Military Review

“Harriers” in battle: Falklands conflict 1982 (part of 3)

132



So, on May 1, 1982, the Argentines became convinced of the imminent landing of the British and were preparing to throw their fleet into battle. The demonstration group TG-79.3, consisting of the cruiser General Belgrano and two old destroyers, was supposed to imitate an attack from the south and divert the attention of British commanders. At this time, the main forces of the TG-79.1 and TG-79.2, consisting of the Bentisinko de Mayo aircraft carrier, the modern destroyers Santisimo Trinidad and Hercules (type 42, an analogue of the unfortunate Sheffield) and three corvettes were supposed to inflict a strike by Skyhawks from a distance of 120 miles on British ships. Their attack was to be supported by a Super Etandar link with Exozet anti-ship missiles, a San Luis submarine, and, of course, attack aircraft from continental air bases. Argentine Commander fleet ordered the operation to begin on the morning of May 2, immediately after the deployment of tactical groups.

Interestingly, even if the TG-79.1 and TG-79.2 succeeded, the Argentines did not plan to throw their light cruiser into battle. According to their plan, in the event that the British fleet is broken, the TG-79.3 ships should be engaged in piracy on the communications of the enemy. Thus, the Argentines very realistically assessed the capabilities of the old artillery ship, assigning him to the opponents single vehicles and supply vessels of the British.

The Argentine plan for the upcoming battle should be recognized as reasonable and had a good chance of success. If something could crush the British, it’s a concentrated blow aviation Navy (decked "Skyhawks" and "Super Ethandars") and the Air Force ("Skyhawks and" Daggers "from the continent). An attempt to attack the British by the fleet alone would be obvious madness, since the TG-79.1 and TG-79.2 were twice as inferior to the British in the number of carrier-based aircraft, and their Skyhawks could neither defend themselves in the air nor provide air defense connections. At the same time, on six ships of the main forces of the Argentinean fleet there were only two air defense systems (Sea Dart), which was clearly not enough to fight even with such a short-haired air group as the British had. As for the ship-based Exocets, as noted earlier, the author does not know how many such missiles were in the possession of the Argentinean fleet, but it is known for sure that the idea of ​​rapprochement with the British compound is 35-40 kilometers (MM38 flight range is 42 km ) followed by a massive salvo of anti-ship missiles, no one in the Argentine Navy did not consider. Although the English commander, Rear Admiral Woodworth, considered such an attack possible and feared it seriously.

“Harriers” in battle: Falklands conflict 1982 (part of 3)


So, by the morning of May 2, the Argentine fleet moved to the original, and the Air Force planes were only waiting for commands to take off. It seemed that the Argentinean commanders had calculated everything correctly: the air battles, the shelling of the coast and the landing of amphibious groups in the second half of the past day seemed to foreshadow a quick landing of British expeditionary forces. Contacts did not stop even at night - in 01.55 the destroyer “Santisimo Trinidad” found the patrol “Sea Harrier” and fired at it with the “Sea Dart” air defense system, but to no avail. So the dawn of 2 on May, the Argentines met in full readiness.

And what did the British fleet do at this time? In the same way as the Argentine, he was preparing for a general battle. The British 317's operational compound deployed its battle formations some 80 miles from Stanley: in the center of the military formation there were both aircraft carriers and their direct guard: the Brilliant and Frigates frigates. The near-ground air defense zone was created by the destroyer Glamorgan, frigates Alakriti, Yarmouth, and Arrow. Three more destroyers, deploying menacing directions in 30 miles from the main forces, formed a long-range radar patrol and, of course, the X Harrier air patrols were ahead of everyone.

The fleets were ready for a decisive battle. The distance between them was relatively small, around two nights, when the Sea Harrier and the Argentine destroyer saw each other, there were barely 200 miles between the squadrons. By dawn, this distance probably became even smaller. But, nevertheless, the battle did not happen. Why?

The command of Argentina, alas, did not take advantage of the opportunities presented to them. The plan called for a strike during the landing operation of the British, but it did not begin at all. While waiting for the British marines, the Argentines made a very annoying mistake - they were limited to air reconnaissance of possible landing sites and did not send their planes to the sea. As a result, the British fleet, which was not too far from the islands and (at least, part of the ships) within the reach of the Skyhawks and Daggers, was not detected. The Argentines lost a good chance to deliver a concentrated blow to the relatively small forces of the British. It’s hard to say what would happen, find and attack Argentinian 317, the operational connection of Rear Admiral Woodworth, but if the Argentinean command had a chance to defeat the British, they missed it on May 2.

Unlike its "opponents", the British commander made every effort to detect the main forces of the Argentine fleet, but his searches were fruitless. Not having specialized aircraft, the British were forced to use for reconnaissance of VTOL aircraft with their limited radius and weak radar. And they suffered a fiasco at a distance from which aircraft carriers of the Second World War no-no, yes, and found the enemy.

But the British knew the direction from which the main forces of the Armada Republic of Argentina (ARA) should have been expected. Even 28 April, the Americans told their British allies the location of the TG-79.3, obtained according to space reconnaissance, and 30 on April of the Argentine tactical group "at the tail" of the village Atkarina "Concare". The commander of the English compound did not consider this compound to be the main threat, he believed that it was a bait, although he admitted that perhaps the Argentines were trying to take him in ticks. If the Argentines were aware of the location of his ships, they could try, moving at night and at full speed, to get close to the English squadron, so that at dawn to inflict a massive rocket attack on it. But in this case, the main threat, according to the British admiral, came from the northwest, it was from there that the destroyers and corvettes TG-79.1 and TG-79.2 were supposed to come, and from there the deck aircraft of the only Argentine aircraft carrier would strike. In confirmation of these arguments, "Sea Harrier", found out at night "Santisimo Trinidad" and reported on a group of Argentine ships in the north-west. Now Rear Admiral Woodworth was confident that he had figured out the Argentines' plan and knew where to look for their main forces, but the limited capabilities of the VTOL aircraft did not allow him to detect the enemy. An attempt to find the enemy with the help of the submarine Splendit (she was informed of the coordinates of the last contact with the Argentine ships) also led to nothing. Rear Admiral Woodworth found himself in a difficult situation. Not having the location of the TG-79.1 and TG-79.2, he also understood that they could be very close.

While the British were nervous, the Argentines were tired of waiting. Dawn passed long ago, morning was replaced by day, but no disembarkation followed. Rightly judging that the British would not attack today, Rear Admiral G. Allyar in 12.30 ordered all three tactical groups to return to the areas of the initial maneuver. The Argentines retreated in order to regain their original positions and advance for a concentrated strike, as soon as the British did decide on a landing operation. TG-79.3, led by General Belgrano, received this order and turned back without even entering the 200-mile combat zone. However, she was not allowed to leave.

It is hard to say what Rear Admiral Woodworth was guided by when requesting permission to attack Argentine ships outside the war zone. The retreating old cruiser and two military-style destroyers did not threaten him. On the other hand, they were still warships of a hostile country, and it was not in the best British maritime traditions to let them go in peace. The psychological impact of the death of the only one, but possessing a large crew of the Argentine cruiser, could have greatly demoralized (perhaps it did) the Argentine fleet. In addition, any energetic person (and we have no single reason to reproach Rear-Admiral Woodworth for lack of energy), having preferred to do anything in a difficult situation, rather than do nothing at all. Who knows, will not the death of the “Belgrano” push the enemy command to any rash actions, thereby allowing the British to discover and destroy the main forces of their fleet?

But, apart from the above, there were other considerations: from the point of view of high politics, the British extremely needed a victory at sea, and the sooner the better. Unfortunately, until now, the actions of the 317 compound didn’t even remotely claim anything of the kind. The departure of the TG-79.3 could have prompted the British admiral that the rest of the Argentine ships also lay down the opposite course, and there would be no general battle. This meant a complete failure of the British plan of operation - the air bases on the Falklands were not destroyed, air supremacy was not won, the Argentine fleet could not be destroyed ... And what to do next? Having achieved nothing, hang out from the Falklands, waiting for reinforcements? But what about British public opinion, accustomed to the fact that "where the fleet is, there is victory"? And how will perceive the apparent impotence of the Royal Navy in Argentina?

