Military Review

“Harriers” in battle: Falklands conflict 1982 (part of 1)

82

Discussions about the role of vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL) are very popular at Topvar. As soon as a suitable article appears to discuss this class aviationas disputes erupt with renewed vigor. Someone writes that VTOL aircraft are a waste of time and money, while others believe that VTOL carriers could well replace aircraft carriers with horizontal take-off aircraft, while someone seriously insists that the future of manned aviation is precisely for VTOL aircraft and that in a large-scale conflict in which cruise missiles will destroy airfields, only VTOL aircraft will be able to continue the war in the air. Who is right?


Without claiming the ultimate truth, the author will try to find the answer to this question by analyzing the role of the VTOL aircraft in the Falkland conflict of 1982, where the Argentine Air Force presented its chest and chest, and several dozen British vertical arms - "Harriers". The Falklands fight should be considered an excellent illustration of the capabilities of VTOL aircraft against classical aviation, because:

1) in the air met planes of about the same technical level. “Mirages” and “Daggers” are almost the same age as the “Harriers”, however, “Super Etandar” went into a series on 10 years after the British “vertical line”, which to a certain extent was compensated by the imaginary performance characteristics of this gloomy French genius;
2) training of pilots, if different, is not at all times. Probably, the British pilots were still better, but the Argentines were not at all "whipping boys", they fought desperately and professionally. Nothing like the beating of Iraqi babies, which the MNF aviation committed during the “Storm in the Desert” air operation, did not take place over the Falklands: the victories of both the Argentines and the British literally gnawed at the enemy during a bitter struggle;
3) and, finally, the population ratio. Formally, Argentine aviation surpassed the British in a ratio of about 8 to 1. But, as will be shown below, the technical condition of the aircraft and the remoteness of the continental Argentine airfields from the conflict area led to the fact that the Argentines had never been able to throw any superior air forces into the battle against the British. Nothing like the sky of Yugoslavia, where several MiG-29 tried to somehow resist hundreds of NATO aircraft, did not happen.

But not a single VTOL ... According to the author, the 1982 Falkland Conflict is completely unique and is able to suggest answers to many interesting questions. These are the actions of the underwater fleet in modern warfare, and carrier-based aircraft against the coast, and an attempt to repel the attack of the superior fleet by the forces of a weaker, but relying on the ground-based Air Force, as well as the use of anti-ship missiles and the ability of warships to withstand the latter. Nevertheless, the most interesting lesson is the effectiveness of the actions of a large naval formation, built around aircraft-carrying ships - VTOL carriers. So let's look at what the 317th operational connection of the Royal Navy of Great Britain, which was based on the carriers of the Harriers: the aircraft carriers Hermes and Invincible, made and failed.

Certainly, the origins of the conflict, its beginning - the seizure of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) by Argentines, the formation and dispatch of British expeditionary forces, who were charged with returning the islands to the hand of the British crown and the liberation by the British of South Georgia, are excellent topics for thoughtful research, but today we put it down and go straight to the morning of April 30 1982, when the British squadron unfolded in the so-called TRALA zone, located in 200 miles northeast of Stanley.

The forces of the parties


As you know, the British announced that since 12 on April 1982, any Argentine combat or merchant ship that was within 200 miles from the Falkland Islands will be destroyed. The TRALA zone was located almost on the border of the indicated 200 miles. Did the British believe that being outside the declared combat zone would save them from Argentine attacks? It is doubtful. Here rather different, much more pragmatic considerations played a role.

The fact is that the Falkland Islands were not just a provincial, but completely forgotten by the gods corner of the Ecumene. The largest settlement (Stanley) barely numbered one and a half thousand inhabitants, and the remaining settlements rarely had at least 50 people. The only concrete airfield was too small to receive modern combat jets, while other airfields were completely unpaved. All of this suggested that the British should not be seriously wary of Argentine aviation, based on the Falkland Islands.

Indeed, the forces stationed there were still a freak show. The air group of the Falkland Islands was made up of an air group with the proud name of Pukara Malvinas Squadron, which included 13 light turbo-prop attack aircraft Pukara (even during the fighting Falkland had more 11 vehicles of this type transferred). This pride of the Argentine aviation industry was originally designed for action against partisans in low-intensity conflicts and fully met these requirements. Two 20-mm guns, four 7,62-mm machine guns, 1620 kg of maximum combat load and speed in 750 km / h, coupled with an armored bottom cabin, were a good solution to problems that could create small groups of people armed with light rifle weapons. The radar for this air warrior was considered unnecessary, so the only aiming system for onboard weapons was the collimator sight. This squadron forces of the Argentines were not exhausted. In addition to "Pukara Malvinas", there was a whole dozen of vehicles with wings. Airmachi MV-339А six were training jet aircraft, which for the first and last time in all of them history tried to use as light attack aircraft. They were a little faster than the "Pukary" (817 km), did not have built-in armament, but on external hangers could carry up to 2 tons of combat load, and there was also no radar for them. Completed the list of the Argentine air forces of the Falkland Islands 6 combat aircraft "Mentor T-34". The combat value of this two-seater single-engine propeller aircraft with a maximum weight of less than two tons, capable of developing as much as 400 km of maximum speed, is truly difficult to underestimate.



Yet even such an air group had a certain usefulness for the Argentines: the planes could be dangerous for the sabotage groups that the British planned to land, and even an attempt to attack the British low ground could be a nuisance. Argentine planes could also become a formidable opponent for British helicopters, but, most importantly, despite the lack of radar, they could still conduct naval reconnaissance and identify the location of British ships, which was extremely undesirable for the British. After all, after the light attack aircraft-reconnaissance, the Daggers and Super Etandars could come from the mainland bases.

