Military Review

Harriers in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 2)

120



According to the plan, the first blow was dealt by a strategic aviation Great Britain - two Vulcan bombers (KhM598 and KhM607) were to drop 42-kg bombs on Port Stanley airfield and crush its runway. However, there was little difficulty - the distance from Ascension Island, where British planes were based, to Port Stanley reached 454 kilometers, while the combat radius of the Volcanoes did not exceed 5800 km. It would seem that it’s okay - a simple arithmetic calculation suggests that to ensure the strike, it was necessary to refuel the planes halfway from Ascension Island to the Falklands when flying to Port Stanley, and once again when returning, but it was smooth on paper ... A in reality, the bombers needed five refueling. For everyone. Accordingly, to ensure the departure of only two combat aircraft, ten Victor refueling aircraft were required.

This British operation (“Black Buck-1”) gives great food for thought to anyone who loves to speculate about how ground-based aviation regiments take off to perform combat missions to the expanses of the World Ocean. For a single aircraft, for a single flight over a distance exceeding its combat radius, by no means astounding 1,6 times, FIVE “air tankers” were required. And as a result, a good thing would be done, ... alas, the Black Buck 1 ended in a deafening failure. Both "Vulkan" flew from the island. Ascension of April 30 to 19.30, but one of them, for technical reasons, was forced to interrupt the flight and return to the base. The second one nevertheless reached the goal, but none of its runway bombs hit the mark - the closest hit was recorded in 40 meters from the southern end of the strip. True, one of the bombs accidentally landed at the location of the Argentinean 601 Battalion of the Air Defense and killed two sentries, but this can hardly be considered a great victory for the British weapons.

The reaction of the Argentines to the British attack is no less interesting - three minutes after the attack (which took place around five o'clock in the morning) a combat alarm was declared, and the Air Force command, fearing repeated raids, decided to cover Falkland with fighter aircraft. It looked like this - from the Rio Gallegos airbase flew an air group with the beautiful call sign "Predator", which included as many as two "Mirage III". The take-off took place almost two hours after the attack - at 06.40, and after another 50 minutes, to 07.30, the fighters arrived at the scene of action. Having rotated over the area for several minutes, the planes were forced to stay on the opposite course - for more they simply did not have enough fuel, and there were no air refueling mechanisms on them. In 08.38, both Mirage landed at their native airbase, and if we consider that the return journey took the same 50 minutes from them, then it turns out that in the best case, the fighters provided air defense systems of the whole 10 minutes. There was no sense in such a “cover”, it can only be assumed that the Air Force command chose to do at least something than not to do anything at all.

However, in fairness, we note that the provision of air defense of offshore facilities by ground aviation forces, forced to act on the ultimate combat radius, has greatly improved by the 1982 year compared to the times of the Second World War. In the war years, the planes could fly in a day or not fly at all, and then - after some two and a half hours after the attack, as many as two fighters already on 10 minutes! Here, however, it must be borne in mind that the islands are not ships, their position in space is well known and it is rather difficult to “miss” by them, but if the Mirage received an order to cover the ship’s group, then most likely they either did not find would have it for those 10 minutes that remained at their disposal, or, having miraculously found their ships, waved their wings with a greeting, after which they were forced to return.



But back to the Falklands - in 07.45, Argentines, trying to somehow provide the air defense of the islands, lifted into the air a couple of Daggers from the Rio Grande base. The result was the same — arriving at the Falklands, the planes patrolled for several minutes and, finding no one, flew back.

But the time of jokes came to an end - the Royal Navy entered into the business. The morning of May 1 caught British squadrons in combat positions - the TF-317 divided into 2 connections of one aircraft carrier and a small detachment of escort ships each, besides at least one radar patrol group took up a position between the main forces and the islands. The group, led by the aircraft carrier Hermes, maneuvered 95 miles east of Stanley, and the Invincible group 100 miles northeast of Stanley, the distance between them was small. According to the plan of operation, the 12 "Sea Harriers" "Hermes" were to strike at the two main Argentine air bases in the Falklands, and the eight VTOL "Invinsible" provided air defense connections. At the same time, a pair of aircraft from the Invincible moved towards Port Stanley, in case of the appearance of Argentine fighter aircraft over the islands.

The British acted like a textbook - in the best sense of the word. Twelve attack aircraft attacked both airbases almost simultaneously - in 08.30, the first four Sea Harriers attacked anti-aircraft gunners, the second struck the runways and the Port Stanley airfield (Malvinas Islands base), and a minute later the third group attacked the Condor base . Tactical surprise was absolute - in Port Stanley the British destroyed a fuel depot, several airfield buildings and 4 civilian aircraft, a Pukara attack aircraft (covered with cluster bombs during takeoff) died at the Condor base, the other two were damaged. In response, the Argentine anti-aircraft gunners were able to pierce the 20-mm projectile with a fist-sized hole in the tail section of one of the Harriers - on the aircraft carrier they patched the plane for a couple of hours, and he continued to fight.

Around the same time, the British landed reconnaissance groups in the areas of the Falkland Strait, the neighborhoods of Port Darwin, Goose Green and Portgovard, the Bluffkov Bay, Port Stanley, Cow Bay, Port Salvador, Fox Bay, etc. The British looked around for landing sites, checked the Argentines' ground defense ... On 08.40, 10 minutes after the airfields started attacking with British airplanes, two Daggers, who also tried to provide air cover for the islands, flew into the air, and again ended in nothing - circling a little over the Falklands, the Daggers left without finding an enemy.

But one should not think that only the pilots of the aircrafts acted - the sailors also enjoyed themselves with might and main. In the morning north of the islands, the only Argentine submarine San Luis heard noises - these were the ships of the British radar patrol: the destroyer Coventry and the frigate Arrow. Argentine submariners fired a SS-T-4 Telefunken torpedo at Coventry from a distance of just over 6 miles. Very little separated Argentina from a major naval triumph - a little luck, and the Conquehr laurels would get to San Luis, but the praised German quality failed - approximately 3 minutes after the volley, the operator reported that the torpedo control was lost, and all hope remains only on her homing head. Alas, she was not too quick-witted and pointed at a torpedo trap, which the frigate towed behind. A direct torpedo hit destroyed the trap. The British are on their guard.

Then two British frigates and three helicopters, which hastily soared from Hermes during 20 hours, drove the San Luis around the local water area, and the frigates maintained sonar contact, but didn’t come close, and the helicopters rained down torpedoes and depth charges. To no avail - the submariners acted skillfully and courageously. Almost a day, dodging attacks and using means of hydroacoustic counteraction, they avoided destruction and were able to escape.

Well, in 13.00, two significant events took place at once - the 3 ship separated from the Invincible aircraft carrier group: the Glemmorgan destroyer, the Arrow and Alakriti frigates, and went to the islands, having the task of firing into the positions of Argentine troops at Port Stanley. At the same time, an air battle almost ensued: the “Mentor” link tried to attack a British helicopter, but stumbled upon the Sea Harriers on duty and, of course, escaped, hiding in the clouds. According to some reports, the British managed to damage one such aircraft. It is difficult to say why two jet planes with a maximum speed of more than 1000 km / h could not do more against the antediluvian rotorcraft, which could hardly draw 400 km / h. Perhaps the British simply did not waste their time on trifles - the small range of the VTOL aircraft required fuel economy, and chasing the Mentors, the Sea Harriers could miss the Argentine jet fighters.

And then it began ... of course, it is easy to talk about the events of the past, sitting in a cozy chair with a cup of hot strong coffee. And yet, reading about the events of this day, you always come back to the idea that the phrase "theater of the absurd" describes the following events as well as possible: but in order to understand what was happening in the air over the Falkland Islands, you need to make a small lyrical digression .

As mentioned above, the task of the Royal fleet was an imitation of the beginning of the landing operation, in order to lure the ships of the Argentines and destroy the main forces of their fleet. The first step in this direction, according to the British, would be the destruction of Argentine air bases in the Falkland Islands. Argentina had nothing to counter the dagger strikes of KVMF aviation - the detection system on the islands was extremely imperfect, the Falklands air group was uncompetitive, the air defense was frankly weak, and the idea of ​​providing cover from continental air bases was a utopia due to excessively long distances. Therefore, the British air strikes went unpunished, and the attempts of the Argentines to somehow react to them, except for a sad smile, do not cause. But then the situation changed dramatically.

The fact is that the next point in terms of the British operation was the landing of sabotage groups and shelling of the coast. And this set for the British carrier-based aviation completely different tasks: to cover their own ships and helicopters, intercepting enemy fighter and attack aircraft. This required control of the airspace over the Falklands, directing fighters to intercept the enemy invading it. But the British did not have any long-range radar weapons capable of providing reconnaissance and target designation, nor EW planes (which could also carry out radio reconnaissance), or even ordinary reconnaissance aircraft. All that the CWMF had in the conflict zone were two dozen low-speed, by the standards of jet aircraft, airplanes with a very limited radius of action and a weak radar (besides, it does not matter if the target is distinguished against the underlying surface). Therefore, the British have nothing left but air patrols in which British pilots had, as in World War II, to rely on the vigilance of their eyes, which, of course, was completely inadequate.

Therefore, the British did not even talk about any airspace control, but, being constantly in sight of the islands, the British air patrol from the hunter himself became a game. No matter how weak and imperfect the Argentine air situation control forces were, they nevertheless WAS, and, occasionally catching up with the British VTOL aircraft, could direct their fighters flying up from continental airfields. Thus, the Argentines finally have a tactical advantage, which they were not slow to take advantage of.

Closer to three o'clock in the afternoon, the Argentine leadership began to incline to the idea that the actions of the British were indeed a prelude to the invasion, so that it was decided to conduct reconnaissance by force. Descriptions of what happened next, in various sources, alas, do not match. Without claiming absolute truth (it would not hurt to work in the Argentine and British archives, which, alas, the author of this article cannot do), I will try to present a relatively consistent version of those events.

At about 15.15, the first group of 8 Argentine planes went up in the air, including two pairs of Skyhocks and the same number of Mirage. The Mirages were supposed to carry out air defense of the islands, and the Skyhawks were expected to detect surface ships of the British preparing to disembark - and their attack. Following them, the main group of 15.30 aircraft flew to 7, including:

1) An impact link from 3 “Daggers” (call sign - “Torno”), equipped with two 227-kg bombs each. The Thorno were to strike at the ships explored by the Skyhawks.
2) Two pairs of Daggers (call signs Blond and Fortune) armed with Shafrir air-to-air missiles, which were supposed to cover the strike force.

The first group flew to the Falklands without incident, but then ...