It is not known exactly which reasons made the British make a decision, but as soon as they came to the conclusion about the destruction of the Belgrano, they immediately changed the “rules of the game” established by themselves - the fleet was allowed to destroy the Argentine ships outside the 200-mile zone. Well, of course, why do we still need the rules, if not to break them?

At 15.57, Concauror struck a fatal blow, two of the three torpedoes hit the old cruiser, and ... it was all over in a matter of minutes. The lights went off on the Belgrano, the ship’s electrical network was irreversibly damaged, all stationary drainage systems and all pumps that could pump liquid cargo stopped working and straighten the list by using counter floods. The struggle for survivability became impossible, after 20 minutes after the strike, the list reached 21 degrees and the commander gave the only possible order - to leave the ship. I had to transmit it by voice - the ship communication also failed.

England was elated, the newspapers were full of headlines "Throw the Argentines into the sea", "Give them heat", "Received" and even: "Final score: Britain 6, Argentina 0". The British man in the street got his victory ... Argentina, on the contrary, was grieving - thousands of rallies, half-mast flags.

In general, the situation with the sinking of the “Belgrano” painfully recalls the death of the German armored cruiser “Blucher” in the First World War. Then, because of the misunderstood signal, the squadron of Admiral Beatty, instead of finishing the retreating German battlecruisers, attacked a heavily beaten ship, which without it would not go away from the British. “Everyone thinks that we have achieved tremendous success, but in reality we suffered a terrible defeat,” Beatty wrote about this case. The valiant (the author writes this without a hint of malice) the British admiral knew how to face the truth and understood that he had missed an excellent chance to inflict a sensitive defeat on the Germans, but instead “defeated” the worthless, in general, ship. But if during the First World War, only an annoying mistake prevented Beatty from achieving success, in 1982, Rear Admiral Woodworth could not detect and defeat the main forces of Armada Republic of Argentina due to the inability to conduct any effective air reconnaissance - he had there was simply no aircraft capable of producing it. As a result, having failed to achieve a true victory, the British commander was forced to be content with an imaginary victory.

However, the psychological victory (and this is also quite a lot!) Went to the British: after the death of General Belgrano, the Argentine fleet no longer felt destiny, and the APA surface ships retreated to the coast of Argentina without trying to intervene in the conflict anymore. Most likely, the Argentines realized how vulnerable their tactical groups, maneuvering in the "walking distance" from the Falkland Islands to modern submarines, although it is possible that Rear-Admiral Allyaru was forced to "mutate the fleet into cotton" by Argentine politicians.



But all this was later, but for now the British were raising airplanes and helicopters in the air, in unsuccessful searches for Argentine ships in the north. However, the main forces of the APA fleet had already left, and as a consolation prize, the British only got two small ships with a displacement of 700 tons each. At the same time carrying mines "Comodoro Sameller" exploded, hit from a helicopter "Sea King" rocket "Sea Squay" and died along with the entire crew, and "Alferes Sobraal", having received two such missiles, still managed to return to his native port. The British pilots, watching the explosions of their missiles and the flaming fire, considered it destroyed, but the crew managed to save themselves and the ship. Nothing more interesting about either 2 or May 3.

Having won a "victory" over the unfortunate "General Belgrano," the British had many reasons for thought. Public opinion rejoices - that's fine, but what to do next? After all, not a single task facing the British expeditionary forces was ever solved. The massive hull of a sinking Argentine cruiser successfully retouched the fact that the British operation failed on all counts: the airfields are not destroyed, air supremacy can only be dreamed of, the Argentine fleet is not broken, therefore, not a single prerequisite for a successful landing of the landing forces has been created. The British command rose the shadow of Chernyshevsky with his eternal question: "What should I do?"

Alas, the gloomy British staff genius did not think of anything better than to repeat all the events of the just completed operation up to the point! On the night of 3 on May 4, the British again sent two Vulcan strategic bombs to crush the Malvinas Islands base (Port Stanley airfield). Again, 10 Victor flying tankers had to be sent to support two combat aircraft. The operation, without further ado, was called the "Black Bac 2" and the only difference from the "Black Bac 1" was only that this time both bomber could fly to the target. But not a single bomb hit the runway of the airfield again, so it didn’t affect the final result.

On the morning of May 4, the 317-e task force re-deployed to attack the Condor and Malvinas Islands airbases with the help of its few “Sea Harriers”. But if the last time the British VTOL fell on the Argentines with a bolt from the blue, now the British decided to be imposing: first they had a pair of Sea Harriers at 08.00 who were supposed to fly and watch the effects of Vulkans and only then, closer to dinner , planned air strike. The evening was supposed to land small reconnaissance groups.

Of course, a true British gentleman must demonstrate a commitment to tradition and be distinguished by a burden to a measured way of life, but such inclinations are categorically contraindicated for the planning of military operations. This time the Argentines, who were taught by bitter experience, were not at all going to play giveaway with the British, but acted completely differently.

On 05.33 in the morning, a hail of Vulcan bombs struck the Stanley airfield, causing no harm to anyone, but warning the Argentines that the British fleet was again seeking battle. The response of the Argentinean command was both sensible and tactically literate - instead of useless attempts to cover airfields with fighter aircraft from continental bases, the Argentines sent their planes to search for British ships that were supposed to attack Falkland. Approximately between 08.00 and 09.00, the Neptune reconnaissance aircraft revealed the location of the British warrant and the Super Endandar duty team rose in the 09.00, each of which carried one Exocset anti-ship missiles. In 09.30, Neptune passed the coordinates of two British ship groups to the Super Etandar pilots.

The Argentine operation was wonderfully conceived and wonderfully executed. The targeting received from Neptune allowed the Super Etandars to pave the optimal combat course - attacking planes came from the south, from which the British expected the least attack. Moreover, in this area, flights of rescue aircraft and multiple radio communications between ships and aircraft (the search for the “General Belgrano” crew continued) made it extremely difficult to detect the Argentinean combat group. The Super Etandars themselves went at a low altitude, with the radar turned off and in radio silence mode, which again was possible due to target designation from the Neptune. In addition, a distracting maneuver was undertaken - from the Rio Grande airbase (coast of Argentina) in order to imitate an attack from the west and distract attention of the air defense, the airliner Liar Jet 35A-L was raised. Two pairs of Daggers were on duty in the air to cover the Super Etandars and Neptune. In 10.30 "Neptune" once again clarified the coordinates and composition of the selected group of ships for the attack: three surface targets, one large, and the other two smaller. Approaching 46 km to the British ships, the Super Etandars rose to 150 m and switched on their Agaves (RLS), but did not find the enemy, and then immediately went down. A few minutes later, the Argentine pilots repeated their maneuver and in about 30 seconds of radar operation they detected the enemy. True, the radio intelligence station of the destroyer Glasgow also spotted the radiation of the Agave, which saved the ship from great trouble. The Argentines attacked, but the Glasgow, warned of the presence of unknown planes nearby, managed to interfere, thereby rejecting the Exochet aiming at it. Sheffield was much less fortunate: the attacking rocket was found only six seconds before it crashed into the ship's hull.



Further well known. The struggle for the survivability of Sheffield did not lead to anything, the crew had to be evacuated, the burning ship drifted for a while until the fire, devouring everything it could reach, 5 on May did not die down by itself. The ship with burnt-out central compartments and (partly) the superstructure was decided to be taken to New Georgia. On May 8, the frigate “Yarmouth” began towing, but the raging storm did not leave the British hopes for success, and 10 May Sheffield went to the bottom.

About an hour after the successful attack on Sheffield, three Sea Harriers attacked Goose Green airfield (Condor airbase). The meaning of this action is not quite clear. Rear Admiral Woodworth writes in his memoirs that the purpose of this raid was to "destroy several airplanes," but was it worth the cost of a game? The British did not disable the airfield, for this the outfit was obviously insufficient, while the attack on the British ships clearly indicated that the Argentines were aware of the presence of the British and were ready for battle. The VTOLP troika did not have the ability to suppress the air defense of the airfield, respectively, the attack turned out to be very risky, but even if successful, the British destroyed only a few screw aircraft ... In general, the motives of this action are unclear, and the result, alas, is logical: one "Sea Harrier" was shot down by anti-aircraft artillery fire, the rest returned with nothing. After that, the 317 th operational connection interrupted the operation and retreated to the TRALA zone. The second attempt by the British to establish control over the water area and the airspace of the Falkland Islands suffered a crushing fiasco. Having lost the destroyer and VTOL, the 317-e operational connection was forced to withdraw, and until May 8, its surface ships did not undertake any activity.