Since military air bases appeared on the Falkland, then there should have been an air defense system designed to cover these bases. Argentines have represented something like that, and we can safely say that the air defense of the island was to match their air "power": twin 12 35-mm "Oerlikon", several 20- and 40-millimeter anti-aircraft guns, portable SAMs "blowpipe" 3 launchers The “Taygerkat” air defense system and even one “Roland” battery. The air situation in the 200 radius was illuminated by the Westinhouse AN / TPS-43 radar stationed in Stanley. True, the hills and mountains left numerous dead zones, but still it was better than nothing.

In general, it is easy to see that from the point of view of military art and 1982 technology, the forces of the Argentines deployed on the Falkland Islands were not even weak, but clearly insignificant and obviously needed air support from the mainland bases. How could such support be provided?

In the lists of the Air Force and Navy of Argentina, there were about 240 combat aircraft, but in real life things were much worse than on paper. In total, 19 (according to other sources, 21) of the Mirage IIIEA and 39 Israeli Dagger type aircraft (including 5 training aircraft) were delivered to Argentina, however, according to available data, only 12 “ Mirage "and 25" Daggerov. " Worse, according to some sources (A. Kotlobovsky, “Application of Mirage III and Dagger airplanes”), no more than 8 “Mirage IIIEA” and only nineteen “Daggers” took part in the battles.

Here, of course, a fair question arises: why did Argentina, in waging a war with Great Britain, not throw all the forces at its disposal into battle? The answer, oddly enough, lies on the surface. The fact is that the relations of the South American countries have never been cloudless, and Argentina should have taken into account that while she is fighting with England, someone can see a chance for herself and strike at the most inappropriate moment for the Argentines ... By the beginning of the Falklands conflict Chileans have concentrated large military contingents on the Argentinean border, and this could not be a diplomatic gesture: the war with Chile was over quite recently. Argentine headquarters directly pointed to the possibility of joint action by Chile and England, this option (the simultaneous invasion of Chileans and the landing of the British troops on the Falklands) was considered quite likely. It is for this reason that the most combat-ready Argentine ground units, such as the 1-I mechanized brigade, the 6-I and 7-I infantry brigades, were not sent to the Falklands, but remained on the mainland. Under these conditions, the desire to preserve a part of aviation to counter Chile looks quite understandable, although retrospectively this decision should be recognized as erroneous. And even if the British troops on the Falklands met with the color of the Argentine ground forces, the battles could have become much more fierce and bloody than they were in reality. Fortunately, this did not happen, well, we will return to aviation.

The exact number of "Skyhawks" is also very difficult to determine, the data sources differ, but, apparently, they were on the lists around 70. Often there is a common figure 68 or 60 machines in the Air Force and 8-10 "Skyhocks" in naval aviation. However, only 39 (including 31 aircraft of the Air Force and 8 of Navy aircraft) were combat-ready of them to the start of hostilities. True, the Argentine technicians in the course of the hostilities managed to put into operation even 9 machines, so that all could take part in the battle of the order 48 "Skyhocks". Nor was it with the French Super Etandars. Sometimes, as part of the Argentine Air Force, 14 machines of this type are indicated at the beginning of the war, but this is not true: Argentina actually signed a contract for 14 of such aircraft, only before the conflict with England and the accompanying embargo only five cars got into the country. Moreover, one of them was immediately laid up in order to use spare parts for four other aircraft as a warehouse - due to the same embargo there were no other sources for obtaining spare parts from Argentina.

Thus, by the beginning of hostilities, the Falklands could have been provided by 12 “Mirage”, 25 “Daggerov”, 4 “Super Etandar”, 39 “Skyhawks” and - I almost forgot! - 8 light bombers "Canberra" (honored veterans of the air, for the first time an aircraft of this type took off already in the 1949 year). The combat value of the Canberra to the 1982 year was negligible, but still they could reach the British ships. Total turns 88 aircraft.

No, of course, Argentina had other combat vehicles "with wings" - the same "Pukar" existed in the number of not less than 50 units, there were still "wonderful" MS-760A "Paris-2" (training aircraft, in certain conditions capable of performing the role of light attack aircraft) in quantities of the order of 32 machines, and one more thing ... But the problem was that all these "Pukary" / "Paris" simply could not operate from the continental airfields, from which only Stanley was required to fly 730-780 kilometers. They did not act - the entire burden of fighting with the British was borne on their wings by Mirages, Canberras, Super Etandars and Daggers, as well as those light Pukary / Mentors / Airmachi, which they managed to base on the airfields of the Falkland Islands.

Thus, by April 30, even with such rarities as “Mentor T-34” and “Canberra”, Argentines could send no more than 113 air vehicles to the British, of which only 80 “Mirage”, “ Daggerov "," Super Etandarov "and" Skyhocks. " This, of course, is not at all 240 combat aircraft, which are mentioned by most of the review articles on the Falklands conflict, but even such figures in theory provided the Argentines with overwhelming air superiority. After all, before the battles began, the British had only 20 "C" Harriers "FRS.1, of which 12 were based on the aircraft carrier Hermes and 8 on Invincible." And therefore, the British desire to keep 200 miles (370 km) behind the islands is understandable. Being located more than 1000 km from continental Argentinean bases, the British could not be afraid of massive air raids on their compound.