Typically, the British air patrol consisted of two aircraft, following at a height of the order of 3000 m with a speed within 500 km / h. And therefore it is extremely difficult to understand how the Argentine operators of the radar stationed in Stanley managed to confuse the on-duty pair of Sea Harriers with ... a surface ship. Nonetheless, they somehow managed to do this, and they sent Skyhawks to the “ship of His Majesty” that had just left for the islands. Presumably, the pilots of the British VTOL were extremely surprised to see who was flying directly at them, but, of course, immediately rushed into battle.

And it wouldn’t be possible for the Skyhawks, but on earth they still realized that even the most modern warship, even with the best British crew, is still unusual to fly at a three-kilometer height, and that the radar sees not a surface, but an air target. After that, the Argentines immediately sent over to intercept "Sea Harriers" both pairs of "Mirage."

The first couple tried to attack the British from the rear hemisphere, but they promptly discovered the enemy and turned towards them. The Argentines still fired "Sea Harriers" with rockets, did not achieve success and left the battlefield. Without winning, this couple still saved Skyhawks from imminent violence and gave the latter time to retreat. Then the planes diverged, as can be seen, and those, and others after the attack and vigorous maneuvering ended up fuel. A little later, at about 16.10-16.15, the second pair of Mirage discovered two more Sea Harriers off Pebble Island. It was probably a change of patrol returned to the aircraft carrier, and the Argentines attacked him, but, again, unsuccessfully. The problem of the Argentines was that for confident defeat of the enemy, they had to attack from the rear hemisphere, i.e. go in the tail to the enemy, otherwise their missiles had almost no chance to seize the target. But "Sea Harriers" did not allow them to do this, imposed a fight on a collision course and knocked down both "Mirage" with their "Sidewinders" capable of hitting enemy aircraft not only in the rear, but also in the forward hemisphere



One Mirage collapsed at once, its pilot managed to eject, while the second, trying to save the damaged car, reached the Stanley airfield. Where he went for a forced landing, after dropping the outboard fuel tanks and firing rockets. Everything could have ended well, but, alas, this time the air defense system of the Malvinas Islands airbase was at its height: having found a single plane, the calculations of the 35-mm anti-aircraft gun prepared for the battle, and when he dropped something suspiciously similar to bombs, yes and launched rockets, all doubts about his identity were scattered. The plane was ruthlessly shot at point-blank range, its pilot, Garcia-Cuerva, was killed. The death of a man who honestly fought for his homeland is always a tragedy, but fate joked especially cruelly: the fallen pilot was the author of illustrations for the Argentine Air Force textbooks, including the following: “Your life is in your hands: use the ejection seat in a timely manner! "

Thus ended the combat sortie of the first group of Argentine Air Forces, but the second approached. True, of the seven aircraft that left the continental air bases, only six are left - one Dagger with air-to-air missiles from the Blyuroky link has interrupted the flight for technical reasons. And it was necessary to happen to the fact that it was his partner, who was left alone, who received target designation for two “Sea Harriers”, marching to the islands (apparently, to replace the pair that had recently participated in the battle). This allowed the Argentinean pilot to take a vantage point and attack with a gentle dive, but then he changed his composure, and he fired a rocket without waiting for a confident capture of the GOS goal of his Shafirr. As a result, "Shafrir" went into the milk, having driven away at the peak of "Dagger" slipped the pair attacked by him, to which one of the British pilots, Lieutenant Hale, reacted with lightning speed and shot down the Argentinian "Sidedinder." Pilot "Daggera", Ardiles, died.

But the shock three "Daggerov" without interference followed the route originally laid for it and soon entered the detachment of British ships. The destroyer "Glamorgan", the frigates "Arrow" and "Alakriti" have already completed their task: approaching Stanley, they fired at the positions of the 25 Infantry Regiment, however, to no avail. Accuracy left much to be desired, and the Argentine soldiers who were in shelters suffered no casualties. But the main thing for the British was not to kill some soldiers, but to indicate presence, to convince the Argentines in an early landing, which they had achieved, and now three ships departed to join the main forces and have already left several dozen miles from the islands.

What happened in the future can greatly grieve lovers to calculate how many dozens of supersonic anti-ship missiles "Basalt" or "Granit" are capable of knocking down a single destroyer of the type "Arly Burk". Indeed, in theory, such anti-ship missiles (already at a low altitude) can detect kilometers from twenty-twenty-five, another 40-50 can fly to the ship, and the Standard can be launched at 1 rocket speeds per second, and even spending 2 missiles for one anti-ship missile, it turns out that one destroyer of the US fleet is able to cope almost with a full salvo of the Soviet aircraft-carrier killer ... in theory. Well, in practice, that's what happened.

Three British ship had no reason to relax. They had just completed a combat mission - having left their aircraft carrier, fired at the enemy shore (a British helicopter from which they tried to correct the fire, even sank the Argentine patrol boat), and now there was every reason to fear retaliation - an air strike from the Argentines. Native aviation did not cover them, so it was strongly recommended not to remove their hands from the control panels of the weapon. And so, at a high (most likely, supersonic) speed, but at a low altitude, the Daggers trio is coming out to the English.

Three British ships, which had in aggregate 4 ZRK "Sea Cat" and 2 ZRK "Sea Slug", being in a state of alert and having every reason to expect an air raid, managed to use ... exactly 1 (in words - ONE) ZRK "Sea Cat" - scored "Glamorgan". “Arrow” was able to open fire from an artillery installation (they did not have time on the other ships) and “Alakriti” in general was “defended” only with machine gun bursts. What is it? British British crews? On all three ships at once? !!

Of course, the "Sea Cat" is obsolete by the standards of 1982 year. Of course, its effectiveness was low. Of course, in all respects he was not just inferior, but completely incomparable with the American Aegis. But still this complex was made to replace the famous 40-mm anti-aircraft guns "Bofors" and had a relatively short reaction time. Nevertheless, out of this type of 4, the ZRK of this type was able to fire only one high-speed aerial target in a combat situation! The question is not that the missiles of the British ships did not hit the target, oh no! The question is that when high-speed targets appeared, the British air defense missile systems did not even have time to get ready for shooting.

The work of the Daggers did not shine with efficiency, which is not surprising - no one was going to use these planes before the start of the conflict as a naval strike aircraft. Therefore, the crews received the very minimum of training in a short pre-war time, and this was completely inadequate. All three planes dropped bombs, did not hit one, but still the total score in this collision was in favor of Argentina - Daggers, firing British ships during attack, achieved at least 11 hits on the frigate Alakriti and easily wounded one member of his crew, they themselves left without getting a scratch.

Such a result did not suit the English at all - and they threw a pair of “Sea Harriers” behind the departing “Torno” strike link. Probably, if the British had full-fledged fighters, the Argentines would have paid for their courage, but the British did not have them. And the slow-moving C Harriers, chasing the retreating Daggers throughout 130 km, failed to close the distance to use weapons. At the same time, the Argentines were not at all going to give the link "Torno" to be devoured by the British pilots - in the tail of a couple of "Fortunes" trying to catch up with the Daggers of the British deuce. The British, assessing the chances, gave up on the persecution and, not wanting to get involved with the Argentines who had sat down on their tail, withdrew from the battlefield. This decision looks a bit strange - in something, but in the absence of healthy aggressiveness of the English pilots it is impossible to reproach. Perhaps after the pursuit of their aircraft experienced problems with the fuel? If so, if the Argentine fighters had enough fuel to pursue the British, they would have a good chance of winning.

Argentines continued to raise aircraft - two Canberra EAC links, old bombers created at the very beginning of the 1950s, went to the sky. Surprisingly, but the fact is that “Sea Harriers” managed to intercept both links. True, the low speed of the British aircraft did not allow to achieve impressive combat success - one link, noticing the British, was able to break away from them and return to the airfield in full, but the second was less lucky: the British pilots shot down one Canberra and damaged the second. Be that as it may, not a single Argentine bomber of this type reached the British ships, and the "Sea Harriers" for the first and last time in all history The Falkland conflict demonstrated almost absolute effectiveness as an air defense fighter. According to the memoirs of Rear Admiral Woodworth, such high efficiency is explained by the power of the Invincible radar, which detected flying Canberras about 110 miles from the aircraft carrier and guided them to the closest air patrol.

But the Argentines continued to send their aircraft into battle, and the most dangerous for the British would be the raid of the Super Endandar pair with the Exochet anti-ship missiles - they were supposed to attack the outgoing Glamorgan-Alakriti-Arrow group. But it didn’t work out because the Argentine tanker involved in the operation failed at the most inopportune moment, and the Super Etandara had to be withdrawn halfway. In addition, several groups of Skyhawks were lifted into the air. The first of them was able to detect the enemy ship and attacked him, having achieved 227-kg hit by a bomb and several shells. But in actual fact, the British warship turned out to be defenseless Argentine transport, so that one could only be glad that the bomb did not detonate. The rest of the Skyhawks could have reached the target, but ... they were frightened off by the ground control service of the Falkland Islands.

If the Argentine pilots went to battle frantically (the Canberra pilots, who, on their air force, without fighter cover, honestly tried to find and attack the newest British ships, according to the author, they entered their names in naval aviation history), and the operators and the Falkland airbase controllers, the feeling, slightly panicked. One by one, the Skyhawk links went out to the Falkland Islands, listened to the air in anticipation of targeting British ships and ... received a command to immediately carry away the legs, because the enemy's fighter aircraft were in the air! Since “Skyhawks” were not covered by anyone, and they themselves could not fight with the air enemy, the pilots went backwards and returned home. As for the British, another group of their ships in 21.00 for about half an hour - for forty minutes she fired at the vicinity of Port Stanley and even killed an Argentine soldier.

Let's try to analyze the results of the first day of fighting.

For the umpteenth time it turned out that “if the pistol is a millimeter further than you can reach, then you do not have a pistol”. Eighty relative to the modern and fully combat-ready aircraft of Argentina made a total of only 58 sorties (28 or a little less - Mirages and Daggers, 28 - Skyhawks and 2 - Super Etandars), of which most were completely a waste of jet fuel. The Argentine aviation, being almost 800 kilometers from Stanley, was unable to provide the Falkland air bases from the 21 British aircraft (the Vulcan and the Sea Harriers 20).

Harriers in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 2)


There were few British aircraft, and they were not of the best quality, but the ability to “work” from relatively short distances, which was provided by the mobility of their “floating airfields”, allowed them to attack the ground targets of the enemy with complete impunity. In air battles, the Sea Harriers demonstrated their superiority over the Mirage. However, this superiority was not based on the best performance characteristics of British aircraft, but on the best weapons and properly chosen air combat tactics. The Sidewinders equipped with Sea Harriers possessed sufficiently sensitive infrared seeker to “capture” the enemy plane from the front hemisphere, which was an extremely unpleasant surprise for the Argentine pilots. The Argentines had missiles capable of “capturing” the enemy only from the rear hemisphere, so the Argentines' task was to reach the tail of the “Sea Harriers”, while the British only had to impose battle on the opposite course on the enemy. It should also be borne in mind that the British pilots had a lot of experience in training air battles with the Mirage (which the French Air Force was equipped with) and before going to war they had time to train properly. France did not conceal its aircraft from Britain, and therefore the British perfectly knew both the strengths and weaknesses of the French fighters. At one time, the tacticians of Argentina had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the “Harriers” (this aircraft was shown in Argentina in the 70s during a promotional tour), but they did not use it.