What conclusions can we draw from all this?

Even the most cursory analysis of the 1-4 of May 1982 of the year shows the complete inconsistency of the concept of aircraft-carrier groups built around the carriers of vertical take-off and landing aircraft. These days, British carrier-based aircraft consistently failed absolutely all the tasks facing it.

Despite the fact that the Falkland airbases were not destroyed, and air superiority over the islands was not conquered, according to one point of the plan, the British succeeded: they lured the Argentine fleet, forcing his command to believe in the inevitability of the British landing. Now the British had to destroy the main forces of the APA in battle, and that was entirely within their power. All that Rear Admiral Woodworth needed was to find the TG-79.1 and TG-79.2 ships, after which the use of atomarines in conjunction with the attacks of Sea Harriers would leave no chance to the Argentines.

But the reconnaissance capabilities of the 317 operational connection did not at all correspond to the tasks before it. The British did not have long-range radar detection aircraft, there were no aircraft capable of performing electronic reconnaissance. What can I say: the British did not have any reconnaissance aircraft at all, as a result of which they were forced to send in search of Argentines absolutely not intended for this “Sea Harrier”. The presence of a fairly primitive radar in the latter led to the fact that the pilots for the most part had to rely on their eyes, which was badly enough in bad weather conditions (typical of this area of ​​the Atlantic). The small combat radius of the VTOL aircraft limited the search time for the enemy, and all this together reduced the search capabilities of the British aircraft carrier group to the level of World War II aircraft carriers, or rather even its first half, at best.

The British pilots were well prepared, and their aircraft (at the expense of more modern weapons) turned out to be individually stronger than the fighters of the Argentine Air Force. This allowed the British pilots to gain air victories, but none of the above did not allow them to detect the enemy in time and control his (or his) airspace. As a result, of the three Argentine task forces, the British were able to find only one (TG-79.3 led by General Belgrano), and thanks to the data of American satellite intelligence. It is very likely that if the Americans did not provide the British with the location of the TG-79.3 ships, the ConCair could not be taken to escort General Belgrano.

If we are talking about submarines, it should be noted that their ability to detect the enemy also turned out to be very far from desired. The atarins Spartan and Splendit, deployed along the paths of possible movement of the main forces of the ARA, could not find the enemy. Moreover, the Splendit was unable to find the TG-79.1 ships even after it was “prompted” by the location of the Argentines (the night contact of the Sea Harrier with the Santisimo Trinidad).

But back to the actions of aviation. This time, Argentina sent to reconnaissance the best that she had - the Neptune patrol aircraft SP-2H. The prototype of the Neptune first flew 17 in May 1945, its operation began in the US Navy in March 1947. For its time, the plane turned out to be extremely successful, but, of course, by the year 1982 was very outdated. But on it was installed decimeter radar AN / APS-20. Created by the Cadillac program in 1944, this system was installed on the deck forex torpedo bomber, the Avenger, turning it into an ARLO aircraft, and this modification of the Evenges even managed to fight for, having received a baptism of 1945 in the Battle of Okinawa. The capabilities of AN / APS-20 in 1982 were no longer amazing, but it was impossible to call them miserable. A compact group of aircraft, or a single large aircraft flying at a high altitude, it could detect approximately 160-180 km, but the detection range of low-flying targets was presumably lower because decimeter radars did not work very well against the background of the underlying surface (with The Americans collided during the operation of the Idjis radar AN / SPY-1). To the deepest regret, the author could not find the detection range of surface targets by AN / APS-20.

The technical condition of "Neptune" was terrifying. The radar was periodically turned off, and the plane itself had just not collapsed in the air. By the beginning of the Falklands conflict, Argentina had 4 machines of this type, but 2 of them could not get into the air. The rest still made 51 sorties at the beginning of hostilities, but on May X, the Argentines were forced to put their best scouts on the joke forever - the life of the machines was finalized.

In no case can you blame the commander of the British forces, Rear Admiral Woodworth in rotostey. He did everything in his power. He echeloned 317-e operational connection, pushing three ships of the radar patrol in the most threatening direction. In the 18 miles behind them, a second line of defense passed, consisting of a destroyer and three frigates, immediately followed by three auxiliary vessels and only then - both aircraft carriers with direct protection. The British commander also organized air duty. Regarding the organization of the air defense of the connection entrusted to him, he did everything correctly, but ...

Many people, just starting to study the Falklands conflict, have one and the same question: why did they miss the attack on the destroyer? Why did the Super Endandar radar notice the British ship, and the Sheffield radar did not see any Argentine aircraft or a rocket attacking it? After all, shipborne radar, in theory, is much more powerful than aircraft radar. The answer to this question is known long ago - the Sheffield radar was turned off in connection with a communication session with the headquarters of the Naval Forces in Northwood, so that the radiation of radars did not interfere with the operation of satellite equipment. Quite understandable and explanatory answer: the British ship was unlucky, Destiny decided that this way ...

But in reality, the question is not why the Sheffield radar did not see the Exocet missile flying towards it. The question is, how did the old “Neptune” manage to track the movements of the British squadrons for several hours and it wasn’t discovered by them ?!



After all, the SP-2H "Neptune" is not the B-2 "Spirit" and not the F-22 "Raptor". This is a flying barn with a wing span of over thirty meters, whose glider was designed at a time when invisibility passed exclusively on the office of HG Wells (meaning his novel Invisible Man). And this glider was supposed to shine on the screens of the British radar as a garland of a New Year tree. Well, order me to think that the English ph from 09.00 to 11.00 turned off all its radar stations, and enthusiastically chatted over satellite communications with Northwood ?! Well, let's imagine for a moment that, due to some kind of cosmic fluctuation, all the British radars were suddenly blind. Or the sea god Neptune endowed his Argentine "namesake" with temporary radar invisibility. But what about the passive radio intelligence stations? Radiation of the onboard radar "Neptune" the British had to detect!

On the destroyer "Glasgow" recorded the radiation of the "Agave" - ​​the standard radar "Super Etandara", on the "Sheffield" - failed, and this most sources explain the "questions to the level of crew training." But you should face it - on a single ship of the 317 of the operational connection could not detect the work of the radar station of the Argentine "Neptune". Well, did the entire British fleet suddenly lose its shape? In fact, no matter how sad it is to admit, but in the 1982 year, the British fleet, despite the presence of many locators, radio intelligence stations, and others, simply did not have the means to reliably detect an enemy reconnaissance aircraft. Even if this plane was equipped with equipment of the era of the Second World War.

Once upon a time, the famous British admiral Andrew Brown Cunningham remarked: "The best way to fight air is in the air." But the British carrier aircraft could not help their ships. The British had two dozen "Sea Harriers". The Argentines opposed them to a pair of "Super Etandarov", two flying tankers, a scout "Neptune" and an airliner "Liar Jet 35A-L", which was to divert the attention of the British to themselves. And the airliner became that day the only plane of the Argentines who could not cope with their task, because the British did not think to notice it. Moreover, for some time, it was possible to ensure the duty in the air of two twos of “Daggers”, covering the above forces. Total in the combat zone attended a maximum of Argentine 10 aircraft, of which no more than six combat. But twenty British aircraft, each of which was not particularly difficult to deal one on one with the “Super Etandard”, even with the “Dagger”, could not do anything.

The actions of the Argentines 4 May clearly demonstrated: information plays no less, and even more important than the actual means of destruction (although, of course, we should not forget about them). The Argentines sent into the battle half the size of the air force than those possessed by the British, and this does not take into account the ships of the fleet of His Majesty. And they succeeded, because the only antediluvian Argentinean intelligence officer turned out to be more valuable than both the British VTOL aircraft carriers with their air groups combined.

