Military Review

Is it easy to attack Britain?

115
Is it easy to attack Britain?

"We should help Argentina to return the Falklands."

- From comments on the Internet.


It will not be easy to take away the disputed islands from Britain. To do this, first have to deal with the British fleetwhich in quantitative (and, more dangerous, in qualitative) aspects surpasses the Navy of most countries of the world.

What is the modern Royal Navy (RN)?

Faded glory. Scraps of the great past, lying on the grave of a great empire.

The answer is incorrect.

The British know a lot about maritime affairs. They are the only ones who fought at sea over the past 70 years. They won their victory in the open ocean, at a distance of 12 000 kilometers from their native shores.

The only ones who used the underwater nuclear-powered icebreaker in the battle (sinking of the Conkerror submarine of the cruiser General Belgrano). Apart from rocket attacks on the territory of Yugoslavia and Iraq using the Tomahawk SLCM. It is worth noting that the RN is the only one of the allies of the United States who has received this powerful and long-range tactical weapon, ahead of its time on 30 years.

They cut and took hydroacoustic antenna. So quietly that on the anti-submarine ship at first they did not understand why the gas was out of operation (Operation “Waitress” in the Barents Sea, 1982, with the participation of the above-mentioned submarine “Conkerror”).

They are the leaders in the successful interception of the anti-ship missile in combat conditions (Gulf War, 1991 year, the Gloucester destroyer distinguished himself).

The British fleet is armed with the fastest helicopter (Westland Lynx, the unbroken record is 400 km / h). The first (up to 2015 of the year - the only in the world) sea anti-aircraft complex with missiles with active seeker (PAAMS). Their ships are driven by the most powerful of the existing gas turbines (Rolls-Royce MT30, power 50 thousand hp). And the submarines are equipped with underwater acoustics capable of distinguishing targets on the other end of the ocean (according to the developers, the Sonar 2076 can hear the noise of the propellers of the Queen Mary 2 liner 3000 miles away).

Aircraft carrier "Queen Elizabeth"

Along with the American “Ford” British “Queen” is the most “advanced” project in its class. Yielding to the American in size (65 vs. 100 thous. Tons), the British carrier-based ship almost surpasses its ally in the number of promising technologies embodied in its design.



Two Rolls-Royce MT30 Super Turbines.

Original layout with front and rear superstructure.

Two radars with active PAR. Survey radar S1850M, capable of distinguishing targets in near-earth orbit and a radar for tracking the horizon. Type 997 Artisan, operating in the centimeter range.

Optronic search and sighting systems.

Full electric movement.

Fully automated system for loading, storage and supply of ammunition.

In connection with the rejection of the electromagnetic catapult, “Queen” is intended for basing aircraft with a short takeoff. Selection of the British - F-35B fighter-bomber. According to the calculations of the military, on board it is supposed to have all 12 fighters (up to 24 in wartime) and a mixed squadron of helicopters.

Realizing that the F-35 will be late by the time the ship entered service, the British are considering using the Quinn as a giant helicopter carrier. With combat helicopters "Apache", V-22 tweeters "Osprey", military transport "Merlinami" and "Chinook".

In addition, space for 250 marines is reserved on board the Queen Elizabeth.



What is this ridiculous ship - an undecided carrier, a helicopter carrier, a landing ship or a maritime radar base? .. The design of “Queen Elizabeth” is full of controversial decisions. But it is important to understand that from the point of view of the domestic fleet, the question is simply: an aircraft carrier at the berth or an empty berth. So the criticism is worth the wait.

The British aircraft carrier is already built. How and where to apply “Queen” - the answer is not long to wait.

Destroyers of the “Daring” type (in the line - 6 units)

Combat core RN. The most advanced ships of their class in the world, which have become a real alternative to the American Ajises.

Air defense squadrons - the only priority of modern cruisers and destroyers. In the British “Derring” ideal layout for this difficult task. The best of existing detection tools and unique weapons. Two radar with AFAR, one of which is located on the top of the 30-meter foremast. PAAMS-S air defense system with “Aster” missiles, which are equipped with active targeting heads.



Despite its specialization, “Daring” remains a universal ship - with artillery, hydro-acoustic complex and a helicopter. According to the norms of peacetime, the destroyer is structurally underloaded: there is a space reserved for installing another 12 launch cells for the Tomahawk CD, as well as space for the anti-ship Harpoons and means of active self-defense.

Frigates “Type 23” (in the line - 13 units)

Strong 5000-tonics for watchkeeping in the world's oceans. “Workhorse” fleet. With long-range navigation and “means of rapid response” to counter possible threats: short-range anti-aircraft missiles, anti-ship missiles, artillery, helicopters.

Ships of this type were built in 90-s. Now they are being replaced by “Type 26” (global warship, GCS). A large frigate equipped with the multi-channel “SiCeptor” air defense missile system, launchers for the Tomahawk and other high-tech devices, including drones, lasers, gas turbines R & R MT-30 and elements of the stealth technology. The start of construction of the GCS is scheduled for 2016 year.

Astyut type submarines

In the ranks - 2. On running trials - 1. In the construction - 3. The last, the seventh boat of this type (“Ajax”) is to be commissioned in the 2024 year, at the moment there is a cutting of steel for its hull.


"Artful" on running trials, August 2015 of the year


British underwater terminator, claiming to be the most advanced of the existing submarines. There are many secrets behind the stylish angular appearance. It is reported that these are the world's most secretive nuclear ships, whose sonar complex (Sonar 2076, consisting of 13 000 hydrophones) is able to track the Queen Mary-2 liner along the entire route from London to New York, while the boat itself is off the coast of Albion). 39 thousands of strips of special polymer, glued on the outer surface of the case, completely absorb the radiation of enemy sonars, creating the illusion, "as if it were not 97-meter Astyut, but a dolphin cub."

As a result of joint exercises, even the Yankees have lost themselves. Their "Virginia" could not detect "Astyut" and was "conditionally destroyed" in battle with this submarine. High secrecy and high-quality underwater acoustics is a tradition of British submariners (a living example is “The Waitress”, with theft of a secret gas just behind the stern of the ship).

“Astyut” is powerful and cool. Like his weapon, the Sparfish self-guided long-range torpedoes (speed - up to 80 units), equipped with a built-in sonar. Or the Tomahawk SLCM tested in battle, capable of hitting targets at a distance of 1600 km.

“Astyuts” are replacing older “Trafalgars” (four multi-purpose submarines built at the end of 80's, whose decommissioning is planned for the period up to 2022 of the year).

Naval strategic nuclear forces

Four Vanguard type submarines, armed with the reliable Trident-2. The only difference from American SLBMs is the thermonuclear blocks of their own, British design.

On the shores of Albion there are quite a few supporters of the rejection of maritime nuclear forces (and nuclear forces in general, since all British nuclear weapons are located on submarines). The main argument is what the four SSBNs and 64 missiles mean against the background of the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the USA.

On the other hand, the existence of an NSNF gives weight to the geopolitical arena and serves as a guarantor of the country's sovereignty.

Amphibious assault ships

In the ranks - 3 units. The helicopter carrier "Ocean" and a pair of transports docks for the delivery of heavy equipment (such as "Albion"). In terms of size and purpose, typical barges are “Mistral” with their advantages and disadvantages.

These are official numbers. Informal figures are different. A significant part of the ships of the British fleet goes under the control of RFA (Royal Fleet Auxiliary).

The Royal Auxiliary Fleet is a military organization with dual-use ships operated by civilian crews (to save on salaries, salaries and insurances).

Despite its “civilian face,” RFA’s technology is clearly not for jokes.

For example, RFA “Argus”. 28 thousand ton helicopter carrier, also capable of performing the functions of landing and hospital ship.



In addition to the “Argus”, converted from a Dutch container ship, the RFA has three specially built landing ships (in fact, the “Mistral”). With a flight deck, two landing boats and a cargo deck for 24 tank Challenger 2 To ensure their safety, “peaceful transports” are armed with six-barreled “Phalanxes” and 30 mm automatic guns.


One of them is RFA Lime Bay


Also in the structure of the RFA there are eight integrated supply ships (KSS), four high-speed container ships and the floating workshop “Diligence”.


Military equipment aboard the RFA “Hartland Point” Rocker


With a developed fleet of amphibious and transport ships, Britain is able to quickly transfer its expeditionary army and fleet to any theater of military operations. Just as happened in the 1982 year.

Impregnable walls of Britain - steel sides of its ships

Despite the colorful description of the exploits of Royal Navy, the author of the opus is by no means an Anglophile. Like many of you, he would love to see the “higher race” on the bottom of the sea. But for this, first, preparation is required. And not promises to overcome all “one left”, hiding behind loud slogans.

With that colossal difference in the quantity and quality of military equipment, it would be unwise to dream of “returning the Falklands”. And to hell with these islands on the edge of the world!

With these guys you need to learn, and not to mock the "decrepitant mistress of the seas." Moreover, no “decrepitude” was noticed there. Her Majesty's fleet is in better condition than in all of the last 50 years.

It is compact, at the same time, sufficient to solve any pressing problems. Well balanced and saturated with the most modern technology. With a clear concept of application and solid combat experience, which confirmed Britain’s right to the status of a great maritime power.