And yet, having a better position and having individual superiority over the enemy, the British carrier-based aviation failed at least two of the three tasks assigned to it.

Yes, Sea Harriers were able to strike at Falkland air bases, but their combat potential was not enough to disable them, thus the first point of the British plan was unfulfilled. An attempt to achieve dominance in the air over the Falklands also failed - the British could not prevent the Argentines from flying over the islands. Four air battles took place in the area (the unsuccessful interception of the Mentors and three Mirages with C Harriers), but all three Mirages with the British took place at the initiative of the Argentines. Thus, it turned out that even the inferior service of controlling the air situation is significantly better than its absence - at least two of the three air battles between the fighters began as a result of target targeting from the ground, and in one of these two cases (the attack of Ardiles) the British pilots were taken by surprise .

The only task that the British VTOL is supposedly able to solve is to cover their ships from the attacks of the Argentine aviation. Of the three groups of enemy aircraft (three "Dagger" link "Torno" and two links "Canberra") got to the British ships only one link. But it is noteworthy that the successes of the C Harriers (interception of prehistoric Canberras) are connected with external targeting (Invincible radar), but the British pilots did not succeed in sabotaging the attack of the modern Daggers.

Thus, the results of the first day of the fighting turned out to be disappointing for both parties. The Argentines suffered sensitive losses in the newest aircraft, not having achieved any result, and were convinced of the imperfection of their island air defense. The British could neither destroy the air bases of Argentina on the Falklands, nor achieve air supremacy.

But on the other hand, the Argentines, even with the price of blood, were able to identify the weaknesses of the air defense provided by the Sea Harriers, and could now develop tactics for its breakthrough. The British also succeeded in something - their activity was convinced by the Argentine military leadership that a large-scale landing operation had begun. And even before the first air battles boiled over the islands, the main forces of the Argentine fleet headed for the Falklands, receiving orders to attack enemy forces at the time of disembarkation.

To be continued
Author:
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Revolver
    Revolver 16 May 2016 06: 54
    +2
    Interesting. And where is the beginning, and when will the continuation be?
    1. ICT
      ICT 16 May 2016 07: 26
      +7
      Alas, she was not too smart and was led into a torpedo trap,



      what was the trap

      and so those heroes
      1. ICT
        ICT 16 May 2016 07: 44
        +8
        A direct hit by a torpedo destroyed the trap. The British were wary.


        there are several episodes

        The first torpedo simply did not exit the vehicle, and contact with the second was lost after 2 minutes 12 seconds due to cable breakage. After 6 minutes, however, the acoustics heard the sound of a faint metal impact, but no explosion ensued. Later it turned out that the torpedo, apparently, hit the towed acoustic guard Graseby Mk 182, the damage of which the crew of this ship was surprised to find when taking the guard on board (they were originally attributed to touching the ground). Both frigates did not notice an attack on them and retreated north.


        another episode
        Azkueta himself later melancholy remarked that "perhaps the torpedo worked against the unfortunate whale, perhaps against the British submarine." One of the modern Argentinean authors believes that the goal, apparently, was a flock of small fish or shrimp.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          16 May 2016 11: 21
          +3
          Quote: TIT
          there are several episodes

          Of course. But this did not happen on May 1, but later, so things will still come to a description of the atrocities of San Luis :)
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 11: 20
      +4
      Yes, you're right, thanks. It was worth, of course, to give a link to the previous part
      http://topwar.ru/95095-harriery-v-boyu-folklendskiy-konflikt-1982-g-chast-1.html

      In the next article I will correct this drawback.
      And as for the continuation - I’ll try to post it tomorrow, then I’ll get to the main one on Thursday. hi
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 16 May 2016 19: 57
        0
        Thank you for reading the beginning. It is also interesting in the case, and most importantly, without the curses, traditional for a certain part of the local public, against the "small-breasted and other naglo-Saxons". Plus both the first and the second part. I look forward to continuing.
      2. nemoXX
        nemoXX 29 May 2016 16: 30
        0
        I want to thank: sensibly write!
        And I read with interest.
    3. faridg7
      faridg7 18 May 2016 16: 24
      0
      Quote: Nagan
      Interesting. And where is the beginning, and when will the continuation be?

      Andrey, I look forward to part 3.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        18 May 2016 18: 36
        0
        I posted it yesterday, I'm waiting for the moderators to put it on the main one :)
  2. Silhouette
    Silhouette 16 May 2016 08: 36
    +8
    Bravo! Great article on style and content.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 11: 23
      +2
      Very nice to hear; thank you:)
      1. Volga Cossack
        Volga Cossack 16 May 2016 16: 54
        0
        Thank .!!! read with great pleasure !!!
      2. Volga Cossack
        Volga Cossack 16 May 2016 16: 54
        0
        Thank .!!! read with great pleasure !!!
  3. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 16 May 2016 08: 45
    +6
    Any war is full of anecdotal cases and inconsistencies. But if there is at least a well-thought-out general plan, training and controllability of the troops, all this is compensated and ultimately gives the result.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 11: 26
      +1
      Quote: vladimirvn
      Any war is full of anecdotal cases and inconsistencies. But if there is even a well-thought-out general plan

      You are certainly right. At first, the excess of inconsistencies is quite explainable - the beginning of the war and all that. And - yes, subsequently such inconsistencies became smaller, although the same friendly fire for the Argentines remained commonplace ... however, the British also distinguished themselves, but they were already land
  4. yehat
    yehat 16 May 2016 09: 46
    +1
    the Argentines had an extremely inexperienced command, otherwise their strange activity would be much more effective
  5. Old_Python
    Old_Python 16 May 2016 10: 12
    +4
    It seems that we are waiting for a fascinating reading! And therefore, it would really be extremely useful to stick links to previous articles - for fans ... wink
    What, in fact, colleague Nagan has already expressed. hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 11: 30
      +1
      Quote: Old_Python
      It seems that we are waiting for a fascinating reading!

      IM trying thank you:)
      Quote: Old_Python
      And therefore it would really be extremely useful to stick links to previous articles

      Yes, you are absolutely right, starting from the next article I will do so. And the link to the previous article is:
      http://topwar.ru/95095-harriery-v-boyu-folklendskiy-konflikt-1982-g-chast-1.html
  6. Verdun
    Verdun 16 May 2016 10: 36
    +2
    how many dozens of supersonic anti-ship missiles "Basalt" or "Granite" can bring down a single destroyer like "Arly Burke"
    Intercepting high-speed low-flying targets is also a difficult task for modern air defense systems. But the fact is that most cruise missiles have subsonic speed and you can call them high-speed with a very big stretch. Such targets, with sufficient air defense experience, can be detected visually and destroyed by quick-fire anti-aircraft artillery artillery. There is enough reaction time for the trained calculation of the same Phalanx. Dagger’s speed approaches 1M and makes it a more difficult target. Hypersonic missiles with a speed of 2M or more, such as Granite and Basalt, are extremely difficult to intercept. Thanks to the author for the article, I read both parts with interest.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 11: 41
      +4
      Quote: Verdun
      Such targets, with sufficient experience of air defense, can be detected visually and destroyed by quick-fire anti-aircraft artillery

      yes how to say :))) In theory, it’s clear, but with practice it’s somehow more difficult.
      Quote: Verdun
      Dagger’s speed approaches 1M and makes it a more difficult target.

      Why? Most of the CDs are transonic, the same "Exoset" - 0,93M
      Quote: Verdun
      Thanks to the author for the article, I read both parts with interest.

      Glad I liked it :) hi
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 16 May 2016 12: 30
        +2
        yes how to say :))) In theory, it’s clear, but with practice it’s somehow more difficult.
        I myself served an urgent in air defense and in the practice of exercises, I can note that in the conditions of the training ground, a guided maneuvering target moving at a speed of 750-800 km / h was struck from ZU-23-2 even with initial training calculations with a high probability (more than 80%). Moreover, initially the direction to the target is determined by the sound and only then visually. The main thing here is that the observer on duty does not open the mittens. In the case when the target is supersonic (and Dagger at certain heights can be accelerated, albeit slightly, but faster than 1M), sound detection becomes almost impossible.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          16 May 2016 14: 39
          +1
          Quote: Verdun
          a target moving at a speed of 750 - 800 km / h was struck from ZU-23-2 even with initial training calculations with a high probability (more than 80%)

          Well, the British did not have a ZU-shki, they interrupted with eerlikons, and with their 114-mm artillery, but they did not have any big successes, although it is believed that they still shot down one Exocet with a 114-mm shell.
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 16 May 2016 22: 27
            +1
            although there is an opinion that they still shot down one Exocet with a 114-mm shell.
            Anything can happen. If my memory serves me, during the Second World War in the Northern Fleet, when repulsing the attack, the destroyer artillerymen shot down two Yu-130s with one shot from a 87 mm gun. One exploded from being hit, and the other did not have time to turn it away.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  7. xetai9977
    xetai9977 16 May 2016 10: 44
    +1
    The author has done a great job. Thank!
  8. nivander
    nivander 16 May 2016 11: 12
    0
    I hope in the next part the author will tell in detail how the screw "Pukarra" was able to get close to the AV "Hermes" and beat its anti-ship missiles "Zkzoset"
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 11: 47
      +4
      Quote: nivasander
      I hope in the next part the author will tell in detail how the screw "Pukarra" was able to get close to the AV "Hermes" and beat its anti-ship missiles "Zkzoset"

      This is unlikely :)) Firstly, because the "Exocets" used only "Super Etandars", and secondly, the "Exoset" (the last one) did not attack "Hermes" (it was the target of the third and fourth missiles, which eventually hit " Atlantic Conveyor "), and" Invincible "(according to Argentine pilots).
      The description of this episode will be, but not soon - the attack was made on May 30, we are still a long way off :))
  9. uskrabut
    uskrabut 16 May 2016 11: 30
    0
    Fascinating reading, interesting presentation style!
    I just can’t understand why the Argentines did not deploy a full-fledged air force base and coastal defense in the Falklands. After all, then many problems would have disappeared, and the English fleet would hardly have decided to approach close to the islands, perhaps the entire British operation would have lost its meaning.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 11: 49
      +2
      Quote: uskrabut
      I just can’t understand why the Argentines did not deploy a full-fledged air force base and coastal defense in the Falklands.