You can, of course, ask: What did the British think about, creating VTOL carriers, instead of building full-fledged aircraft carriers? Really no one realized the value of early warning airplanes and radio intelligence, which needed catapults for takeoff and which could not be based on ships like the British Invincible? Nobody could have foreseen the extremely weak ability of Sea Harriers to reconnoit and control the airspace? Of course, they guessed and foresaw, but Britain decided to save on the construction of full-fledged aircraft carriers, which seemed too costly to the sirs and peers. The English admirals found themselves in a situation where it was necessary to choose: either to abandon deck-based aviation in general, or to receive “stubs” - “Invincibles” with VTOL. The command of the Royal Navy cannot be blamed for preferring a bird in the hands of a crane in the sky. Moreover, the British admirals were well aware that in a real battle, without the means of reconnaissance and target designation, such a tit would turn into a duck under the bed, if not a dove on a tombstone. And, in order to avoid such a radical finale, they developed the appropriate tactics for using aircraft-carriers of VTOL aircraft, according to which these ships and aircraft should be used exclusively in areas controlled by British AWACS and Newrod AEW or by NATO AWACS E-ZA Sentry. .

The British created their post-war fleet to counteract the underwater threat, to prevent the Soviet nuclear submarines from breaking through to the Atlantic, while the anti-aircraft defense of anti-submarine formations should have been able to withstand only single aircraft. Massive aviation attacks were not expected, due to the absence of aircraft carriers from the USSR. It was logical, but, alas, being has a peculiar sense of humor, so the English fleet had to fight not at all with that adversary and not where it was supposed. That once again shows the inferiority of the naval forces, "sharpened" to solve a limited range of tasks, and speaks of the need to build a fleet, whose capabilities will allow to answer any challenge.

Their lordships, sirs, and peers “optimized” the costs of the military budget, but the sailors of the Royal Navy had to pay for this savings.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Harriers in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 1)
Harriers in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 2)
132 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Maegrom
    Maegrom 19 May 2016 08: 05
    +8
    Thank. Thanks to you, I began to understand the logic of military operations in this conflict.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 May 2016 18: 48
      +2
      Happy to help. Actually, the analysis of the cause and effect relationships of the Falkland conflict was one of the main goals of this cycle.
  2. Leto
    Leto 19 May 2016 08: 42
    +5
    Even the most cursory analysis of the 1-4 of May 1982 of the year shows the complete inconsistency of the concept of aircraft-carrier groups built around the carriers of vertical take-off and landing aircraft. These days, British carrier-based aircraft consistently failed absolutely all the tasks facing it.

    In these "days" admirals, peers and all kinds of Laborites probably tore the hair on their heads remembering how recently they sent for scrap HMS Ark Royal (R09), which was still to serve and serve ...
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 19 May 2016 10: 42
      +5
      Quote: Leto
      how recently HMS Ark Royal (R09) was sent for scrapping to serve and serve ...

      By the time of the cancellation, the age of HMS Ark Royal (R09) was

      from the moment of entry into service (1955) - 24 of the year
      since bookmark (1943) - 36 years

      An ancient bucket from the Second World War, seriously damaged after a fire on the hangar deck.
      ps / by 1978, spare parts from HMS Invincible (R05), used to "cannibalize" in order to maintain the formation of his brother, ran out
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 19 May 2016 11: 38
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        An ancient bucket from the Second World War, seriously damaged after a fire on the hangar deck.

        With all the shortcomings of the Arc Royal, it had one definite plus - a full-fledged air group:
        809 NAS - 14 Buccaneer S2 Strike
        892 NAS - 12 Phantom FG1 Fleet Air Defense
        B Flight 849 NAS - 4 Gannet AEW3 Airborne Early
        849 NAS. - 1 Gannet COD4 Carrier Onboard Delivery
        824 NAS - 7 Sea King HAS2 Helicopter Anti-submarine warfare
        Ships Flight - 2 Wessex HAS1 Search and Rescue

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        ps / by 1978, spare parts from HMS Invincible (R05), used to "cannibalize" in order to maintain the formation of his brother, ran out

        Ahem ... it seems that R05 was named HMS Eagle (originally - Audacious). what
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 19 May 2016 12: 12
          -2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          full-fledged air group:

          And maybe not full
          Looking with whom to compare

          Nimitz?
          Quote: Alexey RA
          4 Gannet AEW3 Airborne Early

          Full DRLO aircraft from 1950-ies.

          Even without going into details of the performance of his radar (range, number of accompanied targets, detection of low-flying aircraft and the CU on the background of the sea surface), something is unsure that only two communications officers are enough to guide the Phantom combat groups. For comparison, on board the Hokay - operator 3, Sentry's E-3 - 17. And their avionics much better than the aircraft 50h years.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 19 May 2016 16: 04
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And maybe not full
            Looking with whom to compare

            With what was in RN or the Argentine Navy in real life.
            And then I know you - you will not agree to "Nimitz" for comparison. smile
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Full DRLO aircraft from 1950-ies.

            Compared to Hawkeye, yes, Gannet AEW3 looks like a dinosaur.
            But it must be compared with real life. That is, with an empty deck space of "solid deck control cruisers". Against his background, even "Gannet" - AWACS. smile

            Plus naval "phantoms" with a full-fledged radar and normal radius.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 May 2016 12: 17
      +1
      Quote: Leto
      In these "days" admirals, peers and all kinds of Laborites probably tore the hair on their heads

      well, peers and laborers are unlikely - they were sitting in cozy England, and not in the North Atlantic :) But Woodworth really would not be envious, although he didn’t determine the shipbuilding policy :)
      1. Maegrom
        Maegrom 19 May 2016 12: 50
        +1
        South, but too south, Atlantic)))
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 May 2016 12: 57
          +1
          Thank you, I’ve gotten it, of course :)) drinks
      2. Leto
        Leto 19 May 2016 14: 47
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        well, peers and Labor are unlikely - they were sitting in cozy England

        Believe they didn’t eat tons of validol? So it wasn’t obvious, but a loss in the war would have led to changes, Margaret would have flown away and by the end of her days (and much further) her name would be associated with a shamefully lost company, no more.
        1. teron
          teron 19 May 2016 16: 20
          +1
          I remember not so long ago she was buried. So the British had something to remember. I was even slightly taken aback by such a reaction of the British Crown to the death of a long-retired politician.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 May 2016 18: 51
          +1
          Quote: Leto
          Believe they didn’t eat tons of validol? So it wasn’t obvious, but a loss in the war would lead to changes

          It seems to me that Margaret did not immerse herself in such "little things". She was told by the chiefs of staff that victory was possible and probable, she gave authorization to use force. And it is still not known whether she would be enough for such a decision, if she knew the true balance of forces :)
  3. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 19 May 2016 09: 32
    +2
    "what did the British think about, creating carriers of VTOL aircraft instead of
    construction of full-fledged aircraft carriers? "////

    I agree, but:
    High-grade aircraft carriers are aircraft carriers with a catapult, allowing
    launch heavy aircraft.
    And the inferior ones are aircraft carriers with a springboard for launching light fighters
    or aircraft carriers for VTOL aircraft.
    It’s not the type of aircraft that is to blame (a light conventional fighter is not more useful than VTOL aircraft), but the lack of a catapult
    and - as a consequence - the absence of heavy attack and long-range reconnaissance aircraft.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 19 May 2016 10: 31
      +4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Not the type of aircraft to blame
      In general, it is difficult to disagree with you, but the point is not just catapults or their absence. If we compare the VTOL aircraft with the aircraft of the classical scheme, then with the same success it is possible to compare the helicopter, which a priori will be "flawed" in front of the deck attack aircraft and, even, the same VTOL aircraft. We are constantly trying to oppose VTOL aircraft, as some deliberately flawed alternative, not wanting to see the qualities that VTOL aircraft undoubtedly possesses, and which these vehicles can and should complement "conventional" schemes, occupying their niche, including in the Navy ... Finally, the age of VTOL aircraft has begun relatively recently, their improvement is only a matter of time, and those who now presumptuously scoff at vertical aircraft resemble those who, at the dawn of aviation, mocked the first airplanes. The Soviet Union took the lead on this topic, all the more bitter because it was stolen from us, as well as the development of another necessary apparatus - a convertoplane. It is not the Harriers' fault in the conflict over the Falklands, these are the mistakes of British admirals and politicians, both in organizing air cover for the British squadron, and, by and large, and the quality of the "duralumin" ships themselves. In any case, the British got their way, nonetheless. Thanks to Andrey for the article, it is easy and interesting to read.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 19 May 2016 10: 57
        +2
        "Finally, the age of VTOL aircraft began relatively recently, their improvement, -
        just a matter of time, and those who are now arrogantly taunting
        vertical, remind those who at the dawn of aviation mocked the first airplanes "////

        I agree with you on all 100%. drinks Harriers were the first swallows.
        I guess when the VTOL will become more advanced (and the F-35B is the right step,
        although far from ideal), all warships will become aircraft carriers. It will become
        standard, as a weapon, as a missile system, as an anti-ship missile system.
        The ship needs a swift "long arm". The helicopter does not pull for this role.
        1. srelock
          srelock 19 May 2016 17: 20
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          I assume that when VTOL aircraft become more advanced (and the F-35B is a sure step, although far from ideal), all warships will become aircraft carriers.