Airborne cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" accompanied by the destroyer "Dragon"


With regard to the question from the title of the article, by now Falkland has been turned into an impregnable fortress. “Unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the midst of the boundless ocean. A large air base with a three-kilometer runway was built on the island. Placed there, the Typhoons of the Royal Air Force will sink any ship long before it approaches the “disputed territories”.

While the Armed Forces of Argentina - the main and only contender for the Falklands - have by now completely degraded. But it is already completely different. история...


The destroyer "Daring" passes Suez



RFA Wave Rooler. 31000-ton high-speed tanker, one of two new types of KSS, built for the British fleet in 2003



Tornado fighter-bombers over the Falkland Islands
Author:
115 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. perm23
    perm23 7 September 2015 06: 08 New
    +3
    But who needs them? Let them live and if only they would not interfere with others. Soon they themselves will die from the invasion of emigrants.
    1. Ruslan
      Ruslan 7 September 2015 07: 02 New
      +5
      I want details about British long-range torpedoes and about Heartland Point Rollers. otherwise I didn’t find anything clear.
      1. opus
        opus 7 September 2015 13: 20 New
        +8
        Quote: ruslan
        otherwise I didn’t find anything clear.

        1. For torpedoes, look for "Spиrfish "-Spearfish (Marconi company specification number 7525- Naval Staff Target 7525)
        "ae" - in the Russian ears "and", not "e" (
        Quote: Author
        Sperfish
        )



        The warhead carries a directional charge designed to pierce a double shell Russian submarines of class Oscar and Typhoon. Computer control allows the dashboard to make its own tactical decisions during the battle /
        65 knots / up to 19,7 mor. miles (36,5 km) start or 54 km last "block"

        BAE Systems Launches Upgrade, 270 Million Pound Contract. Revenues Received at 2019-2020


        Quote: ruslan
        Heartland Point Rollers.



        "Four Ro-Ro vessels permanently contracted with the UK Department of Defense.
        Two rollers, upon receipt of a notification by the Ministry of Defense, are required to "arrive at the military registration and enlistment office" within 20 days, and 2 the rest within 30 days. "




        1. opus
          opus 7 September 2015 13: 35 New
          +6
          HARTLAND POINT - (IMO 9248538)
          Vessel type: Ro-ro Cargo
          Gross tonnage: 23,235 tons
          Summer DWT: 13,274 tons
          Length: 193 m
          Beam: 26 m
          Draught: 5.2 m


          Same as Finnlines / Transfennica in the Baltic,but for less






          Finnlady type, it will also comfortably transport passengers under 600, and without comfort all 1500 units



          or "Fedra" by Europa Point

          1. Aljavad
            Aljavad 8 September 2015 00: 25 New
            +1
            "Fedra" by Europa Point

            Impressed ... dr soul backyard ...

            And you say "Hollywood" ...
            1. opus
              opus 8 September 2015 14: 28 New
              0
              Quote: Aljavad
              And you say "Hollywood" ...

              the driver was drunk wink
    2. Hammer
      Hammer 7 September 2015 08: 14 New
      +28
      There is no talk, the arrogance is strong as sailors ... but you should not overestimate them. The ability of RoyalNavi to conduct long-term military operations in a wide separation from its shores and without the help of others, to put it mildly, is doubtful.
      The same 82 company could not have taken place at all if it had not been for the comprehensive assistance of the mattresses. Provision of intelligence, logistics and logistics ... In addition, if the British at that moment everything would go wrong and the Argentines (imagine for a moment) would start to take up, then most likely US NAVY would intervene in the fray. And the Argentines had a chance (albeit not a big one) ...
      On the other hand, let us recall a recent case when our missile cruiser Varyag (it seems he) walked along the coast of England for a day or two without being discovered by anyone. And when they were honored to see him, they could send the ship for interception only after another half day ...
      So not everything is so rosy in the Royal Navy. ;)
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 September 2015 08: 16 New
        +12
        Quote: Hammer
        On the other hand, let us recall the recent case when our missile cruiser Varyag (it seems he)

        Okay, "Varyag" ... but this EMNIP was "Kuznetsov" :)
      2. Santa Fe
        7 September 2015 09: 06 New
        +5
        Quote: Hammer
        if not for the full help of mattresses

        the only real help is 200 000 tons of fuel

        everything else is yourselves. ships, technology, people
        Quote: Hammer
        most likely US NAVY would intervene in a fight

        no
        NATO protects each other up to 25 gr. N (north of the tropic of Cancer)
        1. Hammer
          Hammer 7 September 2015 09: 58 New
          +8
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          the only real help is 200 000 tons of fuel

          everything else is yourselves. ships, technology, people


          Material means - perhaps yes, but we are hardly likely to know the truth.
          well besides that.
          But what about the use by the British of Amer. bases on Ascension Island?
          Or does it not count?
          The Americans themselves admitted that they provided the British with extensive intelligence information on Argentines. Is this not a help?
          Plus, the Americans provided great political assistance to Britain.
          Do you know that at the beginning of the conflict between the USA and Argentina there was a collective defense pact in the event of a war with someone? Well, in other matters, like the WB with the USA, too ...
          And Washington then said that in this conflict it takes the WB side. And in a polytechnic it is expensive. In addition, Washington imposed economic sanctions against Buenos Aires. And he made all his neighbors do it. In general, Buenos Aires was crushed from all sides.
          The French were forced to terminate the contract for the supply of RCC Ecoset. it was their British who were most afraid.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          no
          NATO protects each other up to 25 gr. N (north of the tropic of Cancer)


          I am sure they would have climbed. In addition to the NATO agreement, there are simply bilateral pacts. Faithful in that situation, Washington would have had the strength to bend NATO and below 25 GR.s. And without NATO, the United States could defeat the Argentines with the British. Yes, to bend would not have anyone. )))
          1. Santa Fe
            7 September 2015 10: 34 New
            0
            Quote: Hammer
            Material means - perhaps yes, but we are hardly likely to know the truth.

            What do you really need

            All 83 ships were British
            like their weapons and landing

            Quote: Hammer
            But what about the use by the British of Amer. bases on Ascension Island?

            Ascension Island belongs to the UK
            Quote: Hammer
            French forced (who? why?) to terminate the contract for the supply of RCC Ecoset

            Only where do the Americans. State Department, Masons

            As soon as a conflict broke out in the South Atlantic at the end of April 1982, France imposed an embargo on any military assistance to Argentina.

            What is logical - why should France get into an incomprehensible situation.
            1. Hammer
              Hammer 7 September 2015 15: 30 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Quote: Hammer
              Material means - perhaps yes, but we are hardly likely to know the truth.

              What do you really need

              All 83 ships were British
              like their weapons and landing


              No one has argued otherwise. I say that their independence is somewhat limited by capabilities. Do not confuse warm with soft.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Quote: Hammer
              But what about the use by the British of Amer. bases on Ascension Island?

              Ascension Island belongs to the UK


              I did not say that the island is American. I said that it has an American air force base, which the Angles actively used. read carefully

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Quote: Hammer
              French forced (who? why?) to terminate the contract for the supply of RCC Ecoset

              Only where do the Americans. State Department, Masons

              As soon as a conflict broke out in the South Atlantic at the end of April 1982, France imposed an embargo on any military assistance to Argentina.

              What is logical - why should France get into an incomprehensible situation.


              France did not climb anywhere, but simply profitably sold its goods. Why is it that they suddenly refuse a profitable deal? Could you tell? Also, lose the reputation of a reliable supplier ... wink Although now the story with the Mistrals becomes more understandable. smile
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 29 September 2015 01: 55 New
                0
                Not all ... there were even at least four chartered Soviet vessels. bully

                And in general, the British fleet is never balanced and imprisoned for mine action, so that it is on a short leash and because the Americans can do it much worse.

                It’s really easy to give Malvins to Argentina.
                1. The comment was deleted.
        2. kotvov
          kotvov 7 September 2015 13: 40 New
          +4
          the only real help is 200 000 tons of fuel ,,
          Yeah, and the full provision of satellite intelligence.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 7 September 2015 18: 27 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          the only real help is 200 000 tons of fuel

          everything else is yourselves. ships, technology, people

          Hmm ...
          The first requests were for missiles, particularly our Sidewinders, the AIM 9-L air-to-air missiles, with which the British wreaked such havoc on the Argentines, and aircraft fuel. But initially we had to, and did, add enormously to the facilities at Ascension to receive and deliver the fuel and other supplies to the British task forces' ships and planes (we also sold them twelve of our F-4 fighter planes at a “ bargain basement ”price after the war, in order to allow the British to keep a Phantom squadron on the Falklands).