      They tried, but the only airfield with a normal (non-dirt) runway could not accept modern aircraft. And the Argentines could not finish building it quickly
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 16 May 2016 13: 48
        0
        This is by the way the issue of the importance of the availability of runway deployment technologies in the field ... Argentina had neither airplanes capable of operating from limited sites nor technologies capable of quickly building appropriate runways (again about the peculiarities of using VTOL) - if Argentina had this picture would have changed drastically ...
    2. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 16 May 2016 17: 24
      -2
      Why didn't the Argentines turn to the USSR, the "sworn friend" of the British, for help and technical support? then you look and the results would be different ...
      1. svp67
        svp67 16 May 2016 17: 39
        0
        Quote: ArikKhab
        Why didn't the Argentines turn to the USSR, the "sworn friend" of the British, for help and technical support?

        And it was always a POLITICAL question, then the leadership of Argentina made big bets on cooperation with France and the USA, respectively, and received weapons from there.
        Quote: ArikKhab
        then you look and the results would be different ....

        Is not a fact. Firstly, the possession of any weapon must be trained, and this time is not small. Secondly, the entire British armament system was precisely "sharpened" for the fight against the Soviet.
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 16 May 2016 20: 05
        +3
        Quote: ArikKhab
        Intereno why the Argentines did not turn for help and technical support to the USSR

        Well, if only because then in Argentina, a military junta was in charge, which in official Soviet propaganda was often called fascist, and there didn’t even seem to be diplomatic relations. So it was just unrealistic.
      3. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 16 May 2016 22: 55
        +4
        Quote: ArikKhab
        Why didn't the Argentines turn to the USSR, the "sworn friend" of the British, for help and technical support? then you look and the results would be different ...

        And then they were sworn friends for the USSR. In addition, the largest fascist executioners were hiding from justice in Argentina, and she did not extradite them to the USSR, because It itself was oriented towards supporting fascist regimes in Europe. As they say - do not spit in the well, it’s useful to drink water.
  10. vadimtt
    vadimtt 16 May 2016 12: 09
    +1
    Thank you, we are waiting for more! And then all politics and politics ...
  11. srelock
    srelock 16 May 2016 12: 17
    +1
    This British operation ("Black Buck-1") provides excellent food for thought to anyone who likes to speculate about how land-based aviation regiments fly out to carry out combat missions to the vast expanses of the World Ocean. It took FIVE “air tankers” for a single aircraft, for a single flight over a distance exceeding its combat radius that was far from striking the imagination 1,6 times.

    This operation, probably, gave food for thought - how not to do it. Namely, due to the insufficient accuracy of navigation and sighting systems, the Volcanoes had to be charged to the maximum, which reduced the flight range by about 2 times, the capacity of the fuel tanks was 40 tons, and the capabilities of the Viktorov were about the same in total. So 5 refueling in this case is the British got off easy laughing
    The errors have now been taken into account. I didn’t think for NATO, but for our tactical aviation the range with a normal load of 4 tons. and two refueling from IL-78M approximately 5000-5500 km. (two tankers for three cars). This feature allows, for example, the forces of only the Su-34/30/35 to "bring" into Pearl Harbor from the territory of the Russian Federation only without aircraft carriers.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 16 May 2016 13: 43
      +2
      Quote: srelock
      This feature allows, for example, the forces of only the Su-34/30/35 to "bring" into Pearl Harbor from the territory of the Russian Federation only without aircraft carriers.

      I tried to make such a calculation for the Su-34. The result was a total range of 9000 km with two refueling with the 8xFAB-500M-62 and their reset in the middle of the route.
      Section "there with bombs" - 2 876 km
      Section "First refueling - there - dropping bombs - back" - 2 km
      Section "Second refueling-back" - 3 km

      All the same, it falls short. A third refueling is needed to cover another 1000 km there and 1000 back.
      1. Operator
        Operator 16 May 2016 14: 25
        -1
        The combat radius of the Su-35S missile armament (4500 km) with two outboard tanks (2x2000 liters of fuel), two "Caliber" missiles with special warheads (2500 km) and one air refueling is 11500 km.

        Return to the Su-35С base from the turn of missile launch along the 9000 km-long route is also carried out with one refueling.

        With the participation in the missile attack of the Su-35С link and the Il-78М-90A pair, alles kaput will come to Pearl Harbor laughing
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Taoist
        Taoist 16 May 2016 17: 59
        +3
        Throw in some more reserve for combat maneuvering ... Because it's one thing to fly in polygon conditions with a drop "on half the route" and it is quite another thing to overcome the target's air defense ... I'm afraid that 34ka won't be able to attack with free-falling in this case or will fall right there. .. Because it can only overcome the normal air defense by throwing at an ultra-low (preferably supersonic) - and consider this fuel simply "pouring on the ground" ...
        1. Operator
          Operator 16 May 2016 19: 11
          -1
          We are not talking about the Su-34 bomber, but about the Su-35S MFI with two outboard tanks and the Kalibr missile launcher on an external sling.

          The range of the Su-35S with one refueling in the air is 9000 km, the range of the Caliber with a 100-kt warhead is 2500 km. Distance to Pearl Harbor 10000 km.

          The launch of the Kyrgyz Republic can be carried out 1000 km to the target without breaking through the air defense zone. Su-35С still has fuel in reserve for another 500 km of flight.

          The Il-78-90A tanker takes on board 126 tons of fuel, which is enough for three Su-35С refueling and the tanker itself.
      3. srelock
        srelock 16 May 2016 22: 58
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        I tried to make such a calculation for the Su-34. It turned out a total range of 9000 km with two refueling with 8xFAB-500M-62 and their discharge in the middle of the route ...

        I (34600kg.-takeoff, of which 12100kg.-fuel, range 4000km.) Came up with other numbers with 8HFAB-500:
        Departure Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (Yelizovo), return there.
        The boundary of the first refueling is 1km.
        Reset-5100km.
        Frontier 2nd 6500km.
        Remains 3700km. with full tanks and no loads.
        If you take your numbers, then nothing prevents you from reducing the target load and adding a PTB or the 1st refueling can be raised 2 times.
        In general, it turns out 260-300 tons. kerosene for 8-12 tons. target load ("entry threshold" for the Japanese in 41st was at the level of 100t.), add 8 pcs. SU-35 for security and we get about 4000 tons. kerosene, "a hundredth of cast iron" in Honolulu and about 14 hours of erotic adventure.
        For comparison, an aircraft carrier and Co. only to go there in full swing for 4 days.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 16 May 2016 14: 20
      +4
      The Americans are not in vain holding strategic. bombers: took off from Texas -
      bombed somewhere in Iraq - returned to Texas. Simple logistics. wink
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 16 May 2016 16: 34
        +1
        took off from Texas -
        bombed somewhere in Iraq - returned to Texas
        It may be so, but such a strategist as the B-52 needs to be constantly guarded in flight, because by itself it is too noticeable and vulnerable. A fighter with such a range in the US Air Force is not observed.
        1. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 16 May 2016 23: 00
          +2
          Quote: Verdun
          took off from Texas -
          bombed somewhere in Iraq - returned to Texas
          It may be so, but such a strategist as the B-52 needs to be constantly guarded in flight, because by itself it is too noticeable and vulnerable. A fighter with such a range in the US Air Force is not observed.

          It’s all a matter of what part of the world you need to bomb. If there is a military base within the range of the fighters, then security will be provided on approach. In addition, it is high time to forget about the Vietnamese carpet bombing. Now strategists carry long-range cruise missiles and they don’t need to enter the enemy’s air defense zone at all.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 17 May 2016 22: 11
          0
          I actually meant the B-2. He’s a stealth, especially does not need support,
          Sawing himself quietly at an altitude of 15 km ... launched his CD from the skies and back.
          1. Operator
            Operator 17 May 2016 22: 50
            0
            EPR of the AGM-129 ALCM cruise missile in the front hemisphere in the angle + -45 degrees:
            - centimeter range 0,02-0,05 sq.m
            - decimeter range 0,05-0,1 sq.m
            - meter range 1 1,4 sq.m

            If the RCS of a B-2 bomber does not at least exceed the RCS of a cruise missile with which it is armed, then a meter-range radar of the Sky-M or Niobium-SV type will detect the B-2 at an altitude of 15 km at a distance of 300 km bully
          2. goose
            goose 19 May 2016 16: 34
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            launched his KR from the skies and back.

            Well, most likely not KR, but planning bombs, for about 50-80 km, depending on the wind. To drag KR to another continent is very unprofitable, and if they are shot down by air defense systems, let a couple of pieces go to the KR at a cost, the flight will be unprofitable. Usually it is necessary to ensure discharge outside the medium-range air defense, this is about 35-50 km usually. Although, in principle, such a target and the usual S-300V is difficult to intercept, because the target will be at the limit of the radius of the SAM, and with a relatively small frontal EPR, it will be noticed relatively late.
    3. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 16 May 2016 17: 27
      0
      and the Americans will sit and bet - they say they will fly or not? and air defense there is more serious than on folklands
  12. Disorder
    Disorder 16 May 2016 12: 29
    .
    Harriers in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 2)
    ........
    ........
    To be continued

    What is this article about at least in three parts about?
    In fact, neither about the combat use of the deck Harriers, nor about the conflict itself. But the water is like in the Atlantic Ocean.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 15: 12
      +4
      Quote: Trouble
      In fact, neither about the combat use of the deck Harriers, nor about the conflict itself

      It’s just interesting, but how do you think the Harrier application and the conflict itself should be described? :)
      1. Disorder
        Disorder 16 May 2016 16: 28
        -8
        The article is titled "Harriers in Action: The 1982 Falklands Conflict". So they would describe the actions of the Harriers in this conflict with the addition of their history. And here, as in the song "Motor, firecracker, explosions, the whole gang on the spot. Fourth from the right in a cap I was lying."
        Not an article, but some kind of vinaigrette of combat episodes, descriptions of the state of the opposing sides and discussions about the mistakes they made. There is more to be learned about this conflict from a Wikipedia article than from this "vinaigrette".
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          16 May 2016 17: 37
          +7
          Quote: Trouble
          That would describe exactly the actions of the Harriers in this conflict with the addition of their history.

          It is a little pointless to describe "the actions of the Harriers", limiting ourselves to their combat episodes. "Sea Harriers" is one of the fundamental weapons systems of the British Navy, therefore it is "slightly" stupid to consider them in isolation from the actions of the fleet and the course of the operation to liberate the Falklands. This, in fact, is what many authors are guilty of - when describing episodes of combat activity (moreover, as a rule, only successful ones) they limit themselves to this. As a result, the reader, not seeing the tasks that the fleet in general and carrier-based aviation in particular, had to solve, gets a completely wrong picture of what is happening.
          Quote: Trouble
          There is more to be learned about this conflict from an article on Wikipedia than from this "vinaigrette".