          The dead end idea needed by the VI to base even one VTOL aircraft somewhere 1500t. As an option - to cut down all the weapons and cram planes, but then it will be called differently.
          The ship needs a swift "long arm". The helicopter does not pull for this role.
          The most interesting thing is that the plane is also not suitable for it. In any case, a cruise missile flies farther and not slower, and its cost, operating costs and the required VI of the ship cast doubt on the very existence of carrier-based aircraft.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 20 May 2016 07: 35
            0
            Quote: srelock
            The dead end idea needed by the VI to base even one VTOL aircraft somewhere 1500t. As an option - to cut down all the weapons and cram planes, but then it will be called differently.

            And if it will be a drone?
            1. srelock
              srelock 20 May 2016 20: 00
              0
              Quote: Alex_59
              And if it will be a drone?

              The absence of a person on board, the more profitable, the smaller the mass of the aircraft. With a take-off weight of VTOL aircraft of 10-15 tons. we will gain almost nothing in terms of space on the ship.
              I did not quite understand what kind of UAV it was, or rather, what is its purpose?
      2. Leto
        Leto 19 May 2016 11: 05
        0
        Quote: Per se.
        If we compare VTOL aircraft with an aircraft of the classical scheme, then with the same success it is possible to compare a helicopter, which a priori will be "flawed" in front of a carrier-based attack aircraft and, even, the same VTOL aircraft

        The fact is that the British VTOL aircraft are not the first step in carrier-based aviation like ours, they had full-fledged aircraft carriers with full-fledged aircraft. Compared to Bukanir, the Harier is a miserable deadbog in terms of air strikes, just like in relation to the Phantom, no fighter. The same Americans creating the F-35B do not give up classical aviation and VTOL aircraft is just an addition that occupies a certain niche. This is the same as yesterday’s article about V-22, Osprey does not replace helicopters, but only complements the range of delivery and cargo delivery vehicles: Venom-Osprey-King Stalion.
        The British were greedy and decided that there would be enough VTOL alone, for which they paid. And it doesn’t matter if Sheffield were aluminum or steel.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 May 2016 11: 48
          0
          Quote: Leto
          And it doesn’t matter if Sheffield were aluminum or steel.

          And he was steel. smile For, following the results of the operation of British and American ships with light-alloy superstructures, the British decided to return to steel at the design stage of the Type 42.

          The light-alloy superstructure was on the Type 21 frigates.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 21 May 2016 19: 01
            0
            Yes? And we only returned to steel superstructures in 1151
        2. Operator
          Operator 19 May 2016 12: 08
          -2
          After the mass introduction of universal launchers of 533 mm caliber on surface ships and the formation of a fleet of air tankers, aircraft carriers and aircraft carriers can be scrapped: unmanned aerial vehicles — anti-aircraft and cruise missiles, respectively, successfully use the role of manned fighters and first-strike bombers, and with the help of airborne refueling any land-based aircraft has an unlimited flight range.

          Drone-launched unmanned aerial vehicles with catapult take-offs have already been created, and their landing on a ship with the help of a rod catcher, including in Russia, is being developed.

          Attack helicopters such as Apache AH-64D Longbow, based on landing ships, are quite enough to support the landing of naval landing.

          Immediately after capturing the bridgehead, field airfields are equipped with prefabricated structures on which tactical aircraft of the same type F / A-18 Super Hornet are distilled using air tankers.

          Here is a brief scenario of the Second Falkland War laughing
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            19 May 2016 13: 04
            +4
            Quote: Operator
            After the mass introduction of universal launchers of 533 mm caliber on surface ships and the formation of a fleet of air tankers, aircraft carriers and aircraft carriers can be scrapped: unmanned aerial vehicles — anti-aircraft and cruise missiles, respectively, successfully use the role of manned fighters and first-strike bombers, and with the help of airborne refueling any land-based aircraft has an unlimited flight range.

            Drone-launched unmanned aerial vehicles with catapult take-offs have already been created, and their landing on a ship with the help of a rod catcher, including in Russia, is being developed.

            Oh, our science fiction is with us again! :))
            1. Operator
              Operator 19 May 2016 14: 18
              -1
              You become like the Lords of the Admiralty in your conservatism laughing
              Is your profession a historian?
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 19 May 2016 16: 39
            +4
            Quote: Operator
            the role of manned fighters and first strike bombers is successfully performed by unmanned aerial vehicles - respectively anti-aircraft and cruise missiles,

            The air defense radius based on the air defense system is 130-150 miles at large and medium, 20-30 miles at low altitudes.
            The depth of air defense AUG - 150-250 miles.
            Quote: Operator
            and with air refueling, any land-based aircraft has an unlimited flight range.

            Will we also transfer the pilots through the hose?

            And you can also try to solve the problem of operational reinforcement of the fighter group over the ship’s naval connection - in conditions when the approach time of reinforcements from the coastal airfield is longer than the enemy’s approach time (from the detection range to the entry of anti-ship missiles into the ZRAK’s operating area). smile

            If we consider UAVs ... what will happen to the transmission channels of information (and control) if the enemy uses electronic warfare equipment?
            1. Operator
              Operator 19 May 2016 17: 05
              -5
              This is their SAM for 150 miles, and we have the C-400 for 300 miles. When targeting from an aircraft AWACS, the height of interception of targets does not depend on the height of the flight.

              Pilots withstand 12 hours of flight, with diapers and autopilot all 24 hours - and more than 20000 km, there are no distances on the globe.

              A naval force does not need a fighter force, since each modern ship in itself is a floating air defense base.

              And how are tactical data on the air situation transmitted from the manned Hokai AWACS aircraft - with flags or a semaphore? laughing
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 19 May 2016 17: 20
                +4
                Quote: Operator
                This is their SAM for 150 miles, and we have the C-400 for 300 miles. When targeting from an aircraft AWACS, the height of interception of targets does not depend on the height of the flight.

                And now we will try to take off with all this. © smile

                It will be easier to organize air defense on the basis of a UAV with an airborne missile defense, than to issue a missile defense missile defense system from an AWACS - in this case, there will be more ammunition.
                Quote: Operator
                And how are tactical data on the air situation transmitted from the Hokai AWACS aircraft - with flags or a semaphore?

                And for these lines, interruptions in the transmission of information are not critical. Unlike UAVs, which have radio control.
                Try to play in the Tundra with a ping jumping from 200 to 800, and a packet loss of 25-75%. smile
                1. Operator
                  Operator 19 May 2016 18: 10
                  0
                  The long-range missile C-400 weighs about 2 tons, 100 of such missiles - 200 tons or five percent of the displacement of an air defense ship.

                  Why waste a lot of fuel to maintain in the air an armada of UAVs with short-range air-to-air missiles to provide such a destructive power as 100 missiles in the ship's launcher? And how will RVV-MD help in intercepting aeroballistic and ballistic targets?

                  A drone UAV in barrage mode in the status of a radar patrol, like Hokai, flies on autopilot. But this is not the main thing, since the role of the sentinel is to transfer data uninterruptedly online to the air defense system of the ship’s connection, and not to steadily fly in the air.
                  There is a clear idea that the tactical data on the air situation is transmitted via a radio beam, which in principle will not be drowned out by any electronic warfare, except for EMR, but this is not related to the manned / unmanned AWACS variant (see above).
                  1. DimerVladimer
                    DimerVladimer 27 May 2016 15: 46
                    +1
                    Quote: Operator
                    Why waste a lot of fuel to maintain in the air an armada of UAVs with short-range air-to-air missiles to provide such a destructive power as 100 missiles in the ship's launcher? And how will RVV-MD help in intercepting aeroballistic and ballistic targets?