          (c) Caspar Weinberger - a name that is widely known to everyone who caught 80 in a conscious state smile

          In short, the United States, at the request of Britain, provided it with the latest modification RVV “sidewinder” (and the British claim that the Yankees themselves had so few of these missiles that they were transferred from the reserves of the USAF first-line formations). Plus, the United States actually took over the supply base on about. Ascension.
      3. marlin1203
        marlin1203 7 September 2015 11: 39 New
        +4
        As for the question from the title of the article, by now the Falklands have been turned into an impregnable fortress. “Unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the middle of the vast ocean. A large air base with a three-kilometer runway was built on the island. The Royal Air Force Typhoons stationed there will sink any ship long before it approaches the “disputed territories”
        But to render a three-kilometer runway unusable is probably an insoluble problem with modern means of destruction laughing strip runway and all typhoons will also become nothing more than targets, and extremely vulnerable. In general, not an article, but some kind of commercial about the ideal royal fleet. Ideal fleets do not exist at all, it is painfully complicated and expensive is a "thing." By the way, the war itself with the “agricultural” Argentina over the Falklands (Malvins) took place for the vaunted fleet of England not without losses and problems. So, there are a lot of questions, but the main one is the serviceability of the equipment and the readiness of the ships, as well as the combat readiness of the personnel.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 7 September 2015 14: 35 New
          +2
          Quote: marlin1203
          As for the question from the title of the article, by now the Falklands have been turned into an impregnable fortress. “Unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the middle of the vast ocean. A large air base with a three-kilometer runway was built on the island. The Royal Air Force Typhoons stationed there will sink any ship long before it approaches the “disputed territories”
          But to render a three-kilometer runway unusable - with modern means of destruction, it is probably an insoluble problem to deprive the runway’s detachment and all typhoons will also become nothing more than targets, and extremely vulnerable. In general, not an article, but some kind of commercial about the ideal royal fleet. Ideal fleets do not exist at all, it is painfully complicated and expensive is a "thing." By the way, the war itself with the “agricultural” Argentina over the Falklands (Malvins) took place for the vaunted fleet of England not without losses and problems. So there are a lot of questions, but the main one is the serviceability of the equipment and the readiness of the ships, as well as the combat readiness of the personnel.

          Oleg greatly exaggerated the real combat capabilities of this "unsinkable aircraft carrier." Mount Pleasant airfield runway is not very lively, the 1-2 Typhoon actually performs flights (in a satellite image).
      4. g1v2
        g1v2 7 September 2015 13: 43 New
        +3
        The article is good and hat-making is inappropriate. Even if the modern Russian fleet is stronger than the Britons, it is scattered across the 4 fleets and one fleet, while the British are not. A point on each separate TVD against an individual fleet will have an advantage for the Britons.
        But they, too, are unlikely to be able to attack us, since we will be fully protected on our shores with ground-based infrastructure and their forces.
      5. Kent0001
        Kent0001 7 September 2015 22: 14 New
        0
        But they should not be underestimated either ....
    3. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 7 September 2015 09: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: perm23
      Soon they themselves will die from the invasion of emigrants.

      And they, following the example of the States, do not want to accept refugees in my opinion!
      For this, according to their understanding, there is a "European servant"!
    4. 222222
      222222 7 September 2015 12: 10 New
      0
      perm23 (3) SU Today, 06: 08
      But who needs them? Let them live and if only they would not interfere with others. Soon they themselves will die from the invasion of emigrants.

      ..so way .. need help migrant .. wink
    5. silver_roman
      silver_roman 7 September 2015 14: 08 New
      +10
      Quote: perm23
      Soon they themselves will die from the invasion of emigrants.

      yeah, do not wait.
      They will cut the English Channel and let all sorts of "FranceGermanyBruiser and Co" assimilate with all the colors of Africa!
      Quote: perm23
      But who needs them? Let them live and if only they would not interfere with others

      I can only speculate, but deep down I’m sure that it is precisely for these ub ** d.c.a.m.i
      the victims are hundreds of millions of people. Starting from the unleashing of world warriors, ending with smaller military conflicts that began, if not with their participation, then certainly with their submission.
      By the way, here's an interesting thing: pay attention to the author - theorist and where his knowledge is now applied:
      The basic principles of military propaganda were set forth by the British diplomat Lord Ponsonby in the book “Lies during the war” (1928). The essence of these principles is as follows:

      1) We do not want war.
      The main thing is to convince people that the “bad guys” hate “us” and have already begun (or are ready to start) first.

      2) The war is waged only through the fault of the enemy.
      These are “others”, “they” started the war, or dream of starting it any day. "We" are forced to defend themselves.

      3) The leader of the warring country is a real devil.
      It’s not necessary to make all the people hate, ”wrote Ponsonby. - It is necessary to personify the image of the enemy, to show your population that the head, the leader of the “others” is a mentally ill, crazy, corrupt person.

      4) We fight for a just cause, not for our interests.
      It should be kept silent that in every war economic goals are primarily pursued, emphasizing only humanitarian reasons.

      5) The enemy deliberately commits atrocities, we are just by accident.
      It is necessary as quickly as possible to disseminate information about the atrocities committed by the enemy, explaining that such actions are peculiar to him.

      6) The enemy uses forbidden weapons.

      7) Our losses are negligible, the losses of the enemy are huge.
      During the war, losses in manpower and equipment are called not actual, but guided by their own benefit.

      8) Culture, art and intellectuals support our cause.

      9) Our mission is sacred.

      10) Anyone who doubts our propaganda is a traitor.

      As you can see, modern media in many countries around the world actively follow the principles developed almost 100 years ago.
      1. Ruslan
        Ruslan 7 September 2015 14: 37 New
        +6
        Well, do you understand that Russian media follow the same principles? it’s just that you don’t specify who you blame: all in one fell swoop or only western ones and the author as their follower :)
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 7 September 2015 16: 19 New
          +2
          What, it’s strange, why did you suddenly get cons? tried to balance
          but in your opinion: the domestic media, with very few exceptions, aim to help their country. they usually follow the sign clearly from across the ocean.
          She and frank lies in serious publications can not be found. I'm talking about the same RT.
          The point is important: the Saxons act exclusively in vile ways, such as lying, misinformation, double standards, etc. Top the cynicism with a test tube of powder and say like “here’s the biological weapons of Iraq” and then drive the country into the Stone Age. I am already silent about world wars.
          This is a feature of their mentality. We, in principle, are different. But the bottom line is that the task is to defeat and destroy the threat to the existence of the Motherland, and not to prove that someone is good or bad. We are trying to do everything right in the hope that this will attract support from outside and improve our reputation. The Saxons also found the fastest and easiest recipe: terror !!! tough but extremely effective!
          1. alex86
            alex86 7 September 2015 23: 30 New
            0
            Quote: silver_roman
            with very few exceptions, they aim to help their country
            - to the extent that they understand the help, which is not always such
            Quote: silver_roman
            frank lies in serious publications you will not meet

            - she is always (and not always- "crucified boy") covered by something
            Quote: silver_roman
            falsehood, misinformation, double standards

            - like ours
            Quote: silver_roman
            puff a powder tube
            - declare that the people (of Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.) asked for "international assistance"
            Quote: silver_roman
            about world wars.
            - Well, yes, divide Poland in 39 with Germany ...
            Quote: silver_roman
            We, in principle, are different.
            - all are the same, this is called - politics. There is no place
            Quote: silver_roman
            do everything right in the hope that it will attract support from outside and improve our reputation
            , there is only calculation and expediency, and my complaint to the people who make decisions with us is that it is with calculation and expediency that it is bad. What is called: "neither steal nor guard." At one time, one (conditionally, but not very) Lawrence of Arabia pitted Arab kings in the interests of Britain - where is our "Lawrence of Arabia"? Where are our agents of influence in the European Union? Where are the US Senators purchased? This is because of our high morality, you say? This is because of our incompetence, I will say. US meanly ruined the USSR? And why have we noblely ruined the United States? The world behind the scenes drops oil prices, what would ruin us? And why don’t we drop these prices in order to ruin them? Once again - the country is dominated by incompetence, which harms more than all the enemies combined!
            (Something I wound up, a sore subject, sorry ...)
            1. alex86
              alex86 8 September 2015 07: 32 New
              +3
              Judging by the minuses, the "patriots" did not like it, but apart from the "Russian-obscene" commentary, which was deleted, there is nothing constructive. This is sadness, we understand that the country is ruled by incompetence in all areas, but we can’t do anything, and the ma herself is far from always competent (I don’t exclude myself). At the same time, there are remnants of the Soviet (and a certain amount of new, Russian) engineering corps, but managing this entire economy is out of the blue ...
            2. silver_roman
              silver_roman 8 September 2015 10: 31 New
              -1
              Quote: alex86
              - to the extent that they understand the help, which is not always such

              but there’s nothing to understand. They’re not fools. everything is so clear. good from evil differs as white from black. It’s difficult to confuse! And if you are color blind, then do not go to the serious uncles in the sandbox
              Quote: alex86
              - like ours

              come on? we don’t hammer whole countries into the Stone Age, blowing up our skyscrapers! this is the first thing that came to mind.
              Quote: alex86
              - declare that the people (of Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.) asked for "international assistance"

              The countries you have listed are located directly near our borders. If we do not control them, then the enemy. It’s not worth it to explain how many drugs are coming from Afghanistan.
              In addition, the army of the USSR, being on the territory of Afghanistan, helped build schools, roads and other infrastructure. This has been repeatedly confirmed by the Afghans themselves. They took their youth to study at our universities. Consider a new life began in man. What are our “friends” doing? sitting at their bases and bombing areas of Afghanistan, Pakistan with UAVs. But bombers are often not terras, but ordinary people! so don’t compare **** with your finger!
              Quote: alex86
              - Well, yes, divide Poland in 39 with Germany ..

              and two world wars with Germany seemed to you a little? do you want a third? so that she would not be there, that the enemy who came to us twice would not come again, followed by the weakening of a hostile nation. A banal sense of self-preservation. In addition, remind me who was the initiator of the Iron Curtain and who was for the unification of the GDR and the FRG ?????
              Quote: alex86
              Where are our agents of influence in the European Union? Where are the US Senators purchased?

              are exorbitant. that and their NSA, all the senators and all kinds of chancellors there in the EU spoil bricks for fear of wiretapping. "democracy" ... what did you want ???
              Quote: alex86
              Once again - the country is dominated by incompetence, which harms more than all the enemies combined!

