the pedal were precisely put in accordance with their fact? and then the Ishigans are also amateurs all the victories with the F-15 reached with the guidance of missiles from the American AWACS on interlink rewrite the great and terrible F-16 ...

                        fuel for aviation and oil for some reason - maybe, but spare parts and accessories come with a gun. ships however call at the port to refuel mainly for food.
                        a transformer with other tees on the output is also not a problem.
                        I think that it will be less difficult for them to get 10 squadrons from Russia than one Exoset from France bully
                      3. +2
                        4 January 2015 14: 28
                        Exactly. Once I was looking for information about the work of the air defense systems of the ships of the Yugoslav Navy in that war. And by chance I found the results of the work of the Air Force and Air Defense of Yugoslavia. They are posted on my website in the topic "I was looking for one, but I found ..." From the western segment of the Internet, that article has already been successfully cleaned, but I have it.
                        A transformer is not one. In each base it is necessary to do 2 parallel power supply systems for 2 types of power supply. And this is another trifle.

                        As for the Exosets - you think correctly, only this is what keeps args from orders described above.
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        4 January 2015 14: 41
                        if you need to cut down more dough then it’s not possible to think of such a thing, but everything is decided by a transformer at the pier and at the workshop with adapters.
              2. 0
                4 January 2015 13: 49
                MiG-29e can not beat a jointly working pair of Typhoon and Harrier.
                Harriers are all decommissioned.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  4 January 2015 14: 15
                  sold in the USA and stored there ...
    2. Kassandra
      0
      4 January 2015 09: 45
      She also needs the MiG-35 notably - he has a shortage to the islands in range.
      1. +1
        4 January 2015 11: 43
        Argentines learned to fight with refueling in the air. So the question of flight range is not at all worth it. Almost all sorties, even in 1982, were with 2 refueling in the air (passing and oncoming).
        1. Kassandra
          0
          4 January 2015 12: 04
          and how much did it help then?
          tankers will now have to cover themselves ... in 1982, the British had no airfield or supersonic aircraft on the islands.
          1. +2
            4 January 2015 12: 12
            Great help. And even now, the British Typhoons to intercept Argentine refueling aircraft will have to use their refueling planes themselves. And they can only be based on Ascension Island. Therefore, in reality, England will not be able to use its refueling aircraft west of the islands, since British tanker aircraft can easily be shot down by Argentines. This was realized back in 1982, when the British did not even think to refuel their Harriers at the islands.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              4 January 2015 12: 42
              against some harriers, it could help if they could refuel Mirages, and they would work on ships all the time at supersonic and not get involved with subsonic harriers in the BVB.

              in 1982, the British refueled from Ascension Island in combat missions only "volcanoes" with large hemorrhoids (the tankers themselves had to refuel several times) ... for the sake of the harriers, no one would have started belay
              but in the battle zone, their transfer with additional charges in the air was thus ensured, followed by landing on the corbels.

              refueling tankers can now be based on Mount Pleasant base on malvins, in the same place as eurofighters - two lanes of 1,5 and 2,5 km.
              1. +2
                4 January 2015 12: 47
                Harriers also refuel in the air. When driving from England to Ascension Island. Harriers on Ascension flew under their own power and refuel several times in the air. So the Angels bothered by refueling the Harriers.

                And what is now - so the reason for the Argentinean aviation has not gone anywhere. In 1982, they could also, theoretically, refuel west of the islands. But they knew that the chances of losing tankers were already around 100%. And how will the Russian planes appear in Argentina, the chances will not be about 100%, but exactly 100%.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  4 January 2015 13: 09
                  in my opinion the same thing was written about the transfer of harriers, but these were not combat sorties for patrolling, but the transfer of troops ...

                  almost west of the islands, no one would refuel harriers from Ascension Island while they were barricading. all the more so for refueling, it’s enough for him to just sit on a boat like a helicopter - in half of them the helipads were reinforced with heat-resistant mats.

                  during the Falkland War, Mount Pleasant base and supersonic aircraft the British did not have at the Falklands. immediately after the landing, a gas station and FOB San Carlos for subsonic harriers were equipped.
  15. +1
    4 January 2015 08: 20
    Above all, Argentina needs a new fleet! they practically have no new ships, there are only 3 submarines, and those are over 30 years old. they would be well suited to "Varshavyanka" and "Cheetah" (they are stronger than all their corvettes and patrol ships).
    1. 0
      4 January 2015 11: 46
      Argentina now has no money for new surface ships. And they build submarines themselves. Now they have 3 submarines in service. Another 1 was decommissioned at 98% completion due to lack of money. And now it’s in the factory. After 6 months, after the resumption of repairs, it will be in operation. In addition, after completing the repair of its third boat, Argentina decided to lay a new submarine (or rather to resume construction).
      1. +2
        5 January 2015 10: 33
        Hello Denis! Did you mean the Argentine submarines of the TR-1700 project? Quite a decent boat in my opinion.
        1. 0
          5 January 2015 13: 37
          2 TR-1700 in service now. The only one who returned from a military campaign in 1982 was not completely repaired. At the very end of the repair, the money in Argentina ran out. And she was mothballed.

          And actually the TR-1700 is now outdated. Conceptually. She cannot use anti-ship missiles. It does not have regular places for MANPADS.