Yielding to the Argentines in the air, the British were not too superior to them in surface ships. The presence of two British aircraft carriers against one Argentine to a certain extent was compensated for by the presence of powerful ground-based aviation in the latter. As for the other warships, during the Falkland conflict the 23 of the British destroyer-frigate class ship was in the combat zone. But by 30 April, there were only 9 there (2 was still near Ascension Island), the rest came later. At the same time, the Argentine Navy had a light cruiser, five destroyers and three corvettes, however, when the main forces of the Argentines went to sea, one of these destroyers remained in the harbor in readiness for a naval battle, probably for technical reasons. Because by April 30, four British destroyers and five frigates were confronted by a light cruiser, four destroyers and three corvettes (sometimes called frigates) of Argentina. The Argentine ships were losing heavily in the British squadron's air defense capabilities: if the British ships 9 had the 14 SIRM (3 "Sea Dart", 4 "Sea Wolf", 5 "Sea Cat" and 2 "Sea Slug") to which it was necessary to add 3 "Sea Cat" located on aircraft carriers, the 8 of the Argentine ships had the 2 Sea Dart and 2 Sea Cat, and their only aircraft carrier had no air defense missile system at all. But on the other hand, the opposing capabilities of the opponents were equal: all Argentine destroyers had 4 launchers for the Exocset anti-ship missiles, and two out of three corvettes had 2 launchers (two launchers with Guerrico were removed and delivered to Port Stanley to organize coastal defense). The total number of launchers of Ekoset of the Argentine squadron was 20. The British, although they had more ships, but not all of them were equipped with anti-ship missiles, so by 30 of April there were also 317 exo-launchers on ships of the 20-nd operational connection.

Unfortunately, the author does not know how much the Exochet anti-ship missiles were at the disposal of the Argentine fleet. Typically, sources indicate the presence of five such missiles, and this is why: shortly before the outbreak of the war, Argentina ordered the French 14 "Super Etandars" and the 28 CRP "Exocinet AM39" for them. But before the embargo was introduced, only five aircraft and five missiles arrived in Argentina. However, it is overlooked that the Argentine fleet, equipped with an early modification of the Exocsets MM38, had some such missiles, which, however, could not be used from aircraft. So the commander of the British squadron, not without reason, feared that the Argentine ships, having crept up to its formation, would inflict a massive rocket attack.

The only class of ships in which the British had absolute superiority, is submarines. By April 30, the British were able to deploy the 3 of the nuclear-powered icebreaker: Concaurus, Spartan and Splendit. Formally, at the beginning of the war, the Argentines had four submarines, two of which were American military-made submarines of the Balao type, which underwent a radical modernization under the GUPPY program. But the technical condition of the submarine was absolutely terrible, so one of them, Santiago de Estro, was withdrawn from the Navy at the beginning of 1982 and was not commissioned, despite the war. The second submarine of this type, “Santa Fe” (only one fact speaks about the capabilities of which: the boat could not dive to a depth greater than the periscope), were going to remove 1982 from the fleet in July. But nevertheless she took part in the conflict, was shot down and captured by the British during the operation Paraquette (liberation of South Georgia 21-26 of April), and could not be taken into account in the composition of the Navy of Argentina.

The other two Argentine submarines were quite modern German type boats 209, only one of them, "Salta", suddenly dropped out of service at the very beginning of 1982, was under repair and did not take part in the conflict. Accordingly, by April 30, the British could have been confronted by a single Argentine submarine - San Luis (type 209).

Party plans


On April 30, there were two British operational connections in the conflict zone: Task Force-317 under the command of Rear Admiral Woodworth, which included almost all surface warships, and Task Force-324 (submarines). As mentioned above, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates TF-317 finished refueling and other preparations for combat operations in the TRALA zone, 200 miles northeast of Port Stanley. Submarines TF-324 went into patrol areas on the route of the possible Argentine squadrons between the mainland and the Falkland Islands. There was not only an amphibious group with a landing force - it barely left Fr. Ascension, which was the base of the British forces closest to the conflict area, but was separated from the Falkland Islands by the order of 4 thousands of nautical miles. However, the absence of an amphibious group did not interfere with anything, since nobody was going to use it at the first stage of the operation.

The forces of the British in the Falkland area were very limited and did not guarantee the provision of a large-scale landing operation. This could be corrected in two ways: to provide Rear Admiral Woodworth with powerful reinforcements, or to radically weaken the Argentine army. The British chose both, and therefore before the amphibious group concentrated on the initial positions it was supposed:

1) by the strategic bombers of the MFBC and carrier-based aviation to disable the Argentine air bases on the Falkland Islands - the Malvinas Islands and Condor. After that, the basing of even light aircraft on the Falkleds became impossible, and the Argentines could only rely on aircraft from continental airfields. The British believed that with the defeat of the Falkland air bases, air superiority over the islands would pass to them;
2) fleet maneuvers, landings of sabotage groups and shelling of dedicated ships to convince the Argentines that a large-scale landing operation had begun and thus force the Argentine fleet to intervene;
3) defeat the Argentine fleet in a naval battle.

The British believed that, having achieved all of the above, they would establish air and sea domination in the area of ​​the Falkland Islands, thereby creating the necessary prerequisites for a successful landing of the landing force, and then the conflict would not drag on.

In retrospect, we can say that the British plan had a lot of exaggeration. Not that the TF-317 ships should seriously fear the "Squadron Pukara Malvinas", but, of course, having lost the opportunity to conduct reconnaissance flights from the airfields of the Falkland Islands, the Argentines lost a lot. However, as part of their Air Force, there were airplanes capable, at the very least, to conduct long-range aerial reconnaissance, and the islands themselves were, albeit at the limit, but still within reach of aviation from continental airfields. Therefore, the planned destruction of air bases did not provide air supremacy over the contested islands - it was to be provided to the Sea Harrier pilots. As for the destruction of the Argentine fleet, it was obvious that two dozen VTOLPs, who still needed to cover the fleet ships from enemy raids, would not be able to solve this task, if only because of their small number, and the destroyers and frigates in the CWMF were not intended for these purposes. principle. So, for the first time in the entire history of the KWMF, submarines were to become the main means of routing the main enemy forces. However, there were plenty of possible courses with which the Argentine squadron could have approached the Falkland Islands, therefore, nuclear submarines had to be deployed in a very extensive area. It would be all right, but now it was not easy to assemble them together for a joint attack of the Argentine ships, and it’s rather naive to expect that one submarine would be able to destroy the Argentine squadron.

Nevertheless, despite all the tensions, the British plan should be recognized as logical and quite reasonable. Yes, and with the forces that the British had, one could hardly think of something more sensible.