                    Why did Argentinean super ethandars walk 10-15 meters above the water?
                    The curvature of the surface of the planet does not allow detecting by radars located on ships, aircraft at an altitude of 10-15 meters at a distance of more than 36-37 km.

                    Accordingly, the interception and detection of these targets are possible with air means.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 27 May 2016 15: 55
                      -1
                      Low-flying aircraft and cruise missiles at a long range are detected by the AWACS aircraft (in the long-term UAV AWACS).

                      Anti-aircraft missiles start over the radio horizon according to early warning data and fly along a hinged path. On the final section of descent (10-15 km to the calculated meeting point for the purpose), the anti-aircraft missiles go homing with the help of their GOS.
                2. Maegrom
                  Maegrom 19 May 2016 18: 25
                  0
                  Do you play the tundra? Can I add you as a friend? You know my nickname. True, someone stole it for the first time in my life two weeks before registration, I had to add a year.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 May 2016 12: 24
      +4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      It’s not the type of aircraft that is to blame (a light conventional fighter is not more useful than VTOL aircraft), but the lack of a catapult
      and - as a consequence - the absence of heavy attack and long-range reconnaissance aircraft.

      Yes and no. On the one hand, you are certainly right that the main problem of the British was not the Sea Harriers, but the absence of a full-fledged and balanced air group, but if they had a full-fledged aircraft carrier, the Harriers would simply not be needed. Why base VTOL aircraft on a full-fledged ejection AB? Well, the same "Phantoms" with the support of electronic warfare and AWACS could solve all the problems that arose before the British carrier-based aircraft, while the aircraft carrier would not even need to leave the TRALA zone.
      1. Leto
        Leto 19 May 2016 14: 52
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        but if they had a full-fledged aircraft carrier, the Harriers would simply not be needed.

        Yes, they would have found work for them, out of the Americans in 1991. The Harriers (aka AV-8) did not sit idle despite the fact that there was no shortage of classical aircraft.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 May 2016 17: 07
          +4
          Quote: Leto
          Yes, they would have found work for them, out of the Americans in 1991. The Harriers (aka AV-8) did not sit idle despite the fact that there was no shortage of classical aircraft.

          He-he-he ... so only the Marines had "Harriers". Moreover, in that operation, they made up 45% of the fleet of fighter and strike aircraft of the ILC. So the Marines had to use what they have.
          Plus, the ILC decided to test the new toy in combat conditions. And it was not in vain - because, as a result of that operation, it turned out that the Harrier was the most vulnerable aircraft for ground-based air defense: the large side projection + the largest IR signature greatly helped the calculations of the barrel air defense and MANPADS.
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 21 May 2016 19: 03
          0
          And scored the highest level of losses. Despite the fact that the enemy was weak even by the standards of the third world
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 21 May 2016 21: 35
            0
            Apaches and F-16s had more
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 22 May 2016 10: 56
            0
            NYA, 5 AV-8B and 3 F-16s were shot down. If we take the ratio of losses to the number of sorties, then the difference is much greater.
            Well, Apaches
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 30 May 2016 12: 18
              0
              Do not forget to count the flights of the English Harriers yet ...
            2. The comment was deleted.
  4. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 19 May 2016 09: 43
    +4
    Nevertheless, despite all the mistakes, but at the same time relying on considerable experience in naval battles, being thousands of kilometers from the kingdom, the fleet fulfilled its task. In general, the author raised a very interesting topic.
  5. strannik1985
    strannik1985 19 May 2016 09: 57
    +2
    According to Dotsenko, the C-130 and Boeing-707 aircraft for reconnaissance went out at an extremely low (up to 15 meters) altitude in the area of ​​the alleged location of British ships with the radar off, in the area for a short time they climbed 150 meters with the radar on, then left again to extremely small. Perhaps SP-2H "Neptune" was used in the same way.
  6. Alexez
    Alexez 19 May 2016 10: 12
    +3
    An excellent cycle is obtained, I read it with pleasure!
  7. sharkmen
    sharkmen 19 May 2016 10: 55
    +5
    Andrey, thank you for the articles. plus as promised set.
    for "Which once again shows the inferiority of the naval forces" sharpened "to solve a limited range of tasks" one could get a couple more pluses, hello opponents of aircraft carriers.
    as for ZVO, I remember the first 1983 cycle of the year - reprinting from Flight International seems to be about the advantages of harriers over mirages by turning on the vertical mode on bends. diagrams were drawn, tail approach patterns. everything turned out to be trite - GSN sidewinder. and we were waiting for yak-xnumx, oh
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 19 May 2016 11: 42
      -3
      "reprint from Flight International seems to be about the benefits of harriers
      in front of mirages by turning on the vertical mode on bends "///

      The British had to perform such tricks - the notorious "super maneuverability"
      by the way. In those days, the explosives were driven into the nozzles from behind, had to spin ...
      The Harriers, stopping, "fell through" and fired from behind Mirage from the cannon.

      By the way, the same thing will happen with the modifications of the Su-27, if he sharply cuts the rotation of the nozzles: failure
      down and almost a full stop (up to 200 km / h). Americans checked with the Indians on the Su-30
      and decided that the most reliable thing was not to arrange races and turns, but to leave a pair of F-15 graze in
      side of the air battle to finish off such "stopped".
      1. Operator
        Operator 19 May 2016 12: 25
        -1
        The "hovering" of Indian Su-30s in the air is a passed stage, the newest "pancake" of the Russian Su-35S without losing speed - this is where alles kaput comes to Iglam, Raptors and Penguins am
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 19 May 2016 12: 49
          +1
          "newest" pancake "Russian Su-35S" ////

          The main thing is that he be without Caliber ... lol
          1. Operator
            Operator 19 May 2016 14: 24
            -2
            Penguins to help you laughing
      2. Verdun
        Verdun 19 May 2016 13: 04
        0
        and decided that the most reliable thing was not to arrange races and turns, but to leave a pair of F-15 graze in
        side of the air battle to finish off such "stopped".
        I doubt that in the event of active hostilities, someone will be able to "graze aside." At the same time, even at high speeds, the F-15 falls short of the Su-30.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 19 May 2016 13: 45
          0
          "I doubt that in case of active hostilities someone will be able to" graze aside ". ////

          You forgot that the United States has a substantial quantitative advantage in military aviation.
          And they try to use it rationally. They have an Aggressor squadrons,
          (in them the most experienced aces-reservists) on which he practice collective tactics.
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 19 May 2016 14: 22
            +4
            practice collective tactics.
            Well, to combat collective tactics, the MIG-31s ​​were once created. Of course, no one has yet canceled quantitative superiority. At the same time, the USSR Air Force quantitatively surpassed the Luftwaffe on the eastern front at the time of the beginning of the Second World War, but it did not help much at that time. From my point of view, in modern aerial combat the operational interaction of aviation and ground-based air defense will be extremely important. The winner will be the one who will solve this task more successfully.
        2. Operator
          Operator 19 May 2016 14: 29
          -4
          The maximum speed of the F-15 in an understandable way (due to worse maneuverability) exceeds the speed of the Su-27 / Su-30 / Su-35.

          Armament let us down - AIM-120D with ridiculous 180/2 km versus RVV-BD from 300/2 km. And it won't be better - the dimensions of the American air-to-air missiles must henceforth and forever correspond to the Procruste stock of the F-22 / F-35's internal compartments.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        19 May 2016 13: 06
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The British had to perform such tricks - the notorious "super maneuverability"
        by the way. In those days, the explosives were driven into the nozzles from behind, had to spin ...
        The Harriers, stopping, "fell through" and fired from behind Mirage from the cannon.

        There was no such thing in the Falkland conflict. Never.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 19 May 2016 13: 51
          +1
          I could not find a solid source yet, but
          offhand ....
          "about the time there was much press fuss about the Sea Harriers' viffing ability (vectoring in forward flight). They'd end up with a fighter on their tail, angle their V / STOL engine nozzles to brake suddenly, the Dagger would overshoot and the Sea Harrier would have a clear Sidewinder or cannon shot. "
          This is just a "copy" of my post. But not the primary source. I'll look for more.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            19 May 2016 15: 26
            +6
            Quote: voyaka uh
            I could not find a solid source yet, but
            offhand ....