          Well, thanks for your feedback.
          1. Disorder
            Disorder 17 May 2016 01: 12
            -2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            It is a little pointless to describe "the actions of the Harriers", limiting ourselves to their combat episodes. "Sea Harriers" is one of the fundamental weapons systems of the British Navy, therefore it is "slightly" stupid to consider them in isolation from the actions of the fleet and the course of the operation to liberate the Falklands.

            Well, when describing the actions of the Harriers, it is impossible to consider them "in isolation from the actions of the fleet and the course of the operation to liberate the Falklands," and in this article, the Harriers are mainly present in the descriptions of combat episodes.

            In the journal "Foreign Military Review" No. 10, 1982 there was an article "The Focklands: A Recipe of British Colonialism." If you can, read and compare with this article.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              17 May 2016 23: 21
              +2
              Quote: Trouble
              In the journal "Foreign Military Review" No. 10, 1982 there was an article "The Focklands: A Recipe of British Colonialism." If you can, read and compare with this article.

              I read it. The usual review article, "galloping through Europe", without detailing with a bunch of factual errors (which is not surprising - the article was written in hot pursuit). The analysis is shallow, I would even say - primitive.
              For example, the reasons for the defeat of Argentina are as follows:
              1) General unpreparedness for war.
              2) Weak vocational training of military personnel
              3) Major political and military miscalculations of leadership (without listing)
              1. Disorder
                Disorder 17 May 2016 23: 36
                -2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                I read it. The usual review article, "galloping through Europe", without detailing with a bunch of factual errors (which is not surprising - the article was written in hot pursuit). The analysis is shallow, I would even say - primitive.
                For example, the reasons for the defeat of Argentina are as follows:
                1) General unpreparedness for war.
                2) Weak vocational training of military personnel
                3) Major political and military miscalculations of leadership (without listing)

                What can you say about this article? In which we are now discussing.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  17 May 2016 23: 59
                  +1
                  Quote: Trouble
                  What can you say about this article?

                  What should I talk about her? All that I wanted to say on the Falkland conflict I said in it.
                  In this series of articles, I analyze the combat activity of the British 317th compound (and not only) literally by the days of its participation in the conflict, describe all the combat episodes involving the combat aircraft of the parties (more precisely, what I manage to find, because a significant part of the sorties the British to attack ground targets is not trite described in the literature available to me), I express the result of my analysis of why it turned out this way and not otherwise. At the same time, I consider the success or failure of the actions of both Argentines and the British in relation to the tasks they were trying to solve.
                  Reading the descriptions of the air battles on May 1, you have to involuntarily imagine that the British obviously won. But actually ... the day after tomorrow the third part will be on the main one, you will see for yourself. Unless, of course, there is a desire to read this cycle further.
                  1. Disorder
                    Disorder 18 May 2016 03: 14
                    -7
                    Yoyooyo-mayo. I did not notice that this article is yours.
                    The discussion was initially useless. And the third part can not be read.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                    I read it. The usual review article, "galloping through Europe", without detailing with a bunch of factual errors (which is not surprising - the article was written in hot pursuit). The analysis is shallow, I would even say - primitive.


                    But your article is just gushing with details. Right up to what the participants in the conflict thought and felt.
                    "A direct torpedo hit destroyed the trap. The British were alert." As in a joke - "... Stirlitz was on the alert."

                    After reading the article in the West Military District, you can clearly imagine how the conflict went. Reading your "literally by day" description, it is very difficult to imagine the course of the conflict.

                    By the way - where is the guarantee that it’s not in the ZVO, but in your article a lot of mistakes?

                    PS You should write books, not articles.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      18 May 2016 11: 50
                      +6
                      Quote: Trouble
                      But your article is just gushing with details. Right up to what the participants in the conflict thought and felt.
                      "A direct torpedo hit destroyed the trap. The British were alert." As in a joke - "... Stirlitz was on the alert."

                      It was an irony, by the way.
                      Quote: Trouble
                      After reading the article in ZVO, you can clearly imagine how the conflict went.

                      Well, I'm glad for you :))) Here, for example, 40 people from the "C" company of the 12th regiment under the command of senior lieutenant K. Esteban - fought on the retreat against the superior forces of British paratroopers, prevented attempts to encircle their detachment, managed to break away from pursuit and return to the disposal of the main force at Port Stanley. During the battle, their small arms shot down 3 helicopters, including two assault ones :)))
                      These were the soldiers of Argentina. Weakly trained, from the point of view of the authors of the ZVO.
                      Quote: Trouble
                      And the third part can not be read.

                      Yes that's right. I am writing for those who are trying to understand this conflict in detail. You prefer the "clear view" of review articles - this is not our way.
                      Quote: Trouble
                      By the way - where is the guarantee that it’s not in the ZVO, but in your article a lot of mistakes?

                      Guarantees that I can’t give a bunch of mistakes in my article, you made a reservation :))) And taking into account the caveat, everything big is seen at a distance when the conflict recently ended with many things that are unknown and incomprehensible.
                      A couple of simple examples. The ZVO writes that during the Super Etandar attack, the Mirages and Sayhoki "performed demonstrative maneuvers at medium altitudes, thereby distracting the Sea Harriers. This never happened - the Mirages did not accompany the Super Etandars in any of the three attacks, and the skyhooks once escorted, but struck, not distracted. As a matter of fact, in all three cases of Super attacks, not a single Harrier was nearby.
                      "When repelling air attacks by a pair of C Harriers, 2 to 4 enemy aircraft were shot down" - It would be better if they wrote how many times the Harriers could not intercept anyone at all and how many times the Harriers attacked Argentine aircraft did not shoot down anyone.
                      "The main reason for the large losses of the British during the landing is that the Rapier airborne missile system was not deployed in a timely manner, this is nonsense, the Rapier air defense system showed its complete inefficiency, the British suffered losses before and after deployment.
                      "During the attack of" Invincible "by two Exocets, the CWolfe air defense missile system shot down both
                      Firstly, the Invincible was attacked with only one missile, and the second - not a single anti-ship missile was shot down by Sea Wolf.
                      You ask here, and where is the guarantee that I know better than the author of the ZVO ... Well, I know about the attack on Invincible from the memoirs of the commander of the British 317th compound of Woodworth. Who do you think is right? :)
                    2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Lucy
        Lucy 17 May 2016 22: 42
        +1
        We must remember the youth of the magazine ZVO for .. month, 198 ... year, there were scheduled air battles.
  13. Operator
    Operator 16 May 2016 12: 52
    +2
    Harrier, like any VTOL aircraft, is a mast guard aircraft - its combat radar is only enough to provide air defense of a ship’s formation in the near zone.

    At the same time, the Harrier, due to its thrust-to-weight ratio and engine thrust vector control, was a super-maneuverable aircraft at the level of modern 4 ++ generation aircraft. The super-maneuverability of the Harriers was enhanced by their armament — short-range air-to-air missiles with an all-aspect seeker.

    Therefore, the Argentine Air Force, consisting of 3 and earlier generations armed with outdated missiles with target capture only from the rear hemisphere, had no chance in close combat against the Harriers. In the best case, the Mirage’s entry into the tail of the Harrier ended in a reversal of the latter on the heels and an attack by defenseless Argentines in the opposite direction.

    On the other hand, the success of the Argentines in the attacks on British ships was caused by the short range and the time of the Harrier’s barrage - due to this, the Argentines found gaps in the defense of the ship’s formation.

    The turning point in the war came only after the British seized the landhead and the construction of a full-fledged ground airfield, from which the Harriers were able to operate in take-off and landing mode with a range of several hundred meters. After which they were able to fully perform the functions of fighters and bombers with increased combat load and range.

    Summary:

    1) VTOL aircraft - an absolute evil, the only solution for carrier-based aviation - a super-maneuverable aircraft of the normal Su-35С or F-22 type (without stealth troubles);

    2) carrier-based aviation is only suitable for air defense of the AUG and capture of a bridgehead, after which it must cede the battlefield to ground aviation;

    3) in the event of a conventional conflict between the USA and Russia, the American AHG will not be able to strike even on coastal targets, since the deck-based Super Hornets (combat radius 726 km) will be intercepted by ground-based super-maneuverable Su-35С (combat radius 2250 km) using the RVV-DB (range 300 km) even before reaching the launch line of the Tomahawks (range 1600 km);

    4) the deck modification of the F-35C in stealth mode without weapons on an external sling is useless for action against coastal objects - its range is 1140 km, the range of application of small-sized air-to-ground missiles and gliding bombs is about 100 km, in the case of external suspension of cruise the joint range of missiles is reduced to the level of Super Hornets (2326 km);

    5) the combat radius of action of the Su-35S with "Caliber" cruise missiles on board when attacking the AUG is 3850 km, the missiles are launched outside the range of carrier-based fighter aircraft and detection by Hawkeye AWACS aircraft.

    Conclusion: American AUGs in a conventional conflict with a party that has adopted the Su-35S and "Caliber" (in fact, Russia, potentially China, India and Iran) will smoke bamboo in their home ports am
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 16 May 2016 14: 26
      +3
      "combat radius of action of the Su-35S with cruise missiles" Caliber "////

      Is the S-35 able to launch Caliber? Did not know...
      1. Operator
        Operator 16 May 2016 14: 46
        -1
        Easy - in a lightened shortened configuration of the CR without powder accelerators.
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 16 May 2016 14: 58
          +6
          Quote: Operator
          Easy - in a lightened shortened configuration of the CR without powder accelerators.

          Uncle, you are a dreamer. Straight "easy"! How many missiles were fired, where and when were the tests carried out? Is the product accepted for service? When? How many missiles have been made?
          So to argue, then with the Su-35 it is "easy" to launch anything, including a "poplar" in a lightweight (very lightweight!) Configuration.
          You should first read "practical aerodynamics" and "RLE". At the same time, you will learn what Cx is, how it depends on flight speed and how Cx of external suspensions affects the OBD and ACU / APU on the flight range. I recommend starting with the "practical aerodynamics of the Su-24" available on the web - there are examples of navigational calculations.
          1. Operator
            Operator 16 May 2016 16: 06
            +1
            Boy - You are an ignoramus laughing
            Do you really think that the Su-35S with a combat load of 10 tons and an external suspension of at least two fuel tanks weighing about 2000 kg, taking into account the container, each will not cope with two "Calibers" weighing 2 tons each (without starting boosters)?