Surprisingly, the Argentines found their own "Admiral Makarov", who advocated offensive actions, despite the fact that the "Armada Republic of Argentina" (outside the zone of action of ground aviation) was obviously inferior to its enemy. The commander of the Argentine fleet, Rear Admiral G. Allyar, proposed using the only Argentine aircraft carrier on British communications (rightly assuming that there would be more benefit from his Skyhocks 8 than a frontal attack on the British compound). Also this worthy husband offered to relocate several surface ships directly to the Falkland Islands and be ready on the eve of the inevitable landing to turn the old destroyers into artillery batteries in Port Stanley Bay.

But the Argentine leadership had other plans for the fleet: assuming that the overall superiority of forces would be beyond the British and not doubting the skills of the British crews, the Argentines came to the conclusion that even if the naval operations succeed, the cost of their naval forces could be. And he, this fleet, was an important factor in the balance of power of the South American states, and it was not part of the plans of the political leadership to lose it. Therefore, the Argentines chose moderately aggressive tactics: it was supposed to wait for the start of a large-scale landing of the British on the Falkland Islands - and then, and only then, strike the whole power of ground and carrier-based aviation, and with success (what the hell is not joking!) And surface / submarine ships .

To this end, the Argentines and deployed their fleet, dividing it into three operational groups. The basis of the Argentinean naval forces was the 79.1 Task Force consisting of the Weintisinco de Mayo aircraft carrier and the two most modern Argentine destroyers, which almost completely copied the British type 42 (Sheffield), but, unlike the British counterparts equipped with 4 PU, Exoset each. Not far from them was the 79.2 task force, which included three corvettes and was intended to promote the success achieved by deck aircraft and land-based aircraft. However, the idea of ​​separating corvettes into a separate compound looked, to put it mildly, doubtful: three ships less than 1000 tons of standard displacement, not having a single air defense system, and only 4 PU for all three (especially in the absence of missiles) could not threaten british mix. The only Argentine submarine “San Luis” was not part of any of these task forces, but was supposed to attack the British from the north along with the 79.1 and 79.2 groups.

The use of the third and last Argentine Task Force (79.3) was intended solely for demonstrative purposes. The light cruiser “Admiral Belgrano” and two destroyers of the military construction “Allen M. Sumner” (despite the equipment of the destroyers of the missile control missile of the anti-ship missiles) were intended to delay the attacks of the British and thereby ensure the smooth operation of the 79.1 and 79.2 operations groups. The leadership of the Armada Republic of Argentina for the 79.3 task force did not suggest anything else: a breakthrough of the antediluvian cruiser of the Brooklyn type to the British compound at a distance of effective artillery fire would not have been a dream for the Argentines in a narcotic dream, if they used narcotic drugs. But to distract the attention of the British 79.3 was quite good: sending the connection to the south of the Falkland Islands (while 79.1 and 79.2 were going north) and given the relatively high survivability of the light cruiser, the chances of delaying the attacks of the British deck Harriers looked quite decent, the presence of two destroyers, large size, armor and 2 air defense system "C Cat" on "Admiral Belgrano" allowed to hope that the ship will be able for some time to stay against such attacks.

Thus, by April 30, the sides completed the deployment and prepared for large-scale hostilities. It was time to start.

To be continued ...
Author:
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. qwert
    qwert 13 May 2016 06: 57
    +5
    And where about Harrier? Why go so far away? Well, at least not since the discovery of this archipelago. Then the article should have been called "The Falklands Conflict".
    1. Leto
      Leto 13 May 2016 08: 45
      +13
      Quote: qwert
      And where about Harrier?

      The end with the phrase "To be continued ..." as if hints WHERE
      Quote: qwert
      Why come from so far?

      The topic is very sensitive and an excursion to the alignment of forces at the time of the outbreak of hostilities is simply necessary.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 May 2016 09: 05
      +23
      Quote: qwert
      And where about Harrier? Why come from so far?

      Well, what can I say? This is the first article from a hefty cycle, where I will analyze almost every attack of the Argentine aviation :))) But the fact is that the emphasis in analytics will be placed on the Harriers.
      Quote: qwert
      Well, at least not since the discovery of this archipelago

      Nuuu, I did not begin to describe the political background of the conflict, the Argentine seizure, etc. .... Do you think it should? laughing
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette 13 May 2016 09: 44
        +4
        Good review. I look forward to continuing.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 May 2016 09: 47
          +1
          I will try to make sure that the sequel does not disappoint hi
          1. Talgat
            Talgat 13 May 2016 18: 07
            +2
            ".. The only class of ships in which the British had an unconditional superiority was submarines ..."

            This phrase from the article seems to me to be one of the most important. The submarines could sink to the bottom of the entire Argentine fleet. Therefore, the Argentines did not particularly climb under the torpedoes
      2. uskrabut
        uskrabut 13 May 2016 09: 57
        0
        but it could be briefly
        1. faridg7
          faridg7 13 May 2016 12: 55
          +4
          In a nutshell, thesis? Apparently, when visiting the library, it was enough to read the names of the library storage sections. Uninteresting - go read jaundice
      3. alexej123
        alexej123 13 May 2016 11: 06
        +1
        Andrey, thank you very much. I think it should. Very few materials with prehistory, alignment of forces and analytical calculations.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 May 2016 22: 42
          +3
          I would love to, but just a description of the fights on May 1-25 with conclusions draws articles like seven, if not eight. But the battles went on and on, and even if all the background was painted, then this is already a complete collection of works by V.I. Lenin.
    3. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 13 May 2016 09: 15
      +6
      If you are so interested in this topic - read the memoirs
      Woodward Sandward Woodward Sandy
      Falkland War.
      Memoirs of the Commander of the Falkland Assault Group
      http://militera.lib.ru/memo/english/woodward_s01/index.html