              I agree with you in some ways, BUT I proceed from the fact that we don’t know much. More precisely, we do not know the majority. There were hundreds of institutes in the states that studied the USSR. We seem to have just a couple of centers. The result is known.
              In addition, we are not fighting with the States. We are struggling with their capital, and this is much more than 10 USA. And do not forget that we were trampled by 10 years in ****, then GDP came, etc. I do not protect anyone, I also believe that now we should have acted more radically, but as history shows, we do not have very spontaneous ideas. It seems that perestroika was supposed to show the USSR in all its glory, open the country, show that the bears are in our taiga and zoo, and not in chain houses with balalaika. And the process was intercepted. In general, I tell you, and so you know ...
              1. alex86
                alex86 8 September 2015 19: 25 New
                +1
                Quote: silver_roman
                good from evil differs as white from black

                But what is good and what is evil - different people regard differently
                Quote: silver_roman
                ! And if you are color blind, then do not go to serious uncles in the sandbox

                1. I did not baptize children with you and did not drink vodka. 2. According to the ravings that are carried here, I cannot identify "serious uncles", and if you are talking about "86", then this is the year I served in the SA.
                Quote: silver_roman
                near our borders
                - it was about the reasons for action, i.e. "policy"
                Quote: silver_roman
                two world wars with Germany seemed a little

                it was about the role of England in two world wars, and I recalled that the USSR shares the responsibility for starting WWII in the 39 year - what you are talking about here is unclear
                Quote: silver_roman
                are exorbitant
                - that is, our economy cannot afford it, since it is inefficient - who should be blamed except for itself?
                Quote: silver_roman
                just a couple of centers
                - i.e., see above - can't afford? or lack of competency? Therefore, once again - we have no one to blame, we are underworking, we are ineffective, and we blame everyone except ourselves for this, we come up with a world behind the scenes, a worldwide conspiracy against us and other crap. And everything is simpler - well, it doesn’t work out for us yet. Our system crowds out (destroys) qualified people, and raises loyal mediocrity, leading the country to trouble (I will not say destruction). They have no motives, except money and a thirst for power, and the country does not care about them. And our "patriots" faithfully serve these people who are for money (conditionally). who is stupid. I am very sorry for our country ...
                1. silver_roman
                  silver_roman 9 September 2015 10: 43 New
                  0
                  Quote: alex86
                  1. I did not baptize children with you and did not drink vodka. 2. According to the ravings that are carried here, I cannot identify "serious uncles", and if you are talking about "86", then this is the year I served in the SA.

                  I didn’t specifically mean you, misunderstood / I put it. I will say this: if a person is color blind, then it is better not to touch uncles. I mean that for those who play the "big game" everything is extremely clear. only ordinary people do not know what is really happening. For those who do not see the essence, it is better not to climb and not argue. I about it. metaphor did not pass recourse

                  Quote: alex86
                  it was about the role of England in two world wars, and I recalled that the USSR shares the responsibility for starting WWII in the 39 year - what you are talking about here is unclear

                  What is the responsibility of the USSR for the BEGINNING of the World Wars? we pulled in, but did not start. I would even say, they tried to delay its beginning.
                  I’m talking about the following: I don’t agree with you in terms of the fact that the actions of the USSR / RF can be identified with the similar actions of the Saxons to incite wars and build confrontations - the pursuit of one’s own interests is now called.
                  You yourself started on the partition of Poland and Germany, etc.


                  Quote: alex86
                  that is, our economy cannot afford it, because it is inefficient - who can blame but yourself?

                  The eternal 2 question: who is to blame and what to do? laughing
                  We have a colonial economy. We cannot print money from the Fed, we cannot lower the interest rate to 0,25 to give a HUGE impetus to small and medium-sized businesses. Tell from non-competency? I do not agree. the country was destroyed in the 90s. 20 years have passed - a miserable one in a retrospective of history. We are trying to jump on the go in a steam locomotive. Not just that. In addition, we have a completely alien model of governing the country. Who's guilty? you are probably right, we are all to blame. They are guilty that they voted for the partition of the USSR at the referendum, they are guilty for supporting the Yeltsinism, etc., etc. But what needs to be done to make a difference? Will cleanings work like in the 30s under Stalin, or do we need to act with a scalpel and not a sledgehammer? In general, we have already lost the thread of conversation. Writing messages with an interval of a couple of days is not very!
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. War and Peace
      War and Peace 7 September 2015 14: 57 New
      +6
      Their ships are propelled by the most powerful gas turbines existing today (Rolls-Royce MT30, 50 thousand horsepower).




      Well, this is a lie. The Ukrainian Zorya plant producing power machines for ships has much more powerful gas turbine machines.

      UGT60000 (GTE-60А) - GTE power, - 63500 kW
      http://www.zmturbines.com/?rubs=produktsiia_i_servis&srub=1245353770&sart=138537



      0431

      They cut and took hydroacoustic antenna. So quietly that on the anti-submarine ship at first they did not understand why the gas was out of operation (Operation “Waitress” in the Barents Sea, 1982, with the participation of the above-mentioned submarine “Conkerror”).


      here this fact is a link please, English and Amer sources are not accepted ...

      Two Rolls-Royce MT30 Super Turbines.

      oops and what so ma? your "queen" has -65tys.t. -displacement, for example, at Kuznetsov -55tys.t. but at the same time 200 hp -total power, with such a "superfood" turbine, the "Queen" turns into a slow-moving galosh ...
      http://topwar.ru/17758-tyazhelyy-avianesuschiy-kreyser-proekta-11435-admiral-flo



      ta-sovetskogo-soyuza-kuznecov.html

      The British fleet is armed with the fastest helicopter (Westland Lynx, unbroken record - 400 km / h


      nnda well, what is he the fastest? airplanes, for example, are even faster. And the main functions of ship's helicopters are the EXPLORATION of surface and underwater targets, as well as TRAILING of the avatarium, and why then is this notorious speed needed? to drive for diapers in England?

      ve radar with active headlights. S1850M surveillance radar, capable of distinguishing between near-Earth orbit targets and the Type 997 Artisan horizon tracking radar operating in the centimeter range.


      some scribe. But deputy tell the aircraft carrier and transport at the same time, to search for all sorts of targets in orbit? What will he shoot down satellites? , so after all there is nothing or the auspices with cm3 will be put there too? it seems nothing is known about it. The purpose of shipborne radars is again the search for surface targets, not space ones.

      Optronic search and sighting systems.

      OPTICAL, illiterate, optocouplers are electron-optical devices ...

      Full electric movement.


      Che is not in Russian, "full-incomplete", ours do not say that, they poorly translated the introductory ...

      Fully automated ammunition loading, storage and supply system
      .

      I imagine what it will look like, loading air missiles and bombs on powder cellars, a long chain of conveyors or vice versa, a ship, like a transformer, is laid out for access to the interior of the warehouses and bombs go to the right, rockets to the left, shells down, cartridges up, everything is automatic, without person !! it doesn’t happen ...
      the sweet simply crumbles from the subservient desire to display non-Russian weapons in superlatives on the Russian website, in its own pleasing to foreign owners, even if it were to tell the truth, otherwise it sculpts a hunchback.
      1. opus
        opus 7 September 2015 15: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: war and peace
        Well, this is a lie. The Ukrainian Zorya plant producing power machines for ships has much more powerful gas turbine machines.

        UGT60000 (GTE-60А) - GTE power, - 63500 kW


        UGT60000 yet for gas turbine power stations GTE-60,



        Rolls-Royce MT30 is essentially Rolls-Royce Trent 800 (Boeing 777)



    8. The comment was deleted.
  2. EGOrkka
    EGOrkka 7 September 2015 06: 26 New
    +1
    ..... the first question is why are they needed ????? soldier
    1. corporal
      corporal 7 September 2015 07: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: EGOrkka
      . The first question is why are they needed ?????