            Photo of the supersonic anti-ship missile P-270 "Mosquito" weighing 4500 kg and dimensions 9,3x0,76x2,1 m on the external sling of the Su-27
            1. WUA 518
              WUA 518 16 May 2016 17: 48
              +6
              Quote: Operator
              will not cope with two "Calibers" weighing 2 tons each (without starting boosters)?
              The Kalibr-A missile weapon system was first presented at the IDEX-2007 exhibition (Abu Dhabi, UAE). Air-based missiles 3M-54AE and 3M-54AE1 do not have a starting engine and are placed in a transport and launch container, from which the launch is carried out after being dropped from the carrier aircraft.
              1. Operator
                Operator 16 May 2016 19: 22
                0
                Thank you, without you, local AUG fans would have eaten me and would not have frowned laughing
                Could you tell me please, are special TPKs of the aviation version of the Kalibr anti-ship missiles used to reduce the RCS of the carrier aircraft or only to improve its aerodynamics with external suspension?
            2. Assistant
              Assistant 16 May 2016 21: 21
              +1
              Photo of the supersonic anti-ship missile P-270 "Mosquito" weighing 4500 kg and dimensions 9,3x0,76x2,1 m on the external sling of the Su-27


              Could you give a source confirming that at least one P-270 missile was launched from a Su-27 family aircraft?
              Thanks in advance.
              1. Operator
                Operator 16 May 2016 21: 40
                -1
                The material on the link gives the Mosquito range when launched from a ship and an aircraft - 120 and 250 km, seemingly based on test results.

                Quote: "The aircraft version of the 3M-80 - X-41 as an air-to-ship missile is intended for use from the Su-33 (Su-27K) carrier-based fighter and, possibly, the Su-32FN bomber. On the Su-27K ( Su-33) one 3M80 missile can be placed under the fuselage between the engine nacelles

                1 Combined Radar Active-Passive Homing Head
                2. Navigation and autonomous control system
                3.battery
                4. Penetrating warhead, mass 300kg
                5.Fuel tank with intake system
                6.start solid propellant rocket motor
                7.March ramjet engine
                8 steering
                9.radio altimeter

                http://razgromflota.ru/statya-22-protivokorabelnyj-raketnyj-kompleks-3m-80-moski

                t/
                1. Assistant
                  Assistant 17 May 2016 04: 16
                  +1
                  This is all good, but the answer to the question was never given.
                  Photos of the Su-27 have long appeared, under which something was suspended, similar in shape and dimensions to the P-270. Okay, we will assume that Su-27 family aircraft can stand motionless on a concrete block with an attached P-270.
                  The questions are as follows:
                  1) is there at least one source confirming that the aircraft of the Su-27 family really flew with an attached P-270 missile?
                  2) is there at least one source confirming that the Su-27 family aircraft actually launched the P-270 rocket?
                  Well, or questions 1) and 2), just not about "Mosquito", but about "Caliber"?
            3. Alex_59
              Alex_59 17 May 2016 07: 05
              +4
              Quote: Operator
              Boy - You are an ignoramus

              I'm glad you liked it. Okay, rudeness is not my strong point, let's leave the "boy" on your conscience - I'm already under 40 years old. And I deal with aviation on a regular basis - I twist bolts on living airplanes. smile
              Quote: Operator
              Do you really think that the Su-35S with a combat load of 10 tons and an external suspension of at least two fuel tanks weighing about 2000 kg, taking into account the container, each will not cope with two "Calibers" weighing 2 tons each (without starting boosters)?

              I don’t think - I know that you don’t hang a rocket to an airplane with rubber bands from panties. And there is no need to post advertising posters. "Declaration of intent" is one thing, and what is in the troops is another thing. It is necessary to pair the rocket with the onboard PNK. This is a very difficult job that requires several years of work by testers and engineers. It may take years from a picture in an advertisement to a serial delivery to the troops in mass quantities. Or they may not pass with our rulers.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Operator
                Operator 17 May 2016 11: 28
                -2
                Do not be offended by humor - this is just the answer to your "uncle, you are fantastic" laughing

                What is or is not in the troops, I do not know, and if I knew, I did not say.

                The comments provided reliable information from Sukhoi Design Bureau from an international exhibition on the possibility of using Caliber RCC (up to the manufacture of special aviation TPKs) from the aircraft of the SU-27 family from 2007 of the year. I do not think that Sukhoi Design Bureau will fool foreign customers with a non-working solution. Earlier on the Su-27K, the suspension of twice the heavier RCC Mosquito was tested (photos and text are also available).

                It can, of course, be assumed that the design bureau specialists forgot in 9 years how to connect informationally to the Su-35С avionics and the suspension and flight guidance system of a cruise missile. But it’s unlikely bully

                It is reliably known about the Su-35С SPD, which is part of the С-108 communication and information transfer complex. Therefore, there are no problems for the primary target designation and radio correction of a cruise missile in flight from a carrier aircraft (except for the radio horizon, of course).

                I can’t say anything about deliveries to the PKR troops. Air-based caliber.
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 17 May 2016 11: 52
                  +1
                  Quote: Operator
                  What is or is not in the troops, I do not know, and if I knew, I did not say.
                  There is no "Caliber" for firing from the Su-35/27/34/30 in combat units (IAP, BAP, ShAP). And it won't. A rocket of this class is too expensive and a piece goods. God grant that the long-distance vehicles (TBAP) will have enough.
                  Quote: Operator
                  I do not think that Sukhoi Design Bureau will fool foreign customers with a non-working solution.

                  Of course he will not be a fool. For the design bureau did not declare that it had a finished product in the form of a well-oiled and ready for mass production system "aircraft-rocket" with "Caliber" in the role of a rocket. This is just a demonstration of a possible project. If a foreign customer gives a deny, they will debug it and embody it in metal. But what does this have to do with our Air Force? None.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 17 May 2016 12: 48
                    +2
                    Then I’m calm for the MFI Su-35С drill rigs - there is no KR for them and, most importantly, they won’t, info 100 percent laughing

                    About how - no relation, but what about the KP Club, which existed when no Caliber was still heard and visible?
                  2. srelock
                    srelock 17 May 2016 17: 01
                    +1
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    There is no "Caliber" for firing from the Su-35/27/34/30 in combat units (IAP, BAP, ShAP). And it won't.

                    There is really no caliber for "Sushki" (maybe someday they will be filmed in order to unify), but there is its analogue X-59. In the export version it has a range of 300 km. as well as "Caliber" (a consequence of the international treaty on limiting the proliferation of missile technologies over 300 km.), the launch weight of the Kh-59 900 kg., warhead 300 kg. For comparison, X-55: starting 1200kg., Warhead 400kg. range 2500 km. More recently, the "expert community" asserted that there are no polymers in "Russia" and non-export "Calibers" fly a maximum of 600 km. on ballistic, but it’s how it ended up ... and h.z. how much is the limit.
                    In general, what am I doing ... I think that Comrade thought.The operator goes in the right direction, although skiing on asphalt.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 15: 06
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      Therefore, the Argentine Air Force, consisting of 3 and earlier generations armed with outdated missiles with target capture only from the rear hemisphere, had no chance in close combat against the Harriers. In the best case, the Mirage’s entry into the tail of the Harrier ended in a reversal of the latter on the heels and an attack by defenseless Argentines in the opposite direction.

      In fact, all three battles with Argentine fighters have already been described above. In other cases, the Harriers attacked Skyhawks or Daggers, who followed without air-to-air missiles, i.e. there it is already difficult to talk about air combat - rather about aerial beating.
      And so - in one case, the Argentines approached the Harriers on a meeting by mutual agreement, in the second case, the British spotted trying to attack the Argentines from a long distance (25 km, as if there were doubts) and once (attack of Ardiles) Argentines still succeeded. Harriers shot down his fighter when he slipped past them, but then the British were still taken by surprise
      Quote: Operator
      since the decked Super Hornets (combat radius of 726 km) will be intercepted by super-maneuverable ground Su-35S (combat radius of 2250 km) using the RVV-DB (range of 300 km) even before reaching the launch line of the Tomahawks (range of 1600 km);

      The Su-35 does not have a combat radius of 2250 km, the RVV-BD cannot be added to the combat radius (firing such missiles at a fighter-type target to the maximum range does not make sense), the Super Hornet cannot carry the Tomahawk (he doesn’t need it for nothing)
      Quote: Operator
      combat radius of action of the Su-35S with "Caliber" cruise missiles on board during the attack of the AUG is 3850 km

      If you suspend heavy anti-ship missiles - well, maybe 1000 km of combat radius will be, though ...
      Quote: Operator
      Conclusion: American AUG in a conventional conflict with the party that has adopted the Su-35S and "Caliber" (in fact, Russia, potentially China, India and Iran) will smoke bamboo in their home ports

      Unfortunately no
      1. Operator
        Operator 16 May 2016 16: 30
        -2
        I did not describe the specific clash between the British and Argentines, but the tactics of the battle of the Harriers with Mirages and other enemy aircraft.

        I agree about the combat radius of Drying - the range of the Su-35С with two outboard tanks is 4500 km, with four 5400 km.

        Suppose that the combat radius of a Su-35С with four tanks and two RVV-DB missiles is 2500 km. Then it is this distance that will be the boundary of the interception of the Super Hornets and the F-35C.

        The combat radius of these aircraft is 726 and 800 km, respectively, with the use of planning bombs (flight range ~ 100 km), the distance of destruction of ground targets will be 826 and 900 km, respectively, while using the JASSM-ER (980 km) - 1706 and 1780 km, with application of the KR Tomahawk (hypothetically, 1600 km) - 2326 and 2400 km.

        As you can see, in any of the variants of the combat load, the Super Hornets and F-35Cs will be intercepted by the Su-35S at least 100 km before the air-to-ground weapons line.

        PS Again, I can not disagree with you - AUG bamboo can be smoked not only in the home port, but also at a distance of more than 2500 km from the SU-35С basing airports (though without taking into account their refueling in air) bully
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          16 May 2016 19: 05
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          I agree about the combat radius of Drying - the range of the Su-35С with two outboard tanks is 4500 km, with four 5400 km.

          Suppose that the combat radius of a Su-35С with four tanks and two RVV-DB missiles is 2500 km. Then it is this distance that will be the boundary of the interception of the Super Hornets and the F-35C.

          I'm sorry, but this is not a calculation.
          We take the Argentine mirage - the flight range with the PTB is 4000 km. According to your combat radius will be 1800 km, and the plane operated barely 800 km, and not with a heavy anti-ship missile system, but with a pair of light air-to-air missiles
          1. Operator
            Operator 16 May 2016 19: 56
            -2
            I agree to the officially announced maximum range of the Su-35С with two 2000-liter suspension tanks - 4500 km. There remains a reserve for the suspension of one RVV-DB weighing 600 kg and a range of 300 km.