      Half of the book is boring memories of career growth, but the second half is a fairly detailed description of the marine component of the operation and, of course, the Harier’s actions.
      Woodward praised the contribution of the Harriers as multi-purpose machines.
      There is also some description of the educational interaction between the British and American aircraft carrier groups.
      The main drawback of the British aircraft carrier group was the absence of AWACS aircraft, which allowed a breakthrough to the British connection of super Etandars at ultra-low altitudes to the distance of launches of RCC Exoset.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        13 May 2016 09: 40
        +1
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        If you are so interested in this topic - read the memoirs
        Woodward Sandward Woodward Sandy

        Do you really think that I didn’t get acquainted with them? :) In vain. But thanks for the advice - thanks anyway
        Oh, I'm sorry, you didn’t write this to me. Did not immediately notice
  2. Maegrom
    Maegrom 13 May 2016 08: 31
    +1
    As always a great article. I think Oleg will appreciate the hairpin in his direction.
    1. Leto
      Leto 13 May 2016 08: 46
      0
      Quote: Maegrom
      As always a great article. I think Oleg will appreciate the hairpin in his direction.

      One minus is clearly from him, we are waiting for a comment.
  3. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 13 May 2016 08: 47
    +3
    How many articles have already been about the Falkland Conflict and each one has new details. I look forward to continuing.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 May 2016 09: 07
      +2
      Quote: Arctidian
      How many articles have already been about the Falkland Conflict and each one has new details.

      There will be quite a lot of them :) And the continuation - I’ll post it on Sunday, it will hit the main one on Tuesday.
    2. uskrabut
      uskrabut 13 May 2016 10: 00
      +3
      Latin America - soap opera paradise laughing
    3. Leto
      Leto 13 May 2016 10: 20
      +4
      Quote: Arctidian
      How many articles have already been about the Falkland Conflict

      At the end of the 20th century, he was one of the most interesting in terms of tension and the number of risky moments that could affect the course of the entire operation. Too many "What if?" Temptations.
      In this regard, a much larger operation to liberate Kuwait in 1991 in which ALL possible forces and means were involved, no one was interested only because Saddam had no chance and nothing depended on the capricious event, everything was calculated on so much.
      1. Filxnumx
        Filxnumx 17 May 2016 20: 59
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        I am entirely for VTOL.

        And the presence of VTOL aircraft allows you to create numerous "points of refueling and aviation service."
        There will be a lot of them, they can be quickly created and moved, and the Air Force will become less vulnerable on earth.

        There should be a lot and a lot of them, approximately every 300 km. Where to find so many barrels for fuel and lubricants? And people? This is for each "point" 2-3 platoons at least and constantly keep N1 ready. And not just security and lads from the nearest gas station, but highly qualified specialists of at least 4 main specialties. And communication, and logistics, and finally the supply of prezics and porno magazines? What will happen to the VTOL aircraft when the enemy destroys at least half of the tankers? And for example, in order to be guaranteed to disable a modern runway, it is necessary to put a "vigorous bonbu" exactly in its center. So as they say "Not everything is so simple ..." ©
  4. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 13 May 2016 09: 56
    +1
    The Argentines, however, had trouble with the ammunition: the bombs did not explode, the rockets too. About 40% of such incidents. And aviation, almost the entire commando landed and blew up. RCC Exozet hit the Sheffield destroyer and did not explode, but it burned down due to a blow and a working engine.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 13 May 2016 18: 54
      +8
      In normal armies, exercises are arranged periodically. They are checked on them
      Ammunition: explode or not, how fuses are set up, etc.
      And when they go out to the war with the orchestra from the parades, it turns out that
      what happened to the argentinian army.
  5. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 13 May 2016 09: 59
    +5
    In general, if it were Cubans, and not Argentina, then the outcome of the confrontation would be different.
    1. Leto
      Leto 13 May 2016 10: 22
      -1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      In general, if it were Cubans, and not Argentina, then the outcome of the confrontation would be different.

      Want to talk about it?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 13 May 2016 10: 33
        0
        You can talk, but I do not want to correspond!
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 13 May 2016 10: 33
        0
        You can talk, but I do not want to correspond!
    2. Artem25
      Artem25 13 May 2016 13: 46
      0
      battles on land would drag out, a little ... But the result would be the same. hi
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 17 May 2016 11: 49
        0
        as in Angola, not far from where the Army and Air Force of one British dominion were constantly grabbing them
  6. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 13 May 2016 09: 59
    +2
    In general, if it were Cubans, and not Argentina, then the outcome of the confrontation would be different.
  7. uskrabut
    uskrabut 13 May 2016 10: 01
    +2
    Really interesting article. The knowledge of the material is felt. Plus, definitely, we look forward to continuing.
  8. vadimtt
    vadimtt 13 May 2016 10: 04
    +2
    Yes, yes, we are waiting for the continuation!
  9. Verdun
    Verdun 13 May 2016 10: 43
    +3
    And where about Harrier? Why come from so far?
    Yes, the approach is already very far away ... Although, perhaps, it is necessary. To understand how successful the use of a particular military equipment was, one has to carefully analyze the situation of its use.
  10. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 13 May 2016 10: 45
    +4
    Almost immediately after the end of the conflict, the journal Zarubezhnoye Voennoye Obozreniye published a good analysis of the actions of British aviation in this war. There were many tables, graphs, arguments in favor of VTOL aircraft in the conduct of close maneuver combat were given.
    Although my opinion is that France’s dividends received most of all in this conflict, the sales of Exocet’s anti-ship missiles increased significantly.
  11. Alex_59
    Alex_59 13 May 2016 11: 14
    +2
    Good start. A plus. I look forward to continuing. I hope at the end there will be a list of references where you can find something new for yourself.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 May 2016 11: 22
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      A good start. A plus

      Thank you!
      Quote: Alex_59
      I hope in the end there will be a list of references

      Of course it will be!:)
  12. sharkmen
    sharkmen 13 May 2016 11: 19
    +2
    Hello. Andrei, can you find out the purpose of the article is to fill in the white spot for those younger or offer the oldfags to discuss a new point of view? The 1982 theme was the first that touched me as a child and since then I have been trying to collect information about that conflict whenever possible. can you expect something new? analysis is also in price.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 May 2016 11: 28
      +2
      Quote: sharkmen
      Andrei, can you find out the purpose of the article is to fill in the white spot for those younger or offer the oldfags to discuss a new point of view?