      The second question: "If you are needed, how and how to return (to conquer)?"
  3. Fox
    Fox 7 September 2015 06: 39 New
    +1
    Well, in the war for Argentina's Malvinu, the Sun was nowhere more sad. Like the Navy. Yes, and time is needed to pull up the armada.
    I think that not everything will be so fun for the mattresses, start a real batch.
    1. Igor K
      Igor K 7 September 2015 07: 12 New
      +13
      If the free-falling bombs of the Argentines worked normally, the Queen of the Seas would only wash her way. The British were really lucky in that batch.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 7 September 2015 18: 34 New
        +1
        Quote: Igor K
        If the free-falling bombs of the Argentines worked normally, the Queen of the Seas would only wash her way. The British were really lucky in that batch

        It was written on Tsushima that the bombs of the args worked normally - exactly as they were put out. The gunsmiths simply set the delay too long.
  4. trenitron
    trenitron 7 September 2015 06: 47 New
    -7
    The Royal Navy is the IDF on land, a model of efficiency and optimization
  5. sevtrash
    sevtrash 7 September 2015 06: 48 New
    +5
    Great Britain is one of the economic leaders of the European Union - hence the opportunity. It seems like the leader in the European Union by the number of scientific papers. Well, the power system, apparently, does not provide for 30% cuts - this is the result.
    1. marlin1203
      marlin1203 7 September 2015 11: 42 New
      +3
      Ahhh ... "British scientists" laughing
      1. Kingcobra
        Kingcobra 9 September 2015 06: 18 New
        -1
        Quote: marlin1203
        Ahhh ... "British scientists"

        nanoserdyukovy with megaraspil here out of competition laughing
  6. Russian Patriot
    Russian Patriot 7 September 2015 07: 06 New
    +5
    There is much to learn
  7. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 7 September 2015 07: 09 New
    +4
    For me, so the Anglo-Saxons are the main peddlers (along with their owners from the Phasington Regional Committee) infections on the planet! And to sing panegerics to them as if not with their hands. To study - yes ... After all, a hypothetical adversary. But fall into a voluptuous swoon due to the balance of their fleet ?! Sorry !!! request
    Minus! Better, Oleg, write about the battleships. Much more interesting to read wink smile
    This is just my personal opinion. hi
    People are not fighting ships. And the defense of the Fatherland gives birth to heroes! But we are not going to attack Great Britain, but the difference from our opponents, who constantly nonsense in the direction of the Russian Federation and rattling weapons at NATO exercises! Strength is in truth!
    And do not finish in his pants at the sight of "Queen Elizabeth." They are not worth it wink
    1. Kazakh
      Kazakh 7 September 2015 07: 42 New
      +10
      Quote: Rurikovich
      People are not fighting ships.

      But people do not fight with their bare hands. And the Falklands Britons were not repelled on boats.
      And to sing panegerics to them as if not with their hands. To study - yes ...
      Where are the panegyrics here? The usual description of the state of the fleet. How are you going to study the enemy without a description?
  8. Shiva83483
    Shiva83483 7 September 2015 07: 11 New
    -9
    Four missiles, and uk-at the bottom like atlantis .... what kind boxes amiable, what aug?
  9. Flinky
    Flinky 7 September 2015 07: 13 New
    +3
    It seems to me, or is someone openly fapping on a shaved fleet?
  10. Igor K
    Igor K 7 September 2015 07: 16 New
    -2
    A decrepit once powerful state with good maritime traditions and an abstruse, boring parliament. Folklands-2 performed by Russian weapons gentlemen the British I think will not be pulled.
    1. Igor K
      Igor K 7 September 2015 14: 52 New
      0
      Gentlemen minus signers, state your arguments:
      Is the fleet dawning?
      Parliament is not abstruse?
      Argentina with our su-xnumx and weapons is not deadly for the fleet of small Britain?
      1. Kingcobra
        Kingcobra 9 September 2015 06: 21 New
        -1
        yes no, it’s better if you take the trouble to write what the fleet is decrepit, otherwise any fool "can throw himself with hackneyed phrases.
  11. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 7 September 2015 07: 50 New
    +11
    Unfortunately, such an effective weapon against any fleet, like mines, is completely underestimated. Modern technologies make it possible to create new “intelligent” types of mines, both self-transporting and conventional types of mines. Moreover, mines can be installed unnoticed right now, from merchant ships, disguising themselves as stones, rocks and more. Mine weapons are very effective weapons that make such ultra-modern fortifications stuffed with electronics absolutely useless. At a relatively low cost, modern mines that are well-hidden and camouflaged will require tremendous effort and resources for their search and clearance.
    1. avt
      avt 7 September 2015 08: 44 New
      +9
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Unfortunately, such an effective weapon against any fleet, like mines, is completely underestimated.

      By whom ????
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      . Modern technologies make it possible to create new “intelligent” types of mines,

      In fact, it has long been created.
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      . Mine weapons are very effective weapons,

      Yeah - whoever argued, just not me. But the question is at what depths of the World Ocean are you going to install ??? Or will you let go free swimming? But then this is a different type of weaponry, rather a kind of robotic system on a carrier, more preferably underwater, than they actually do - the admirals have already announced in the open press and on TV. Well, according to the article - I really liked this, for example, ---- ,, The “Typhoons” of the Royal Air Force will sink any ship for a long time, as it approaches the “disputed territories” "------ laughing They will sink, will sink both intolerable aircraft carriers, and omnipotent armadillos, even super Zumvolts laughing This type of Oleg’s new hobby in the wunderwaff rating ??? Well then, the supporters of Oleg, let the choir all for the construction of typhoons! Give the Russian Typhoon!
    2. dima-fesko
      dima-fesko 7 September 2015 08: 52 New
      0
      I agree with you. I read somewhere else that on depth bombs (mines) they set the multiplicity of triggering mechanisms (maybe a couple of three ships can be missed, and then it works)!
  12. VSkilled
    VSkilled 7 September 2015 07: 57 New
    +5
    Another eulogy of the decrepit British lion? I do not approve.

    I support my comrade regarding the advantages of a mine war.

    At the same time, one does not have to set the goal of drowning an enemy vessel: it is enough to “just damage”, and the distance from the repair base will do its job.

    This allows you to massively use relatively cheap mines.
  13. Stena
    Stena 7 September 2015 08: 15 New
    +4
    Modern mines are not cheap weapons at all. Moreover, they are usually not installed in a single amount. For example, a mine based on a Captor torpedo - the torpedo itself costs about a million bucks, plus the installation. It is cheap? And they need to be delivered from a dozen to a hundred pieces at a time. Therefore, with mines - everything is not easy and even more so they are not a panacea for all ills ...
  14. igordok
    igordok 7 September 2015 08: 33 New
    +3
    Thank. Interesting opinion. Oleg’s articles can often be identified by the first sentence. hi
  15. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 7 September 2015 08: 35 New
    +6
    One pre-aircraft carrier, six air defense destroyers, thirteen frigates, three latest submarines, with a prospect of up to six,
    four strategists, and about two dozen landing and auxiliary vessels. But that’s not all, a lot of the author
    not noted! Of course there is a fleet, but what are the possibilities? Form a shock group? Secure cover
    own coast? I recall the conflict with Argentina ... The Grand Fleet was still alive, relatively
    healthy, and in a normal quantitative composition. Only a miracle saved the British from defeat and brought
    victory. Modern royal navy is able to operate only in conjunction with the "brothers" in arms!
    In a word, mattress covers ...
    1. Santa Fe
      7 September 2015 09: 10 New
      +4
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      Grand Fleet was still alive, relatively
      healthy, and in a normal quantitative composition.

      do not smack nonsense, it hurts

      The current RoyalNavi is incomparably more numerous and more powerful than the fleet arr. 1982
      even clean tonnage
    2. Igor K
      Igor K 7 September 2015 14: 45 New
      -1
      The Argentinean su-24 with our guided weapons, however, will not survive.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 7 September 2015 14: 50 New
        +4
        Quote: Igor K
        The Argentinean su-24 with our guided weapons, however, will not survive.

        Does Argentina have a Su-Xnumx? wassat
        1. Igor K
          Igor K 7 September 2015 17: 15 New
          0
          Already yes, the contract is in any case signed.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 8 September 2015 13: 02 New
            +1
            Quote: Igor K
            Already yes, the contract is in any case signed.

            You are wrong no
  16. Bongo
    Bongo 7 September 2015 08: 43 New
    +16
    Oleg in his repertoire - from one extreme to another. wassat In addition, in recent publications, too much has been frankly unreliable controversial facts. For example:
    The British fleet is armed with the fastest helicopter (Westland Lynx, unbroken record - 400 km / h)

    Only the author forgot to add that such speed was obtained on a specially prepared and extremely lightweight non-serial version with a forced engine (power increased to 40%) having a much shorter resource and a special rotor with blades that could not provide a hover mode. The usual production Westland Links (pictured) is a decent car, but not a shining one. Its maximum speed is 260 km / h, i.e. like the domestic Mi-8.
    1. Santa Fe
      7 September 2015 09: 13 New
      +2
      Quote: Bongo
      this speed was obtained on a specially prepared and extremely lightweight

      All records put by specially prepared machines

      The main thing is to find a machine that can be "specially prepared"
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 7 September 2015 09: 56 New
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        All records are set by specially trained machines.

        The main thing is to find a machine that can be "specially prepared"

        Oleg, of course it's silly to argue with this request But in this case, you are "playing with words." From what you have written, an ignorant reader may decide that the arsenal of the British Navy really consists of Westland Link helicopters capable of flying at a speed of 400 km / h. wassat Let's not break away from reality. For that matter, serial Mi-24 fly much faster than serial British helicopters.
        In addition, this is also not quite true:
        to date, the Falklands have been turned into an impregnable fortress. “Unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the middle of the vast ocean. A large air base with a three-kilometer runway was built on the island. The Typhoons of the Royal Air Force stationed there will sink any ship long before it approaches the “disputed territories”.
        The airfield there is really good, but it is empty. Britain’s military presence in the area is currently minimal.
        1. Santa Fe
          7 September 2015 10: 40 New
          -1
          Quote: Bongo
          . For that matter, serial Mi-24 fly much faster than serial British helicopters.

          you need to know the specific configuration, suspensions, number of payload and fuel \

          in fact:
          Lynx set a record. which clearly shows the potential of the machine
          and no one could break this record

          Quote: Bongo
          Britain’s military presence in the area is currently minimal.