            You will not find it. Those. You can, of course, find something in English where the phrase you quote will be written. But the problem is that I have already described ALL fighter versus fighter battles over the Falklands. These are two attacks of mirages (one - launching UR on oncoming and exit of mirages from the battle without loss, the second - two mirages were killed (more precisely, the second was finished off by Argentinean anti-aircraft gunners) on a collision course and the third - unfortunate Ardiles. That's all. In all other cases, the Harriers attacked " Skyhawks "or" Daggers "with bombs on board. That is, these aircraft could not conduct any air combat by definition - they either tried to break through to the ships, or dropped bombs and fled.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 19 May 2016 15: 54
              +1
              I think the casket just opens. There were real Mirage-3 and
              there were Israeli Daggers, who also often called the Mirage.
              Daggers were shot down 9 pieces.
              The trick with the "vertical" brake was probably told by one of the English
              pilots. The zhurnalyugi would not have come up with such a thing in life, they just called.
              And they were translated into Russian in 1983.
              I think one of the Daggers was shot down with such a feint.
              losses
              11 IAI Dagger A: 9 by Sea Harrier, 1 Sea Wolf HMS, 1 SAM Rapier
              2 Mirage IIIEA: 1 by Sea Harrier, 1 friendly fire
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 19 May 2016 16: 49
                +1
                The trick with the "vertical" brake was probably told by one of the English
                pilots. The zhurnalyugi would not have come up with such a thing in life, they just called.
                The Harier's thrust-to-weight ratio in vertical mode is weak, and the transition time from vertical to horizontal flight is significant. He does not succeed in performing sharp braking, this is not a Yak-141. It seems that some of the journalists just dreamed. All the main losses of the Argentine Air Force from more advanced air-to-air missiles that were in service with the British. If the Argentines had the same sidewinders, the sons of Britain would look pretty pale.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 19 May 2016 17: 13
                  -1
                  Wow weak thrust-weight ratio of Harriers - more than one, and even taking into account the initial position of horizontal flight and the work of the aerodynamic surfaces of the wings and plumage.

                  We are talking about controlling the Harrier engine thrust vector for sharpening maneuvers, cornering speed, intensive braking without losing translational speed, disrupting the enemy due to this attack and transferring it to the front hemisphere of Harrier - the missile launch zone, but not about hovering in the air like a helicopter (for what?).
                  1. Verdun
                    Verdun 19 May 2016 17: 53
                    +1
                    Wow weak harrierovorost - Harrier - more than a unit,
                    This is a horizontal / vertical transition mode. At this moment, "Harier" is rather unstable and high loads in this mode greatly affect the engine life. Now I can't find a link right away, but at one time in the West Military District this moment was analyzed in some detail.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 19 May 2016 18: 14
                      -1
                      As far as I remember, it was about Harrier’s instability when horizontal speeds near zero reached just before hovering.
                      In air battles, it was enough to change the thrust vector without resetting the horizontal speed to the minimum.
                      1. Verdun
                        Verdun 19 May 2016 18: 25
                        +1
                        In air battles, it was enough to change the thrust vector without resetting the horizontal speed to the minimum.
                        I think that without extending the flaps and releasing the thrust, this will do little. For a sharp drop in speed, you need something to "cling" to the air.
                      2. Operator
                        Operator 20 May 2016 00: 36
                        -1
                        The release of the flaps during the maneuver is yes, but the Harriers do not drop the thrust, but reject it, this is their advantage.
            2. Maegrom
              Maegrom 19 May 2016 18: 32
              +2
              Knowing the practice of communicating with journalists, sometimes they can replace something with a more beautiful or understandable for themselves, for example, a rocket with a gun, and explain the passage ahead with their perception of design features. I met so hard to recognize stories. In this case, the modified Ardiles case is quite recognizable.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                19 May 2016 18: 44
                +1
                Quote: Maegrom
                In this case, the modified Ardiles case is quite recognizable.

                That's right :)) I can’t prove it strictly, but it looks very much like that.
      4. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 19 May 2016 14: 04
        +1
        Here is a good photo Harrier over the aircraft carrier found
    2. srelock
      srelock 19 May 2016 17: 33
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The British had to perform such tricks - the notorious "super maneuverability"
      by the way.
      Can you look at these tricks?
  8. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 19 May 2016 16: 16
    0
    Quote: sharkmen
    as for ZVO, I remember the first 1983 cycle of the year - reprinting from Flight International seems to be about the advantages of harriers over mirages by turning on the vertical mode on bends. diagrams were drawn, tail approach patterns. everything turned out to be trite - GSN sidewinder. and we were waiting for yak-xnumx, oh

    GOS AIM-9L is the same as the "Needle", which has been in service since 1981
  9. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 19 May 2016 16: 16
    0
    Quote: sharkmen
    as for ZVO, I remember the first 1983 cycle of the year - reprinting from Flight International seems to be about the advantages of harriers over mirages by turning on the vertical mode on bends. diagrams were drawn, tail approach patterns. everything turned out to be trite - GSN sidewinder. and we were waiting for yak-xnumx, oh

    GOS AIM-9L is the same as the "Needle", which has been in service since 1981
  10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    19 May 2016 18: 47
    +1
    Quote: sharkmen
    as for ZVO, I remember the first 1983 cycle of the year - reprinting from Flight International seems to be about the advantages of harriers over mirages by turning on the vertical mode on bends. diagrams were drawn, tail approach patterns. everything turned out to be trite - GSN sidewinder. and we were waiting for yak-xnumx, oh

    what can you do? By the way, I heard that pilots of naval aviation swore for a long time when they learned about the three-engine Yak-141 scheme
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 19 May 2016 20: 54
      +1
      You did not hear correctly ... ;-)
      Harrier’s scheme with a single PMD, of course, was wanted ... but everyone understood that it was impossible to supersonic ...
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 21 May 2016 19: 11
      0
      Andrei, it was on the forumavia that there were a number of former pilots from vertical aircraft. They spoke out more than definitely. And they also did not expect good from the Yak-141, although, in principle, it was already an airplane, and not just an aircraft.
      And another question - if you wrote about this, then I'm sorry, did the British get AIM-9L specifically for this conflict?
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 21 May 2016 21: 00
        0
        this forum is not very, and the pilots will not say this
  • Verdun
    Verdun 19 May 2016 11: 26
    +3
    The article is definitely like. The author of course is a plus. According to the results of the material, two, in my opinion, the main conclusions are obvious:
    1. SVVP have both advantages and disadvantages, which determines their successful application only as part of full-fledged aviation groups. The solution of operational tasks by exclusively VTOL forces that were in service at that time was impossible.
    2. The capabilities of large ship formations, even aircraft carriers, are very limited without support for AWACS systems. It is not possible to solve all the problems with the help of exclusively naval radar systems.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 May 2016 13: 09
      +5
      Quote: Verdun
      According to the results of the material, two, in my opinion, the main conclusions are obvious:

      Of course. I sincerely hope to amuse you with the following article - it will describe how the British tried to compensate for the absence of AWACS planes :) Five minutes of healthy laughter is guaranteed :)
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Follow us
    Follow us 19 May 2016 12: 14
    +3
    An excellent series of articles, thanks to the author.
  • Zigmars
    Zigmars 19 May 2016 13: 25
    +3
    Quote: anodonta
    In Soviet times, this was not even published on the pages of Foreign Military Review. But this is the publication of the Ministry of Defense, there was a whole staff of specialists there.

    Of course, publications in the Western Military District were drier in their style, but the topic was not deprived of attention. In No. 8-9, 1984, a very curious article was published, "Air Operations in the Anglo-Argentine Conflict." Those who are interested will find it useful to read.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 19 May 2016 17: 20
      0
      I read back in the same year ... ;-)
  • Doctor Evil
    Doctor Evil 19 May 2016 14: 01
    0
    Great series. I read it with pleasure. I would like to add that on May XNUMX, Lieutenant Nicholas Taylor's "Sea Harrier" was shot down over Goose Green. The pilot died. The Argentines buried him with military honors.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 May 2016 15: 43
      0
      Quote: Doctor Evil
      Great series. I read with pleasure

      Thank you! hi
      Quote: Doctor Evil
      I would like to add that on May XNUMX, Lieutenant Nicholas Taylor's "Sea Harrier" was shot down over Goose Green.