      In general, both of them, but most likely, the second. Let's just say that in many review articles (and not only review articles, and not only articles) for some reason questions are not asked that should be puzzled, and, in my opinion, a number of key points are omitted, which are very important for understanding what happened when Falklands.
      Quote: sharkmen
      analysis is also in price

      Well, where am I without analysis, then? :)))
      Quote: sharkmen
      can you expect something new?

      Well, with what, but my articles will definitely not be the usual retelling :) But if I can offer you something new, I don’t know, I will try, of course :) hi
      1. Tigr
        Tigr 13 May 2016 16: 07
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Let's just say that in many review articles (and not only review articles, and not only articles) for some reason questions are not asked that should be puzzled, and, in my opinion, a number of key points are omitted, which are very important for understanding what happened when Falklands.


        Andrey, let me express my gratitude for your article. You are well done! I look forward to continuing.

        However, if it doesn’t make it difficult, I would like to know what number of key moments of that war you consider insufficiently covered (examined)?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 May 2016 19: 55
          +3
          Thanks for the kind words!
          Quote: Tigr
          However, if it doesn’t make it difficult, I would like to know what number of key moments of that war you consider insufficiently covered (examined)?

          With your permission, I will not answer this question right now - should there be at least some intrigue? laughing But, for example - the ratio of the number of British and Argentinean aircraft is usually indicated - and it seems that the British pilots were such epic heroes who fought in the air at a ratio of eight on one. However, the statistics of sorties is somewhat worse - for some reason, almost no one pays attention to it. But the advantage in the number of aircraft is excellent, but only if these aircraft fly :)))
  13. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 13 May 2016 11: 32
    +1
    When meeting with the normal fighters of that time, the Mig 23ML with normal weapons, only feathers would remain from the Harriers.
    1. sharkmen
      sharkmen 13 May 2016 12: 12
      +3
      Imagine a variant of such a moment in the conditions of Angolan pilots and technicians as described in the memoirs of the Chevrons of South Africa plus the embargo on the time of the database and the chances of annihilating the harriers begin to fade (God forbid me from saying something like a professor)
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 13 May 2016 14: 17
        +1
        Many Harrier fighters of that time, export F-16s did not have medium-range missiles, by the way. For these military operations, radar coverage and tactics are important.
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 13 May 2016 14: 17
        0
        Many Harrier fighters of that time, export F-16s did not have medium-range missiles, by the way. For these military operations, radar coverage and tactics are important.
    2. Artem25
      Artem25 13 May 2016 13: 44
      0
      Why such confidence?
      1. Artem25
        Artem25 13 May 2016 13: 57
        0
        And by the way, why are you so advocating for an Argentine junta, not taking into account the desire of the people of the Falklands to remain part of the UK?
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 13 May 2016 14: 14
          0
          There then lived 3 and a half penguins. Gibraltar, too, was chopped off from Spain and the inhabitants also want to live in England. Could Spain chop off, chop off.
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 13 May 2016 14: 14
          +1
          There then lived 3 and a half penguins. Gibraltar, too, was chopped off from Spain and the inhabitants also want to live in England. Could Spain chop off, chop off.
  14. Skubudu
    Skubudu 13 May 2016 13: 23
    +3
    Very well written. We look forward to continuing
    Personally, my opinion is: Britons were incredibly often lucky with Argentinean weapons failures.
    The Britons were supposed to lose most of the fleet and dangle, but the weapons of the Patagonians were treacherously silent at the crucial moment.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 13 May 2016 17: 59
      +1
      "but the weapon of the Patagonians was treacherously silent in ..." ////

      Here it is just to the point: "a bad athlete always gets an elastic band from cowards to win" wink
  15. Taoist
    Taoist 13 May 2016 13: 26
    +4
    we at one time in the service analyzed this conflict in detail - at that time "in hot pursuit" - it will be very interesting to read detailed reports after so many years ... So we are waiting, sir in full.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 May 2016 15: 06
      +1
      And it will be extremely interesting for me to find out how my conclusions coincide with your analysis. hi
  16. Delta
    Delta 13 May 2016 14: 25
    +7
    This is not an article. This work is like a book. For the first part - bravo. We are waiting for the continuation. Yes, Andrey, be sure to mention that "Belgrano" drowned only because it was armless))) Oleg must be pleased with something too
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 May 2016 15: 10
      0
      Quote: Delta
      This is not an article. This work draws on a book.

      Thanks for the kind words! I will try not to disappoint in the future drinks
      Quote: Delta
      Yes, Andrei, be sure to mention that "Belgrano" drowned only because it was armless)))

      laughing
  17. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 13 May 2016 17: 55
    0
    I am entirely for VTOL. Airfields and fuel and ammunition depots adjacent to them are vulnerable.
    With one preemptive strike you can land enemy aircraft on the ground.

    And the presence of VTOL aircraft allows you to create numerous "points of refueling and aviation service."
    There will be a lot of them, they can be quickly created and moved, and the Air Force will become less vulnerable on earth.
  18. Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 13 May 2016 21: 50
    +1
    Question to the studio:
    If Great Britain modernized Vengard with modern (at that time) fire control systems for the GK, radar and air defense ... well, in general, you yourself understood my question. What do you think?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 May 2016 22: 38
      +1
      Quote: Munchhausen
      If Great Britain modernized Vengard with modern (at that time) fire control systems for the GK, radar and air defense ... well, in general, you yourself understood my question. What do you think?