          Who do they fear now?
          argentine revenge
          1. Irbis
            Irbis 7 September 2015 12: 46 New
            +9
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

            in fact:
            Lynx set a record. which clearly shows the potential of the machine
            and no one could break this record

            Westland Lynx - maximum speed: 260 km / h
            Westland Lynx - maximum speed: 400 km / h on a specially prepared car

            Mi-24 - Maximum speed in horizontal flight: 335 km / h
            Mi-24 - Maximum speed in horizontal flight:? km / h

            The question is ... Fuck make it easier for the Mi-24 if it flies a little slower than the special Linx (a). In my opinion, the author of the topic is slightly ... In general, slightly ...

            And more Ka-50:
            maximum reached in diving (testing): 460 km / h

            Exceeded? Surpassed ... So Linx helicopter for grandmothers :-)
          2. Bongo
            Bongo 7 September 2015 14: 51 New
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Lynx set a record. which clearly shows the potential of the machine
            and no one could break this record

            Does anyone need this?
  17. castle
    castle 7 September 2015 08: 57 New
    +9
    I have some experience in contact with the British infantry and the cutsants of some royal academies. I must say that they know their business well. They know how to fight. Well done in Afghanistan. Thank God alcohol is forbidden to them there.
  18. Aslan88
    Aslan88 7 September 2015 09: 59 New
    +1
    The fleet is powerful. Respect is necessary. In the Sea Battle, the Germans could not defeat them. But now I think they can defend themselves, but attacking a squad with a strong fleet is doubtful.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 7 September 2015 16: 12 New
      +4
      Yeah, they couldn’t, especially in the Norwegian operation. Even with losses, but they did it. As they say, the fleet is created not for high-profile victories, but for the fulfillment of assigned tasks. And the Angles were not without loss. Glories recall at least. Yes, and the sons of "dad Doenitz" turned out to be useless torpedoes.
      Well, as Bismarck sent one to the bottom of Hood, and his companion knocked down, too, it seems, that the great “peermoga” had swum navy. The impudence of the Germans was then purely numbered. Like in Jutland, by the way.
  19. dmit-xnumx
    dmit-xnumx 7 September 2015 10: 03 New
    +4
    I want to remind you that in the events with the Malvinas Islands, the decisive role was played by weapons: how much was written about the refusals of purchased imported equipment because of Argentina’s “bookmarks”, therefore, we must fight with our weapons. We have our weapons ...
  20. Taoist
    Taoist 7 September 2015 10: 21 New
    +9
    And I understood what was the secret of the Kaptsov style — whatever he wrote about. But all the objects of his “love” are described only in a “superlative degree” - practically as a “wunderwaffe” ... ;-)
  21. Nagaibak
    Nagaibak 7 September 2015 10: 24 New
    +1
    “As for the question from the title of the article, by now the Falklands have been turned into an impregnable fortress. An unsinkable aircraft carrier in the middle of an endless ocean.”

    You say an impregnable fortress?))) Well, well ...))) There are no impregnable fortresses.)))) Still Vissarionych spoke about this.
    "From the report" On the Work of the April Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission ", IV Stalin (1878 — 1953) 13 on April 1928 at a meeting of the Moscow organization of the CPSU (B.) Asset:" They say that it is impossible for the Communists, especially the working Communists "economic managers, to master chemical formulas and technical knowledge in general. This is wrong, comrades. There are no fortresses in the world that the working people, the Bolsheviks, could not take. We did not take such fortresses in our struggle against the bourgeoisie."
    1. vitya1945
      vitya1945 7 September 2015 21: 56 New
      +3
      Before the Vissarionovich, the father of Alexander of Macedon, Phillip said and argued, “There is no such impregnable fortified wall that could not have crossed a donkey loaded with gold,”
  22. yan 2015
    yan 2015 7 September 2015 10: 44 New
    +1
    it’s strange. why with such good military equipment. their Range Rover constantly broke down ... yes and their Challenger tanks were not up to par in the desert storm operation.
  23. Taoist
    Taoist 7 September 2015 11: 01 New
    +6
    By the way, the problem of Britain is not at all in technology - but in the elementary absence of sovereignty. Somehow imperceptibly, but the "cousins" command as they want and rule wherever they want, and the British lion turned into a poodle. So "God save the queen!"

    And to study the ability of “Royal Navy” is certainly worth it, but certainly not from the point of view of the return of the Falklands to Argentina. (by the way, in my opinion, no one asked for this). And from the point of view of how and with what he will be able to strengthen, for example, the 6 fleet in the "soft underbelly of Europe" area.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 September 2015 13: 08 New
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      By the way, the problem of Britain is not at all in technology

      Well, the proverb: "A camel is a horse made in England" did not arise from scratch ... the "post-industrial" development path affected the Britons
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 7 September 2015 15: 18 New
        0
        And this too ... although British designers have always been distinguished by a "peculiar" reading ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 September 2015 18: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      By the way, the problem of Britain is not at all in technology - but in the elementary absence of sovereignty. Somehow imperceptibly, but the "cousins" command as they want and rule wherever they want, and the British lion turned into a poodle. So "God save the queen!"

      Not really. They have enough of their own problems.
      For the main enemy of Royal Navy is ... their own laborers. For example, they destroyed the first atomic “queen” with one stroke of the pen (they wanted to put the saved money on purchases of F-111, but this program died quietly, and the money disappeared). The poor "Hermes" only the Falkland War saved from cancellation. And how "invincibles" dragged through them -full deck control cruiser". smile

      No wonder the contract for the construction of new "queens" of their lordship was so cunning that the penalty payments in the event of the termination of the contract or a decrease in the number of ships were more than the cost of completing the ship. Which saved the second ship in the series from the tenacious arms of gentlemen from the Chambers.
  24. xtur
    xtur 7 September 2015 11: 06 New
    +14
    > It is reported that these are the most secretive nuclear powered submarines in the world, whose sonar system (Sonar 2076, consisting of 13 000 hydrophones) is capable of tracking the Queen Mary-2 liner along the entire route from London to New York, at a time when the boat itself located off the coast of Misty Albion). 39 of thousands of strips of special polymer, glued on the outer surface of the body, completely absorb the radiation of enemy sonars, creating the illusion, "as if it is not an 97-meter Astyut, but a dolphin cub."

    his tongue is boneless, you can safely say that they are able to hear ships even from Jupiter. As well as the fact that 39 000 of thousands of strips of magic plastic absorb better the special coatings of modern submarines.

    But the statement about torpedoes that travel at a speed of 80 miles suggests that for British scientists there really is a special physics - after all, it is obvious that an increase in speed means a quadratic increase in resistance, which, with limited fuel reserves, means a reduction in the firing distance.
    But in this case must remember about the "Flurry"

    At the highest level of technical development, on which there are countries such as the Russian Federation, the USA, the World Bank, France ... even the superiority of performance characteristics in 10% is a huge superiority, but here are some fantastic superiority figures that mean an advantage in the generation of used scientific solutions.

    One may accidentally stumble upon one breakthrough initial study, which gives an advantage in one particular area. But in order to maintain a sustainable advantage across the entire spectrum of practically important areas, it is necessary to constantly conduct the entire front of research, because of the unrecoverable uncertainty of scientific research, one can never predict in advance where breakthrough research will appear.

    For this, British science should be adequately funded, the system of selection and training of children should be incomparably better than in the USSR / USA, the motivation of scientists should be in the same margin.

    None of these factors has ever been heard about any features of British science.
    1. yan 2015
      yan 2015 7 September 2015 11: 33 New
      +1
      this is from the series if my grandmother .. she would definitely be a grandfather. and so the facts in the studio.
  25. nikolay_major
    nikolay_major 7 September 2015 11: 29 New
    +2
    The fleet is certainly good, but everything has its weaknesses.
    And do not forget about the calculations and combat use of the air defense and missile defense system misses every 4-5 missile, and after hitting an 1 missile - every 2.
    So we get the most sophisticated air defense destroyer receives all 7-8 missiles and went to the bottom. And if you cover the missiles with electronic warfare systems, then 2-3 is enough, especially if it's X-101 / 102
    And an aircraft carrier with runway damage is a pile of useless floating scrap metal
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 7 September 2015 18: 00 New
      +4
      Quote: nikolay_major
      the most sophisticated anti-aircraft destroyer receives all 7-8 missiles and sank.