            In total, this is enough to intercept Super Hornet to the launch line of the KR Tomahawk - 1600 km.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              16 May 2016 22: 21
              +4
              Quote: Operator
              I agree to the officially declared maximum range of the Su-35S with two 2000-liter suspension tanks - 4500 km

              You see, nothing depends on your consent or disagreement in this matter. I suppose you should read at least the definition of maximum and practical range, combat radius, etc.
              A simple example is Skyhawk A-4
              Ferry range - 3430 km.
              The combat radius with two PTBs is 1094 km.
              In fact, it could not be used to attack British ships on the Falklands (750-780 km from air bases) without refueling in the air.
              Quote: Operator
              In total, this is enough to intercept Super Hornet to the launch line of the Kyrgyz Republic Tomahawk - 1600 km

              You have already been told that the Hornets do not carry tomahawks. They don’t need to.
              You will never intercept the Super Hornet in this way. Because it should be understood that the interception "calculated" by you can take place only if Hornet is at the interception point exactly at the moment at which the Su-35S reaches the missile launch line. Will he be waiting for you there, or what? :)
              How are you going to look for an aircraft carrier at all? :) How are you going to control the take-off of his air group? :))) Do you even know that the Su-35S radar will not detect a Hornet for 300 km? A similar detection range is possible when Hornet’s position in space is quite clear (for example, the A-50U is tracking him) and then he will capture it with a narrow beam of the Su-35C radar. But in the ordinary search engine - no.
              1. Operator
                Operator 16 May 2016 23: 09
                -3
                You can not go deeper into the comparison of the ferry range and combat radius of various types of aircraft, since the flight profile used to calculate their combat radius is unknown.

                It is much more rational to compare the maximum flight range of the weapon type of the carrier aircraft (in this case, a cruise missile) according to the ideal profile and the ferry range of the interceptor aircraft (provided that it has a reserve capacity to take on board at least one air-to-air missile).

                In a conditional comparison, I used 1600 km for the most dangerous KR Tomahawk with conventional warheads (from the assumption that this missile can be used in the future as aviation weapons, other types of US deck carrier weapons have a shorter range) and 2250 + 300 km for the Su-35С with one RBB-DB. The difference is decent 950 km.

                If it is necessary to reserve a fuel reserve for maneuvering, the maximum ranges of the KR and Su-35С will be reduced, but the difference will obviously remain within hundreds of km. What is the futility of the US carrier-based aviation work on coastal facilities covered by ground-based Russian Su-35С.

                That you are so concerned about the work of the Su-35S radar against the AUG aviation - we have an over-the-horizon "Container" decameter range radar, which sees aircraft at a distance of 3000 km. From the moment of takeoff of the carrier-based aircraft at the estimated time, the Su-35S will rise into the air and go out with some advance in range to the launch line of the Tomahawks at the shortest missile flight distance to the protected object.

                The Super Hornets will not come to the same line in the estimated time - that means the enemy air raids are guaranteed to be foiled, since the American AOG does not have other planes and missiles with a greater range. They will come up, even better - they will receive a missile attack of the RVV-DB on the opposite courses.

                In any case, the combat mission of the Su-35C will be completed, and the Super Hornets will be thwarted.

                By the way, after a disrupted attack by carrier-based aircraft, the AUG, located at a distance of no more than 2400 km from the coast, will receive a full response in the form of an attack by re-armed Su-35S with Calibers at a distance of up to 2250 + 1600 = 3800 km (the maximum for using Calibers without taking into account the maneuvering). Let me remind you that the "Container" radar can see ships at 6000 km, and the Su-35S will take six hours to fly back and forth and rearm. During this time, the AUG will move 300 km from the coast at best.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 16 May 2016 23: 28
                  -3
                  Oil painting "Venter" - a favorite technique of the Mongols, Cossacks and the Russian Aerospace Forces to lure the enemy, the French and the AUG to a distance of guaranteed retaliation laughing
            2. The comment was deleted.
    3. cdznjckfd
      cdznjckfd 16 May 2016 15: 24
      0
      It was smooth on paper, but forgot about the ravines, for example, how do admirals and generals neutralize ACGs based in Japan?
      1. Arikkhab
        Arikkhab 16 May 2016 17: 35
        +2
        "The flight range of the Su-35S with two outboard tanks is 4500 km, with four 5400 km. Let's assume that the combat radius of the Su-35S with four tanks and two RVV-BD missiles is 2500 km."

        Not suppose. Half of the ferry range doesn’t equal the combat radius
        1. Operator
          Operator 16 May 2016 19: 25
          -1
          Half of 4500 km is 2250 km plus the distance of using the RVV-DB for the non-maneuverable target 300 km, total 2500 km and 50 km reserve.
          1. Svateev
            Svateev 17 May 2016 17: 26
            +2
            Quote: Operator
            Half of 4500 km is 2250 km plus the distance of using the RVV-DB for the non-maneuverable target 300 km, total 2500 km and 50 km reserve.

            Ferry is a range without armament suspensions, at cruising speed, at high altitude. As soon as you suspend an armament, the frontal resistance of the aircraft increases significantly, the range drops (just do not compare the armament with the fuel tank, the tank is much more aerodynamic). Plus flight speed: Ferry is at cruising (the most economical) speed, usually much lower than supersonic. And in a combat mission, speed is dictated by the task. Plus, the combat flight profile is largely low altitude with a corresponding increase in fuel consumption. Total ...
            1. Operator
              Operator 17 May 2016 19: 12
              0
              It is only about the flight of the Su-35С at a ferry speed and a ferry altitude.

              Missile weapons (RVV-BD or "Caliber-A" anti-ship missiles) in the singular are suspended in the aerodynamic shadow between the Su-35S air intakes. RVV-BD has no worse aerodynamics than an outboard fuel tank. Anti-ship missiles "Caliber-A" are located in the aerodynamic TPK.

              The profile of the Su-35S combat flight for the use of RVV-BD and anti-ship missiles "Caliber" is high-altitude, outside the radar control zone of the AUG:
              - the line of interception of "Super Hornets" is located at a distance of 700 km from the aircraft carrier;
              - the launch range of the Kalibr-A anti-ship missile system against a surface target is from 1600 km (conventional warhead) to 2500 km (nuclear warhead).
    4. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 16 May 2016 23: 14
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      At the same time, due to his thrust-weight ratio and engine thrust vector control, Harrier was a super-maneuverable aircraft at the level of modern aircraft of the 4 ++ generation

      Sea Harrier rotary nozzle, set for level flight. White marks indicate acceptable nozzle angle. With such a nozzle, this aircraft could hardly be called even a 4th generation aircraft without "pluses".
      1. Operator
        Operator 16 May 2016 23: 59
        -1
        For the fourth generation ++ it’s just right - for the fifth generation F-22, the thrust vector deviation angle is + -17 degrees.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 17 May 2016 22: 32
        0
        Harrier developed from 3rd generation to 4th through avionics. But no + or ++ of course.
    5. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 16 May 2016 23: 15
      +1
      Not so "Mirages" were defenseless with radar, all-aspect radar missiles Matra Magic and with the ability to reach altitude at supersonic. This is not Nesher with his cut-off "Shafrir", which they used to shoot down Egyptian MiG-21s, and from Skyhawks too.
  14. Taoist
    Taoist 16 May 2016 13: 46
    +5
    Well, so far great, I'm even intrigued ... We'll talk in detail after the end of the cycle. There is more than one "bagel with poppy seeds" ... In the meantime, I want to note that you have heard something that most do not even notice (especially the "couch warriors") - in particular, the real complexity of operations to ensure the actions of YES at a considerable distance from their bases ...
    By the way, the many times damned "verticals" (in particular, 38e) were meant for these purposes ... to cover the refueling zone of their cars or, if necessary, to pinch the enemy ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 14: 52
      +4
      Quote: Taoist
      We will talk in detail after the end of the cycle

      We will talk for sure. Including about
      Quote: Taoist
      After all, if Argentina had these pictures would have changed dramatically.

      Quote: Taoist
      In the meantime, I want to note that you have heard something that the majority do not even notice (especially the "couch warriors") - in particular, the real complexity of operations to support DA actions at a considerable distance from their bases

      Thank you!
      Quote: Taoist
      By the way, the many times damned "verticals" (in particular, 38e) were meant for these purposes ... to cover the refueling zone of their cars or, if necessary, to pinch the enemy ...

      Strictly speaking, if the British had a normal aircraft carrier, he could directly trample both Argentine air bases from all their air defense without leaving TRALA zone. I would attack groups of 20 planes each, and the same Phantoms would do quite well - especially under the guise of something like the Wild Weasle and control from Hokai.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 16 May 2016 16: 20
        +2
        Well, the fact that Argentina had Falklands as the basis for calling the language will not turn around ... at best, a jumping platform ... and even that is neutered. Even a normal air defense system by the standards of the 70x-80x was not there ... But if it were ... the question was pure ... Yes, there would certainly be a full-fledged AV picture, it would be generally wallpaper ... but it wasn’t ... But in due time, we repeatedly imposed our equipment and its real capabilities on those events (especially since Rhombus’s experience showed a lot)
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          16 May 2016 17: 25
          +2
          Quote: Taoist
          . But we at one time repeatedly imposed our equipment and its real capabilities on those events

          It seems to me that the Tu-22M2 regiment "superimposed" on the British AUS will cover it like a bull - a sheep laughing Or - another option, Skyhawks and Super Ethandars attack under the control of the A-50 laughing Iehh, okay, something fantasy took off in earnest :)
    2. The comment was deleted.
  15. maximghost
    maximghost 16 May 2016 14: 03
    +3
    While the article is simply gorgeous. The only thing I would like to know is why the volcanoes needed so many refueling.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 16 May 2016 14: 17
      +6
      The only thing I would like to know is why volcanoes took so many refueling
      Yes, because very often in performance characteristics the radius of combat use of a bomber - this applies not only to Vulcan - is indicated with 50% load. And if you load it in full, this radius is significantly reduced.
      1. Arikkhab
        Arikkhab 16 May 2016 17: 37
        +1
        plus flight profile affects
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 15: 08
      +1
      Thank you for your appreciation, and dear Verdun already answered your question.
    3. Alex_59
      Alex_59 16 May 2016 15: 08
      +6
      Quote: maximghost
      The only thing I would like to know is why the volcanoes needed so many refueling.