          Resume the construction of a third boat of the type TR-1700, but according to a redesigned project. It will be completed not as a diesel, but as the first nuclear submarine of the Navy of Argentina.
          1. +1
            5 January 2015 15: 54
            For 1982, a decent one. And now yes, it’s out of date.
  16. 0
    4 January 2015 12: 39
    Perhaps with the entry into the BRICS, something will change for the better. And as for the planes, what Russia will give (lease), it’s written as a fork in the water (all of a sudden they will come in handy, the time is turbulent).
    1. +4
      4 January 2015 12: 44
      Not written with a pitchfork. No one will miss the opportunity to return the war to NATO in response to their war in Ukraine. And at the same time, you can use the hands of Argentina to weaken the English fleet and defeat England. Plus, the very fact of selling arms to Argentina will automatically lead to a strong friendship with us, since NATO is in every way interfering with the rearmament of Argentina. By the way, if there is a rental, it can be handed over together with the pilots :) I present a picture: a raid of Argentinean aviation. Everything is on the air in Russian: at first a dozen MiG-35 and Su-25 leased out, followed by an attack group from Su-24. And as the British are defeated, so the rent will end. By the way, also a rental option. We have already authorized PMCs. So - quickly pile up a new PMC from the pilots. Argentina will lease aircraft for rent. PMC employees will be put on those planes and forward. Russia does not officially fight with England. But in the battle it will be possible to break in a bunch of new weapons on enemy ships. See the strengths and weaknesses of aircraft, missiles and other weapons.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        4 January 2015 12: 57
        yes, but only the Su-27 and not the Su-25 ...
        1. 0
          4 January 2015 13: 05
          I agree - a typo came out.
          1. Kassandra
            0
            4 January 2015 13: 13
            liars do not sleep ...
            1. +1
              4 January 2015 13: 16
              And what's the difference: the enemy is napping or not? The enemy still has no chance. That he is asleep, that he is not asleep.
              1. Kassandra
                0
                4 January 2015 13: 30
                there are few chances against the Su-27 because ... such typos.
                You certainly meant the Su-27, but others will read it - the Su-25 bully
  17. +1
    15 January 2015 14: 12
    Quote: Victor Kudinov
    In such a situation, using this aircraft carrier by Argentina was useless. He could hardly have changed the outcome of the war, and its losses would have been higher

    Although it's late, I'll add my five kopecks. Here everything is more complicated, and such categorical conclusions should not be made. The following would have happened: the island is holding its defenses, British aircraft carriers are attacking the island, at this moment the Argentinean strikes them in the back. Doesn't it look like anything? This is the same Midway scenario (which led in 1942 to the destruction of Japan's main strike force and a turning point in the war). Daring and unexpected, and such plans often succeed. There is only one condition - complete surprise must be achieved. On May 1, she was. But then it was lost. The British themselves later admitted that the failure of the Invincible cast doubt on their victory in the conflict, and the failure of the Hermes immediately meant the failure of the operation. Would Argentine carrier-based aircraft have been able to disable at least one enemy aircraft carrier? No Skyhawk missiles were carried; their only anti-ship weapons were bombs (used by the topmast bombing method). And, unlike Midway, the main means of air defense of the British formation were not fighters, but air defense systems, very effective against A-4 top masters (an article in "Flotomaster" about the actions of the Argentine "Skyhawks" is entitled "Almost kamikaze"). So the question of the results of the raid remains debated.
    Another thing is that "Veintisinco di Mayo" itself at that moment DIDN'T THREATEN AT ALL. The aircraft carrier was not detected, there was no submarine in the area and they did not have time to intercept the aircraft carrier leaving after the attack, and the subsequent counterattack of the Harriers from the surviving aircraft carriers could not be taken into account at all - they did not have any adequate anti-ship weapons. So it was worth a try.
    Stormy weather, you say? As Bunich said: "when admirals start referring to the weather, they can be shot right away - they no longer have control of the situation."
    Rather, something else worked. As Zorich said through the mouth of Salman del Pino: "When the time comes to kill, it is not a weapon that kills. It is a faithful hand and a firm heart that kill. And the weapon is dead iron." This is exactly what the Argentine pilots had (I cannot but give them their due), but the Argentine command did not.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      21 January 2015 06: 25
      it could have been possible, but the sinking of Belgrano already meant the disruption of the southern group and the fact that the British were most likely given targeting to it by the Americans from satellites. worse, not a single Argentine plane could fight with the harrier, especially skyhawks. the AWACS helicopters that would detect the attacking skyhawks from the British from a distance. Destroying the British aircraft carrier STOVL from Argenin would have been possible if Argentina had supersonic carrier-based aviation - skyhawk, as well as the harrier, a subsonic aircraft.

      do not consider yourself smarter than the Argentine admirals. the British of the island would not have fought back if Argentina had placed at least one squadron of mirages or two daggers. and a couple of anti-submarine trackers. but this is not to the admirals, but to the politicians, logistics and the Air Force of this country.
    2. Kassandra
      0
      21 January 2015 06: 45
      Weather VTOL has fewer restrictions than a CATOBAR aircraft carrier, due to the much lesser influence of the pitching of the deck on its landing / take-off / on aircraft.

      bad weather would make the only Argentinean aircraft carrier simply defenseless against 2,5 English (another Atlantic Causeway aircraft carrier can be considered). it is good that they, with such an imbalance of forces, generally ventured out onto the sea.
    3. Kassandra
      0
      21 January 2015 07: 36
      with his 8 skyhawks before the sinking of Belgrano, he could only do something against Illastries (with the same number of air wings) in good weather, and even if all his planes were away at that time (which almost never happened). the fact is that one harrier during the interception guaranteed destroys a couple of skyhoks.
      if there were super-ethandars on the Argentinean aircraft carrier at that time, then even only three would be able to supersonic over the harrier patrol with the loss of just one of them and hit Illastries. the skyhawks had almost no chances against Hermes.