      Voooo, one tablet is enough ... (s)
      However, you are not greedy!
      Why is he so much? Enough 3-4, and the "iron cap" (!) Will take you into a tender embrace! For Sheffield, however, one was enough, not even torn. Unfortunately (fortunately?) And it happens ...
      Quote: nikolay_major
      2-3 is sufficient, especially if it is X-101 / 102

      Well, what are you * uncontrollably wasteful * !!!
      Strategic KR (and 102 - with SBP!) Yes, according to the Tax Code !!! Yes, all STATIONARY coastal targets will take offense at you, starting with the English naval base!
      Quote: nikolay_major
      And an aircraft carrier with damaged runway is a pile of uselessly floating scrap metal

      Well, brother, they are different carriers too ...
      There is, for example, without a catapult, with a springboard and VTOL. By the way, the English "Queen" "immediately mastered under the F-35. The impudent people, probably guessed that you were going to spoil her deck with fantasies on the theme of "CRBD on maneuvering SC!" This is probably why the amps have 4 catapults for AVU.
      Well, but seriously, (if the piston system of the steam catapult is not damaged) then damage to the flight deck and below deck can be (depending on the degree of damage) repaired by the AVU repair team in 1-3 days. Unfortunately, these are not empty words.
  26. Jan Ivanov
    Jan Ivanov 7 September 2015 11: 34 New
    +2
    Out of the corner of my eye I read the headline “Is it Easy to Get to Britain” and I think “What are the difficulties? A modern rocket and such a large target?” )
  27. Mother Theresa
    Mother Theresa 7 September 2015 11: 40 New
    0
    Thanks for the interesting article.
  28. Dark mol
    Dark mol 7 September 2015 13: 12 New
    +3
    It’s ridiculous. The Small British fleet in the Maldives has nowhere to go. With the loss and damage of ships of the first rank. From primitive airplanes with simple rockets. The only thing that saved them from total defeat was a sabotage with damage to fuses of freely falling bombs of the Argentine Air Force. Bombs didn’t explode after hitting a target. Moreover, during the attacks, the leader of the British air defense was struck. What is significant. They were also helped by real Argentine savagery, as the Argentines tried to drop torpedoes from exorbitant speeds. Those crashed.
  29. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 7 September 2015 13: 19 New
    +7
    They cut and took hydroacoustic antenna. So quietly that on the anti-submarine ship at first they did not understand why the gas was out of operation (Operation “Waitress” in the Barents Sea, 1982, with the participation of the above-mentioned submarine “Conkerror”).

    Heh heh heh ... K-324, the pomnitsa, brought on the tail of the 400 meters of the TASS antenna. smile
  30. alovrov
    alovrov 7 September 2015 14: 27 New
    +4
    Compared to the US Navy, the British fleet does not even draw on the Caspian flotilla in the Russian Navy. For strategists, it's ridiculous to mention. The degradation of RN began even before WWII and continues to this day, as the British Empire is one thing, and "Great" Britain is completely different. Dear Oleg, obviously pulled a sea owl on the globe of Britain.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 7 September 2015 14: 40 New
      +6
      Quote: alovrov
      Compared to the US Navy, the British fleet does not even draw on the Caspian flotilla in the Russian Navy.

      I do not share Oleg’s enthusiasm for the British Navy, but I can’t agree with you here. request Somehow I didn’t hear that the Caspian flotilla would include SSBNs, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and destroyers of the URO.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 7 September 2015 16: 56 New
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        Somehow I didn’t hear that the Caspian flotilla would include SSBNs, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and destroyers of the URO.

        Alovrov had something else in mind.
        He compared the WB fleet with the US fleet.
      2. alovrov
        alovrov 7 September 2015 17: 10 New
        +1
        Well, a dozen AUGs are not included in the Russian Navy. I compared like with like.
  31. Old_Python
    Old_Python 7 September 2015 14: 57 New
    +3
    Author Oleg Kaptsov
    And why am I not surprised? lol
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 7 September 2015 15: 19 New
      +3
      "Tradition Sir!" (with)
  32. barbiturate
    barbiturate 7 September 2015 15: 29 New
    +4
    Advertising characteristics are good, there is no question, but how it will be in real business is unknown. The 45 type is an excellent air defense ship, it seems, but otherwise it’s very modest, and it’s not clear what the real opportunity is to bring down several supersonic anti-ship missiles, and it’s no harder to approach such an destroyer and launch missiles than any other. It would not be fraught to do what the Americans are going for, for example, namely, joint maneuvers with the same Indians and real launches of inert brahmos according to Daring in the presence of independent military experts. So far the big question is about air defense, and about the rest of the armament is very weak ... Not a lot, although the combination of decimeter and centimeter radars on one ship in a bunch and missiles with AGSN sounds promising and cool.

    Aircraft carrier somehow also plain smile. By its main weapon - airplanes, it is much inferior (at times) to the same "Ford" (since this aircraft carrier was mentioned in the article), and by displacement - 65% of the "real" American avik. The remaining characteristics of Queen Elizabeth are so far a clear and completely untested advertisement such as super duper turbines and radars with automated everything and everything. Let him at least put him into the sea as part of the fleet.

    On the Premier League, too, everything is contradictory. It was reported (in the British press) about the numerous imperfections and shortcomings of the boat, as well as its huge cost, against this background, reports of unprecedented achievements and superfood torpedoes and sonars (obvious bullshit) look like an attempt to make excuses to taxpayers, although for sure the boat is very, very modern and should not be underestimated, no more.

    And here the respected author many times in his articles as an example leads the operation "Waitress" to steal the Soviet CEO, where does this come from? Besides the stories !! director !! documentaries, which supposedly talked with someone and found out something there - nothing. Neither facts nor evidence could have been recognized for a long time, in the time of Yeltsin we recognized anything, but no one spoke about it. All magazines and documents, according to the director himself, are destroyed. Something hurts a sticky little fungus from this story carries))
  33. Krio
    Krio 7 September 2015 16: 06 New
    +3
    Why did they pounce on the author? Well, he loves the British fleet, so what? Continental powers will always lose the island by the fleet, the army on the continent is more important. Suppose they defeat the enemy’s fleet and that they get from Moscow to Berlin or there (although they reached Washington). England is a small country with either the army or the fleet. They chose the fleet from the time of Henry 5, for them the right decision, of course the fleet will be excellent. The only period when the army steered is the Cromwell period and they obscure it.
  34. Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 7 September 2015 17: 21 New
    +1
    "The British Navy is armed with the fastest helicopter (Westland Lynx, an unbroken record - 400 km / h)" ??? the serial one has a maximum speed of 260 km / h, but in 1986 on Link with a modified engine (power increased to 40%) and special rotor blades a world speed record for helicopters was set (400,87 km / h)
  35. valerysvy
    valerysvy 7 September 2015 18: 20 New
    0
    Thanks, informative ..
  36. Vadim237
    Vadim237 7 September 2015 18: 45 New
    0
    They have not frail nuclear forces 64 missiles, each can accommodate 14 individually guided warheads.
  37. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 7 September 2015 18: 46 New
    +1
    By the way, about Astyut. Here it is, darling - Astute on the rocks: smile


    22 October 2010 year. Astute nuclear submarines ran aground during sea trials.
    1. Denis_469
      Denis_469 7 September 2015 20: 35 New
      0
      Not sea trials - but unloaded prostitutes ashore before going to sea. The base was loaded with prostitutes to the crew, and then they were unloaded. Well, they missed a bit and sat on the stones.
  38. Tigr
    Tigr 7 September 2015 19: 09 New
    +1
    I allow myself to oppose a little respected author. smile

    Two Rolls-Royce MT30 Super Turbines.

    Turbines may be super. That's just their total power is 106 000 hp, while the nuclear power plant of the American aircraft carriers such as Nimitz gives heat to 260 000 hp This means that the maximum speed of Queen Mary is 25 knots, and for nuclear-powered ships - over 30 knots.

    The speed of economic walking for the "British" is still more sad. If cruising speed can be maximum for nuclear powered ships, then at Queen Mary it’s just 15 knots. That is, the “British” have about 1,5 - 2 times lower capabilities than the “Americans” in operational maneuver.

    PS We could not find data on specific fuel consumption for MT30 turbines, but the British are guaranteed to have guaranteed fuel for the British tanker specifically for the Queen Mary.

    Original layout with front and rear superstructure.

    Originality does not imply that such a scheme is better than, for example, a single "island".

    Two radars with active PAR. Survey radar S1850M, capable of distinguishing targets in near-earth orbit and a radar for tracking the horizon. Type 997 Artisan, operating in the centimeter range.

    S1850M radar passive phased array antenna.

    Optronic search and sighting systems.

    What?

    Full electric movement.

    If for submarines or anti-submarine ships electric propulsion is really vital, then for aircraft carriers it is not.

    In connection with the rejection of the electromagnetic catapult, “Queen” is intended for basing aircraft with a short takeoff. Selection of the British - F-35B fighter-bomber. According to the calculations of the military, on board it is supposed to have all 12 fighters (up to 24 in wartime) and a mixed squadron of helicopters.

    The abandonment of the catapult means the absence of carrier-based AWACS aircraft. And this, in turn, means the capabilities of the modern Queen Mary in situational awareness remain at the Invincible level of the 82 model of the last century, despite the ship's super-radars mentioned above.

    The Queen Mary Air Group will have 4 - 2 times fewer combat aircraft than the Nimitz type aircraft carrier. At the same time, its cost is 6,2 billion pounds, i.e. almost twice as much as the price of building any of the "nimits."

    In addition, space for 250 marines is reserved on board the Queen Elizabeth.

    On 14 of September 1994, the USS nuclear carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), having first landed its wing on the coast, went to the coast of Haiti with 2000 fighters and 58 helicopters of the 10 mountain division on board. That was the beginning of the invasion of Haiti, called "Support for Democracy."
    1. Santa Fe
      7 September 2015 20: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Tigr
      the speed of Queen Mary is 25 knots, and for nuclear-powered ships - over 30 knots.