      Because in fact it is not a strategic bomber and does not provide an intercontinental range. 9000 km is a no-load ferry range. And here it seemed to be loaded in full - 21 x 454 kg = 9534 kg, which is quite a lot for a machine with take-off weight in 91. For example, the Tu-22М3 has a maximum take-off weight of about 120 tons, and is not considered a strategist. Having suspended the load less than the 21 bomb, the British risked not getting into the runway at all - such is the scattering of free-falling bombs - the usefulness of such a takeoff with several bombs tended to zero.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 16 May 2016 15: 20
        +1
        Having suspended a load of less than 21 bombs, the British risked not getting into the runway at all — such is the scattering of free-falling bombs — the usefulness of such a departure with several bombs tended to zero.
        Which, in fact, is rather strange, since at the time of the Falkland War the British should already have been armed with the BLU-107 Durandal bomb, a thing quite accurate and specially designed to defeat the runway.
      2. maximghost
        maximghost 16 May 2016 15: 34
        +2
        Kmk, it’s better to include these explanations in the article: they say a radius of 3,5 thousand km, 5 thousand to fly. It seems that only 1 refueling is needed, but because it was necessary to load a few bombs, the radius decreased noticeably.
        The author, on the other hand, painted very well about the combat effectiveness of Argentinean technology (kmk slightly underestimating the visibility of Puqar and Ubs). In general, the more nuances disclosed, the better.
  16. Taoist
    Taoist 16 May 2016 14: 28
    +2
    Quote: Operator
    1) VTOL aircraft - an absolute evil, the only solution for carrier-based aviation - a super-maneuverable aircraft of the normal Su-35С or F-22 type (without stealth troubles);

    2) carrier-based aviation is only suitable for air defense of the AUG and capture of a bridgehead, after which it must cede the battlefield to ground aviation;



    Do you really add IMHO ... And then so categorically ... ;-)

    I'm afraid you are falling into the same heresy comparing tons to kilometers ... in real life everything is a little more complicated. Especially from the point of view of ensuring the functioning of such a complex organism as an aircraft carrier.

    By the way, you are confusing the "practical range" and the "combat radius" - you need to be brighter ...
    1. Operator
      Operator 16 May 2016 14: 44
      -3
      The question for you as an expert is - what is the flight range of the Super Hornet when taking off from an aircraft carrier deck with full refueling of internal tanks (6559 kg), two hanging tanks (2x1816 kg) and one Tomahawk CR (1450 kg) on ​​board?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 16 May 2016 15: 24
        +7
        "what is the flight range of the Super Hornet ... with one Tomahawk CD ... on board" ///

        Zero kilometers, like the Su-35 with Caliber. laughing

        The biggest CR that Hornet pulls: AGM-158 JASSM (pictured)
        By the way, when it is necessary to carry a full cargo truck, they take off with almost empty
        tanks, and refuel in full already in the air wink .
        1. Operator
          Operator 16 May 2016 16: 48
          -4
          I won't argue about the Super Hornet (if you question its maximum weight when taking off from the deck of an aircraft carrier), but the capabilities of the Su-35S taking off from a ground airfield are used to the maximum - see the photo of the Mosquito CD on the external sling of its predecessor, Su- 27, and the Caliber weighs more than half that of the Mosquito.

          For the Su-35S, the layout is as follows: empty weight 19000 kg, weight of fuel in internal tanks 11500 kg, weight of two outboard fuel tanks 4000, weight of KR "Caliber" without powder accelerator 2000 kg.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 16 May 2016 17: 47
            +2
            "but the capabilities of the Su-35S taking off from a ground airfield are used to the maximum" ////

            Ground aviation and deck aircraft are different from each other.
            It is incorrect to compare them.
            All modifications of the Su-27 (Su-30, Su-35), as well as all their modifications
            peer - F-15 (blocks A, C, D, "silent", etc.) can be loaded
            much sharper than the sea, where a short take-off with a catapult
            folding wings for storage in hangars.
            1. Operator
              Operator 16 May 2016 19: 40
              -5
              Moreover, the US carrier-based aviation together with the AUG smokes bamboo against the background of the ground-based Su-35S with RVV-BD, not to mention the Kalibr anti-ship missile system bully

              It's simple:
              - the maximum range of the Su-35С with two hanging tanks and two RVV-DBs is 2250 km, the maximum range of Tomahawk with the conventional warhead is 1600 km, the handicap of the interceptor Su-35С is 650 km;
              - the maximum range of the Kalibr anti-ship missile system with a conventional warhead is 1600 km, the maximum range of the Super Hornet with three outboard tanks and two AIM-9X tanks is 1425 km, the head start of the Su-35 missile carrier is 175 km.
          2. Odysseus
            Odysseus 16 May 2016 18: 16
            +2
            Quote: Operator
            see the photo of the Mosquito CR on the external sling of its predecessor, the Su-27, and the Caliber's weight is more than half that of the Mosquito.

            In practice, it has never been used. If the Sword without a bypass channel, then it is even theoretically not applicable. If with a bypass, then it is theoretically possible, but practically never a Moskita Su-27 was carried. Well, anything can be hung at the exhibition.
            As for the Su-35 and Caliber, it can potentially be used. Will it? I doubt very much. Now he is only trained to work by air with the R-77-1, and K-74M2.
          3. WUA 518
            WUA 518 16 May 2016 19: 22
            +2
            Quote: Operator
            For the Su-35S, the layout is as follows: empty weight 19000 kg, weight of fuel in internal tanks 11500 kg, weight of two outboard fuel tanks 4000, weight of KR "Caliber" without powder accelerator 2000 kg.

            It’s all beautiful, only after suspending all this will there be operational limitations on speed, overload, etc. And you fly black woodpecker, not a clear falcon.
            1. Operator
              Operator 16 May 2016 20: 01
              0
              With the Caliber missile, the Su-35S multifunctional fighter performs the function of a strike aircraft - a "black woodpecker," so to speak.
      2. Taoist
        Taoist 16 May 2016 16: 27
        +5
        Do you even know that the possibility of using any weapon is not equal to the ability to simply raise it?
        Those. Does the composition of the required avionics and guidance equipment for using different missile defense systems and, especially, long-range missile systems differ?
        1. Operator
          Operator 16 May 2016 17: 00
          -4
          As for the functionality of the avionics of the carrier aircraft, I am aware of the fact that anti-ship cruise missiles for their use require prelaunch input of target coordinates and radio correction from the carrier aircraft during the flight to the target according to external target designation data, for example, the over-the-horizon "Container" radar.

          The Su-35S is equipped with the S-108 digital tactical data exchange system manufactured by OAO NPP Polet.
      3. Arikkhab
        Arikkhab 16 May 2016 17: 41
        0
        range or combat radius? and on what profile is the flight?
        Yes, and they don’t hang the Tomahawk under the hornet
  17. Odysseus
    Odysseus 16 May 2016 17: 52
    +5
    Thank you for an interesting series of articles! It is important that the respected author specifically noted the difference between real combat and theoretical ideas about it. And then recently there have been many "theorists" who, referring to the polygon characteristics of the next "miracle weapon", make broadcast statements like the one mentioned in the article- "Arlie Burke Basalt / Granite ".
    At the same time, these comrades forget that there is a huge distance between theory and practice, that one thing is ideal polygonal conditions, and the other is real battle. Even the fundamental principle is forgotten -The enemy always attacks unexpectedly. .
    And here the war for the Malvinas (Falklands) is an excellent example. Of the more recent on this topic, the Israeli Saar-5 corvette with a very advanced air defense in a combat situation lets through a single old light Chinese anti-ship missile system (the ship was miraculously not sunk). Saudites with many PAK-3s. with full intelligence, they manage to miss single launches of Points and even Scuds, well, etc. So the "feat" of the English sailors who missed the Daggers raid, for the start of the war, is more the norm than the exception to the rule.
  18. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 16 May 2016 22: 54
    -1
    This allowed the Argentine pilot to take an advantageous position and attack from a gentle dive, but then he changed his composure, and he launched a rocket, not waiting for the confident capture of the target of the GOS of his Shafrir. As a result, “Shafrir” went into milk, dispersed at the peak of “Dagger” slipped the pair attacked by him, to which one of the British pilots, Lieutenant Hale, reacted with lightning speed and shot down the Argentinean “Sidewinder”. The pilot of the Dagger, Ardiles, died.

    Pilot Ardiles told all this himself?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      16 May 2016 23: 22
      +1
      Quote: Simpsonian
      Pilot Ardiles told all this himself?

      I don’t see anything that could not be reconstructed from the words of British pilots.
  19. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 17 May 2016 00: 22
    +1
    But on the other hand, the Argentines, albeit at the cost of blood, were able to identify the weaknesses of the air defense provided by the Sea Harriers, and could now develop tactics for breaking through it.

    I suppose that from the reports of the pilots and especially the radar reconnaissance on the islands, the leadership of the Argentine Air Force for the first day of hostilities could not come to a conclusion about the weakness of the air defense of the British naval forces. Given the losses incurred, rather the opposite. All groups that found contact with the enemy were not left without fire or harassment.
  20. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 17 May 2016 09: 22
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Simpsonian
    Pilot Ardiles told all this himself?

    I don’t see anything that could not be reconstructed from the words of British pilots.

    The British pilots from their cockpit saw on the Argentinian's dashboard that the "Shafrir" was launched before the target was captured and continued to fly further with his sofa, like the pilot Ardiles, who did not know why his plane had air brakes and a pilot's handle.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 May 2016 11: 01
      0
      Quote: Simpsonian
      British pilots from their cockpit saw on the Argentinean's dashboard that the "Shafrir" was launched before the target was captured

      Most likely, the English pilots saw the "Shafrir" whistling past them, and then - Ardiles "whistling" past them. What else?
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 17 May 2016 12: 35
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

        Most likely, the English pilots saw the "Shafrir" whistling past them, and then - Ardiles "whistling" past them. What else?

        meanwhile, the whistling Ardiles kept looking for brake pads and a pilot handle in his popcorn
  21. Konstantin Yu
    Konstantin Yu 18 May 2016 15: 21
    +2
    At one time I read about these events in the "Foreign Military Review", now the perception is different ... more critical.
    An article without unnecessary blah blah .. if you can reconcile the chronology, the human factor with technical references, I think it will be great. Good luck.
  22. Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 20 May 2016 06: 04
    +2
    Quote: Operator

    With the participation in the missile attack of the Su-35С link and the Il-78М-90A pair, alles kaput will come to Pearl Harbor laughing


    "I beg your pardon for my English", but what is the IL-78M-90A? Judging by the modification of the Il-76MD-90, it seems to be an Il-78M with PS-90A engines, but such an aircraft does not exist in "nature". All flying (and non-flying) Il-78 and Il-78M are equipped with D-30KP series 2. Maybe I missed someone after the "demobilization"? Enlighten, I will be grateful.
    To the author - an unequivocal respect. Articles are optimally adapted for perception, without unnecessary distracting details. The third part has already been released. I’ll read it now.
  23. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 26 May 2016 23: 10
    0
    Respect the author!