      You will get the answer to this question if you read the series of articles to the end :)
  19. Achtaba1970
    Achtaba1970 13 May 2016 21: 53
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    I am entirely for VTOL. Airfields and fuel and ammunition depots adjacent to them are vulnerable.
    With one preemptive strike you can land enemy aircraft on the ground.

    And the presence of VTOL aircraft allows you to create numerous "points of refueling and aviation service."
    There will be a lot of them, they can be quickly created and moved, and the Air Force will become less vulnerable on earth.

    VTOL aircraft will be able to compete with conventional aircraft only when the aircraft are simply platforms for high-precision AAS, and the role of the pilot will be reduced to "0".
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 14 May 2016 02: 16
      +3
      The role of a combat pilot in piloting is now constantly decreasing.
      More and more autopilot, and the pilot is engaged in weapons and the overall picture of the battle on
      display. For example, vertical take-off / landing and transition to horizontal flight
      the F-35B performs a comp-machine, not like Harrier’s manual piloting.
      And this will become the standard for the VTOL future.
    2. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 14 May 2016 07: 43
      +2
      The VTOL payload will always be lower. You can’t deceive physics. (Of course, with the same power ratio)
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 14 May 2016 11: 26
        0
        I agree with that. Vertical take-off / landing is energy-consuming,
        complicate the design.
        But how many tactical possibilities open: a combination of speed
        jet fighter with flexible attack helicopter power.
        Imagine: flew at the speed of sound, landed on a patch in the rear of the enemy,
        hung like a helicopter in some gorge ... a fairy tale!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          14 May 2016 12: 39
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          But how many tactical opportunities open:

          In essence, not at all.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          speed combination
          jet fighter with flexible attack helicopter power.

          Why, may I ask? In air combat, speed is important, that when intercepting, that in a maneuvering battle, hovering "by helicopter" there and no one will come to mind, this is death. And to use a modern 5th generation fighter worth under 100 million or more as an attack helicopter is generally absurd. In general, the combination is incongruous.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Imagine: flew at the speed of sound, landed on a patch in the rear of the enemy

          Well, this is a war and not a film about Jemes Bond :)))
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 14 May 2016 21: 39
            0
            Well, this is a war and not a film about Gems Bond :)) "////

            I liked the example wink If you do not have imagination, do not be a futurist, a future war
            do not win. You know the phrase: "the problem of generals is that they always
            preparing for the last war. "
          2. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 14 May 2016 22: 04
            -1
            "And to use a modern 5th generation fighter worth under 100 million or more as an attack helicopter is generally absurd." /////

            No, not absurd. If a combat mission requires a helicopter assault strike, and the place of the strike is far away, and along the road
            it is necessary to overcome the air defense, and it is necessary to fly very quickly - this is precisely the task of the 5th generation "for 100 million and above."
            You began to come to understand why it took the 5th generation? - it seems like they lived with the 4th and didn’t.
            And the VTOL aircraft will be part of this 5th generation or interact closely with it (quadrocopters).
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              14 May 2016 23: 35
              +2
              Quote: voyaka uh
              If a combat mission requires a helicopter assault strike, and the place of the strike is far away, and along the road
              it is necessary to overcome the air defense, and it is necessary to fly very quickly - this is precisely the task of the 5th generation "for 100 million and above."

              Nope :)) This is an OTR task :)))
              Air defense neither the fifth, nor the fourth, nor the eighteenth, so it can easily overcome, it should then be a group of aircraft with a group of electronic warfare and PRR to suppress. And what exactly is needed for a helicopter assault strike Beyond the area of ​​enemy air defense - it is impossible to understand. Is there an oncoming tank battle? So the plane in it and on the plane will participate perfectly, for this you do not need to be a helicopter.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              You began to come to understand why it took the 5th generation?

              Naturally :) For dominance in the air inhabited by the fourth generation, and for the non-issuance of such dominance to those who themselves have the fifth generation :))
              Quote: voyaka uh
              And the VTOL aircraft will be included in this 5th generation or interact closely with it (quadrocopters)

              (gasping, trembling voice) Will there be Star Destroyers?
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 15 May 2016 00: 30
                0
                "And what exactly is a helicopter assault strike behind the area of ​​enemy air defense is impossible to understand" ///

                Is that really impossible? Find, for example, a command jeep with antennas flying fast
                It’s difficult for an airplane, for this you need to stop in the air and look around. It could be a helicopter ...
                or VTOL. But the jeep with the general of the enemy army is far away and beyond the air defense line, the helicopter
                fly, and VTOL - can. Meanwhile, a killed general may mean a war won.
                And 100 million 5-generation VTOL aircraft may pay back all the money for themselves (and for the army) with their own
                accurate hit.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  15 May 2016 01: 40
                  +2
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Is that really impossible?

                  Absolutely
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Find, for example, a command jeep with antennas flying fast
                  It’s difficult for an airplane, for this you need to stop in the air and look around. It could be a helicopter ...

                  Taki Bondiana in its purest form :))) How and who will know when the commander of the hostile army will follow somewhere, and even in a jeep? :)) Or do you propose to place 5th generation VTOL aircraft in a square-nesting manner behind enemy lines so that they look out for the commander’s jeep? :)) Suddenly lucky? :)))
                  So you will definitely lose the war.
                  Either you know the position of the "jeep" and then you do not need to look for it, or you do not know it, then you will not find it. Any inclusion of avionics behind enemy lines will give out the plane with its head, so, will we look out through binoculars from the 5th generation jeep? :)))
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 15 May 2016 11: 31
                    -1
                    "Taki bondiana in its purest form :)))" ///

                    Such a Bondiana is called "special operations".
                    They do not - "suddenly lucky." There is intelligence, there is special
                    means (and VTOL - the most. Better F-16, better helicopter, better tiltrotor).
                    Why did the VKS begin to use helicopters in Syria instead of the Su-34?
                    The helicopter freezes and sees better the earth. But it’s easy to bring him down - on the way to the operation and back.
                    And the plane is difficult to shoot down, but it "skips" the point, not having time to shoot. \

                    Name the VTOL aircraft differently: "high-speed stealth attack helicopter." smile

                    (Only the day before yesterday, it seems, there was such a "bondiana":
                    Damascus Central Airport Eliminated
                    one hit Hezbollah command in Syria.
                    What am I writing about: intelligence + special tools)
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      15 May 2016 15: 24
                      +1
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Why did the VKS begin to use helicopters in Syria instead of the Su-34?