      How often ships move at full speed, with 100% power
      Quote: Tigr
      If for nuclear powered ships cruising speed may be equal to the maximum

      what nonsense
      the resource of mechanisms is killed in a few days at full speed
      Quote: Tigr
      vital, then for aircraft carriers - no.

      economically, efficiently, + unification
      Quote: Tigr
      And this, in turn, means that the possibilities of modern Queen Mary in situational awareness remain at the Invincible level of the 82 model of the last century,

      with F-35 radars
      Quote: Tigr
      At the same time, its value is 6,2 billion pounds,

      this is the cost of two ships
      Queen and Pritz of Wales
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 September 2015 21: 16 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How often ships move at full speed, with 100% power

        Aircraft carriers - quite often, when lifting and landing an air group.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        what nonsense
        the resource of mechanisms is killed in a few days at full speed

        Really nonsense. No resource is killed, this is not a mode of forcing mechanisms.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        economically, efficiently, + unification

        And what, it turns out to prove all this in relation to the electric motor? :))) Well, come on, Oleg, go ahead :)))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        with F-35 radars

        Which are you going to use in search mode? M-d ...
      2. Tigr
        Tigr 7 September 2015 21: 19 New
        +1
        Infrequently. But, probably, the 33-node standard in us navy is still held not only because of tradition.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        what nonsense
        the resource of mechanisms is killed in a few days at full speed

        Sorry, but you wrote nonsense. And in the 1946 year, the Midway passed 4452 miles from Guantanamo to Rio de Janeiro with an average speed of 32,56 node and its cars did not die.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        economically, efficiently, + unification

        Regarding cost-effectiveness and efficiency, justification is needed. In your article I did not see it. As for unification, this is a question in itself.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        with F-35 radars

        Do not confuse the warm with the soft - the F-35 will never replace an Aircraft.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        this is the cost of two ships

        Even so: a flawed Englishman at the price of an American niece.
  39. tatarin_ru
    tatarin_ru 7 September 2015 20: 44 New
    +2
    While the British are enthusiastically building new aircraft carriers, emigrants go along quiet paths from Europe to the country ... Then there are tents, moderate opposition, freedom of speech, support for democracy and ... there are already an Argentine flag or some other on the islands, and the menacing British ships will all be continue to plow the open sea and terrify civilians in banana republics laughing
  40. fivanec
    fivanec 7 September 2015 21: 00 New
    0
    I don’t know whether they wrote here or not, but the main feature of Royal Navi, like all Royal Forces, is technological compatibility with the American armed forces and the “special relations” between the two countries: the CIA and Mi6 actually work together. The compatibility of the troops reaches the level that they can be subordinated to the command of both countries. As I understand it, this is impossible with either France or Germany. Not taken from a military article, so I won’t say technological details.
  41. partizan86
    partizan86 7 September 2015 21: 30 New
    +1
    Attacking everyone is easy ...
  42. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 7 September 2015 22: 03 New
    +8
    I have the impression that Oleg takes an advertising article in English, translates it, * combes it * (stylizes) and adds with vivid facts, also apparently taken from the English-language press. Therefore, such "facts" arise:
    They (the British) cut and carried away the sonar antenna. So quiet that at first they didn’t understand on the anti-submarine ship why the GAS was out of order (Operation Waitress in the Barents Sea, 1982; with the participation of the aforementioned Konkerror nuclear submarine)

    Situation. Gus * hangs * on the cable. The dynamometer shows the force on the towing device. A sailor is watching the dynamometer. In the f / a cabin there are devices for monitoring the insulation resistance of the HAS. Suddenly - a cliff. What is going on?
    1. If the cable is strong (and it is strong!), Then the ship will “twitch”. Unnoticed, this cannot pass for the running post. The officer on duty, senior at KP (KP, SEC) will immediately ask for BIP, PEZH: what happened? Navigator - the depth of the place, etc. Do you think G / A cutting will not report a broken cable, having a report on * Zeros * of tension and insulation resistance?
    2. If BUGAS * is delivered * (behind the PLC stern), then it works: in passive or active mode. And what do you think: at what distance can she hear the atomic ship 1969 of birth (2 generation), the thundering GTZA and howling with the circulation pumps of the nuclear power plant circuits?
    3. The ravings of S. Prebble (* the writer * who wrote this sensation) about the automatic "wire cutters" with which the Konkoror nuclear submarine was equipped, which managed (!) To find * a thread * a cable-cable and cut it ... and then * quietly crawl away * (without captures, because nothing was said about them anywhere!) and pass the cut-off body BUGAS to the Americans (?) And they themselves could not make it apart by bones !?
    4. Why did the * circumcised * Bugas body (if it was MGK-355), with negative buoyancy, not drown? Why was the extended GUS (if it was a Star) in the POU not controlled?
    And the submarines are equipped with hydroacoustics that can distinguish targets on the other side of the ocean (according to the developers), “Sonar 2076” is able to hear the noise of the screws of the Queen Mary 2 liner at a distance of 3000 miles

    Oleg unfortunately does not talk about how far our 4 generation submarines hear rattling airliners while in the PZK. And the fact that along the PZK sound, almost without loss, can go around the globe. So, this fact is from the evil one ... although it is very effective in influencing the public.
    I won’t spread the rest, because forum users have critically rated them.
  43. yan 2015
    yan 2015 7 September 2015 22: 26 New
    +3
    well, Queen Elizabeth can control on the other side of the world. and sees nothing under her nose. The ship, which caused damage to the Northern Ireland trawler Karen in the Irish Sea during the NATO exercises in April, was a British submarine, not a Russian one, according to media and public organizations Penny Mordont, state secretary of defense, said Monday.

    The Royal Navy has now confirmed that the British submarine is actually responsible for catching on the Karen networks. - every sandpiper .. as the popular saying goes ..
  44. moreman78
    moreman78 7 September 2015 23: 00 New
    +1
    I read, laughed ... And what else to expect from a pea clown - Kaptsov?
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 8 September 2015 10: 27 New
      +5
      Quote: moreman78
      I read, laughed ... And what else to expect from a pea clown - Kaptsov?

      "Well, yes ... Everyone can offend an artist ..." (c)
      Respected! The author can be treated differently. Just insult nobody.
      Oleg is a talented, interestingly writing author. And here is what he wrote - discuss until you lose your pulse, how much you will fit!
      Once again, for the gifted, I repeat: The author who works on the site does not need to be touched and it is not recommended to switch to the person!
      IMHO
      1. yan 2015
        yan 2015 8 September 2015 10: 45 New
        0
        I support. It is not necessary to stoop to insults .. here they are not there.
  45. and why
    and why 8 September 2015 00: 15 New
    +3
    Argentinean cruiser Belgrano - from the Second World War. Argentina itself at that time was a weak state (and even now not so). But Argentine pilots were able to sink the English destroyer, "Sheffield" in my opinion. The Yugoslav and Iraqi war took place in the shadow of a big brother and talking about the great successes of the British military in these wars is simply ridiculous, especially about throwing several tens or hundreds of cruise missiles from a safe distance over, again, weak states. Maybe then we recall the war against the Zulus or other African "armies". England had a battle with an equal opponent with Germany in World War I, and she won this battle. But in World War II, without Russia and America, England with its fleet would have been very ill.
  46. War and Peace
    War and Peace 8 September 2015 00: 20 New
    +8
    Their ships are propelled by the most powerful gas turbines existing today (Rolls-Royce MT30, 50 thousand horsepower).


    I felt that what was wrong, a sweet writer on ship topics mixed up the GEM and the GSS. GEM is the MAIN POWER INSTALLATION, and the GSU is the MAIN POWER INSTALLATION. GEM on the "Queen" really MT30 -2sht total power -74mvt or 50tys.ls. , but this is not the most powerful turbine, I have already said that the dill turbine UGT60000 (GTE-60А) is the power of a turbine engine, - 63500 kW -64mW.
    Are there even more powerful turbines? Yes, of course, for example, the PD-14 thrust is 14 tons, which is 78 thousand kW-105 thousand hp like two MT30.
    And if you recall the unforgettable NK93 with traction from 18-23tons, then no MT30 are nearby.
    Then to say that this MT30 is the most “powerful” is no longer just illiterate, but more than illiterate, I think that the sweet agent of influence is either holding us all for suckers, or the very same thing is probably the second ...
  47. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 8 September 2015 06: 20 New
    +2
    About the mentality, test tube, etc. "They" just do what they need, what their left leg wants, and then pull up any facts without bothering about credibility, so from the bastard. Well, like PS.aki. ---- talking head.
  48. tomket
    tomket 8 September 2015 14: 20 New
    0
    The last photo, by the way, depicts not ADV fighter-bombers, but ADV Tornado interceptors.
  49. taksist
    taksist 8 September 2015 14: 50 New
    0
    Where should they land after the outbreak of hostilities? From their islands and environs will remain only "zilch" ...
  50. red_october
    red_october 8 September 2015 17: 25 New
    0
    Why attack Britain?

    It is enough to create a hotbed of tension for the British by equipping Argentina with modern technology: several Su-30 squadrons (recently there was talk of Su-24, modernized for Argentines, which is also acceptable) will put the sons of Misty Albion in an awkward position. Their famous "balanced" fleet will cease to be such, as they will have to develop its resources off the coast of South America and protect the sovereignty of the remnants of the empire. This will somewhat relieve tension for us from the European theater of war ...

    And if they put another 636.3 "Varshavyanka ....