                      NOT TOGETHER, but TOGETHER :)) This is a big difference :)
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Only the day before yesterday, it seems, there was such a "Bondiana":
                      Damascus Central Airport Eliminated
                      one hit Hezbollah command in Syria.
                      What I am writing about: intelligence + special tools

                      What is typical - without any VTOL :)))
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      There is intelligence, there are special
                      means (And VTOL - the most. Better F-16, better than a helicopter, better tiltrotor

                      Nothing is better. In our case, it’s easier for an airplane to walk along the road on a shaver, to reveal an armored group, and to kill it with something large-scale.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 15 May 2016 17: 04
                        -1
                        Plus, prefabricated field GDP from lattice plates - metal or polymer (the latter are light and not radiocontrast).

                        The take-off and landing distance of Su-35С coincides with La-7 and is equal to 450 meters.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  20. exo
    exo 13 May 2016 23: 19
    +4
    An interesting conflict that greatly influenced the world military shipbuilding and gave rise to the myth of the high quality of VTOL aircraft. Although, undoubtedly, as attack aircraft, these aircraft have their advantages. At the current level of rocket science, even a variable thrust vector would hardly have saved them. the presence of sidewinders of the latest modifications (and accordingly: Argentina lacks them), helped Harriers to compensate for some of their shortcomings.
    Well, the article is a definite plus. I look forward to continuing.
  21. andrewkor
    andrewkor 14 May 2016 06: 57
    +1
    And also remember the rich military history of Falkland: December 8, 1914 - the defeat of the von Spee detachment.
  22. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 14 May 2016 13: 28
    +1
    Hanging along the gorges, landing on patches is not military action, but "robber Cossacks"!
  23. maximghost
    maximghost 14 May 2016 15: 17
    +1
    Hang in the gorges

    It is precisely the VTOL aircraft that can hardly hang. Tartisha is a lot of fuel + during SRS (standard version of take-off), the VTOL aircraft may not have enough thrust-weight ratio for hovering. In short, they can not hang in the gorges.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 14 May 2016 21: 48
      +1
      About fuel, I agree, overspending.
      But if a combat mission requires helicopter hovering, who
      counts fuel? And the thrust ratio is enough.
      Take a look at what modern quadrocopters do: dead loops, barrels.
      And at the same time stable hovering. Add them extra. jet engine...
  24. maximghost
    maximghost 14 May 2016 22: 12
    +1
    No, you write a game that about a helicopter strike, that about a helicopter hover.
    VTOL aircraft cannot fly like a helicopter in principle. Judge even by such parameters as the resource of the lifting engines of our yaks and the fact that the harrier uses water injection when it hangs. Well, it’s stupid with SRS at VTOL aircraft the mass of the aircraft is greater than the thrust-weight ratio and it can sit vertically only when fuel is generated. And sitting down is easier than taking off ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 15 May 2016 11: 15
      0
      Watch the video as the F-35B lands / takes off on an aircraft carrier.
      Slowly, steadily, on the machine, no problems.
      Fuel takes a lot, right.

      Yaks were the first - ingenious, the revolution in VTOL, the Harriers - on the manual,
      F35 is another generation ... comp, automation.

      What is there ... even the first stages of Space-X space rockets are calm
      puts on the helipad. Also a kind of "VTOL", by the way wink .
  25. Taoist
    Taoist 15 May 2016 11: 36
    0
    Oooh ... another "vertical srach" ... Until I get in. But guys, believe me all the same to a specialist, you for the most part absolutely incorrectly assess VTOL aircraft trying to compare its combat capabilities with conventional aircraft. Its advantages (in fact, as in everything else) are a continuation of its shortcomings ... That is why VTOL aircraft will exist now and in the future as a kind of separate subspecies of aircraft, complementing conventional vehicles in those niches where conventional vehicles cannot cope ... And this is definitely not "freezing by helicopter" ;-)
  26. maximghost
    maximghost 15 May 2016 12: 32
    +1
    Watch the video as the F-35B lands / takes off on an aircraft carrier.

    And he does this solely because he has developed 90 percent of the fuel. In addition, due to the different physics of VTOL aircraft, verticals are far from being as maneuverable as a helicopter, more susceptible to external factors, etc. Humble yourself Vertikalki can’t act on a helicopter and are not intended for this at all.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 15 May 2016 16: 47
      0
      Vertical lines, in my opinion, at the very beginning of the journey.
      Yak - Harrier - F35B ... the very first war with the defeat of airfields
      long-range accurate weapons will put everything in the right places.

      But thanks to everyone for the arguments, for the interesting discussion. drinks

      And to the author for a good article. hi
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        15 May 2016 18: 12
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        the first war with the defeat of airfields
        long-range accurate weapons will put everything in the right places.

        Then the verticals will not help.
        Quote: voyaka uh
        But thanks to everyone for the arguments, for the interesting discussion. drinks

        And to the author for a good article

        And thank you, with a kind word! :)
  27. Pate
    Pate 15 February 2017 19: 11
    0
    A cool article, if the USSR supported Argentina in this conflict, then Britain would lose this conflict, and in the future, maybe they would buy domestic fighters as a sign of gratitude.