      Yes it was. I did not describe military honors, but the very fact of the downing was noted in the article
      In general, the motives for this act are unclear, and the result, alas, is logical: one Sea Harrier was shot down by anti-aircraft artillery fire, the rest returned with nothing.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • napalm
    napalm 19 May 2016 14: 54
    +4
    It is read in one gulp in one breath thanks to the author. All the same, not so whipping boys were the Argentines as I thought before.
  • Doctor Evil
    Doctor Evil 19 May 2016 15: 21
    +2
    Cruiser General Belgrano.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 19 May 2016 15: 28
      0
      Missile cruiser, by the way.
      1. Operator
        Operator 19 May 2016 15: 47
        -1
        And aircraft carrier laughing
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 19 May 2016 15: 58
          0
          Oh, it would have a Su-35S with Caliber ... belay Britons would
          immediately surrendered
          1. Operator
            Operator 19 May 2016 16: 15
            -1
            Better Penguins laughing
            You do not understand the humor: "General Belgrano" is an artillery cruiser.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 19 May 2016 16: 46
              0
              Wow! Right And I was sure that by the 80s it was remade under Exocet's anti-ship missiles.
              Confused, in a big way ... repeat
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                19 May 2016 18: 40
                +2
                Quote: voyaka uh
                And I was sure that by the 80s it was remade under Exocet's anti-ship missiles.

                Woodworth, by the way, also thought so, but in vain :))) In general, there were 2 "Sea Cat" air defense systems on it.
                1. Maegrom
                  Maegrom 19 May 2016 18: 50
                  +1
                  Then this view of Woodworth further justifies the attack and the cruiser, or published to justify the attack.
  • teron
    teron 19 May 2016 15: 53
    +5
    Thanks, great article! Especially at the very end about the obviously inferiority of saving on our own armed forces: it seems there are as many as two aircraft carriers, and even carrier-based aircraft, but these ships and planes are not quite what they are called. And the clash of political compromises between the government and parliament during the approval of the military budget with harsh reality almost always means casualties among personnel.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 May 2016 19: 05
      +4
      Please! :) Saving on defense is impossible in principle. If you don’t pay with money now, you will pay with blood later - and with interest. Here you are absolutely right
  • Taoist
    Taoist 19 May 2016 17: 19
    0
    "Even the most cursory analysis of what happened on May 1-4, 1982 shows the complete failure of the concept of aircraft carrier groups, built around the carriers of vertical take-off and landing aircraft." (from)

    I would refrain from such conclusions ... After all, as a maximum, this analysis shows only that it was the British system of aircraft carrier groups and the British VTOL carriers that showed their failure. Of course, it was possible to use Harrier for reconnaissance, but this does not mean at all that this aircraft is intended for it. But why the British did not have normal search radars? this does not apply to the topic of VTOL ...
    1. Operator
      Operator 19 May 2016 18: 19
      -2
      And if we also analyze the history of the development of anti-aircraft missile weapons, drones like KR / UAVs, air fueling systems and attack helicopters for the period from 1982 to 2016 years, then we can already speak about the complete failure of any aircraft carrier groups, with the exception of helicopter bully
      1. srelock
        srelock 19 May 2016 20: 27
        +3
        Quote: Operator
        And if we also analyze the history of the development of anti-aircraft missile weapons, drones like KR / UAVs, air fueling systems and attack helicopters for the period from 1982 to 2016 years, then we can already speak about the complete failure of any aircraft carrier groups, with the exception of helicopter

        In general, you are right. There was almost no alternative field of application for aircraft carriers, but their high vulnerability and visibility remained, and this alternative is much more effective and cheaper.
        The last thing that can still be entrusted to floating airfields is AWACS, but this will not save from the raid of modern strikers with supersonic anti-ship missiles. The maximum that an aircraft carrier can oppose is 2 patrol Hornets and 4 more to raise, it simply does not have time to do more. Sea battle - there too. A group of 2 cruisers of the pr. 1164 and pr. 949 type is an insurmountable obstacle for the whole AUG. The flight time of their KR is about 15 minutes, you can have time to lift 4 aircraft and that's it.
        However, there is one place where the Carrier Shock Gopota is irreplaceable. This is the control of intercontinental communications, mainly trade. A very effective tool for enforcing the policy of sanctions and trade embargoes against "rogue" countries.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 May 2016 20: 33
          +2
          Quote: srelock
          A group of 2 cruisers such as pr.1164 and pr.949 are an insurmountable obstacle for the whole AUG.

          Imagine that instead of British destroyers and frigates, Woodworth has all 4 atomic "eagles". How would this help him in this situation? :)
          1. srelock
            srelock 20 May 2016 00: 02
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Imagine that instead of British destroyers and frigates, Woodworth has all 4 atomic "eagles". How would this help him in this situation? :)

            In this case, in the place of Woodworth, I would organize a complete blockade of the islands with a no-fly zone and "crumpled my boobs" until June - I would carry out a landing operation right in Port Stanley.
            1. Operator
              Operator 20 May 2016 00: 54
              -1
              In the landing operation with the Eagles, the BDK is well combined with the Mi-24 on board.
              1. maximghost
                maximghost 20 May 2016 00: 59
                +3
                Why do mi-24 on board then? There is a Ka-29, which is smaller in size, can carry more infantry and is specifically designed for deck based.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 20 May 2016 01: 19
                  0
                  Ka-29 is good for everyone, but like a strike helicopter along coastal targets, the landing is a complete zero.

                  Do not suppress enemy strongholds in the 100-km zone from the coast of an airborne landing with armaments of the Eagles - Granites, Caliber and Zircons.
                  1. maximghost
                    maximghost 20 May 2016 01: 43
                    +1
                    And how are the shock capabilities of the ka-29 different from a crocodile? The weapons are about the same, maneuverability is better at 29, both helicopters are armored.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 20 May 2016 11: 39
                      0
                      Protection, weapons nomenclature, speed, range and visibility of the crew are much better with the Mi-24.
                      1. maximghost
                        maximghost 20 May 2016 13: 23
                        +1
                        The nomenclature of weapons they have is the same, with the exception of needles and p-60, which can also be hung far from every Mi-24.

                        Speed ​​for an attack helicopter is an important but not decisive parameter, in addition, the ka-29 is more maneuverable than the mi-24.

                        Well, at the expense of armor - prove that I have never seen reservation schemes for both of these helicopters.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 19 May 2016 23: 22
          0
          oppose the aircraft carrier - 2 patrol "Hornets" and raise 4 more, it simply does not have time to do more "////

          Even as they succeed. Standard Regular Exercises in Nimitz - Force
          the rise of the entire air group in the air.
          I was told by a sailor who served on the BOD in the Mediterranean in the 70s:
          the jaws of the officers drooped, Americans quickly and harmoniously
          they did it. And more than once.
          1. srelock
            srelock 20 May 2016 01: 43
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            I was told by a sailor who served on the BOD in the Mediterranean in the 70s:
            the jaws of the officers drooped, Americans quickly and harmoniously
            they did it. And more than once.

            Scheduled flights are one thing, when a plane ready for takeoff is rolled out one by one to the starting position, and another is "sudden birth", as is usually the case when only the duty unit is ready on the deck.
            Even as they succeed.
            The approximate and most likely detection distance of missile carriers is 400 km. They go supersonic, at a high altitude, the time before reaching the line of attack (~ 200 km.) Is no more than 10 minutes. During this time, the deck ships must have time to take off, gain altitude, speed and overcome at least 150 km., And according to the Hornets, in such a scenario, it is only at the line of 100 km. manages even if the stars converge.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. Operator
          Operator 20 May 2016 00: 25
          -1
          Right now, both we and the Americans are racing to practice the use of unmanned aerial vehicles from the helipad of frigates and destroyers.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 May 2016 19: 03
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      I would refrain from such conclusions ...

      I don’t see a single reason for that.
      Quote: Taoist
      . After all, as a maximum, this analysis shows only that it was the British system of carrier groups and the British VTOL carriers that showed their failure

      Strictly speaking, yes, but what other carrier group with VTOL would have done better there? Our? Maybe due to the normal search radars you mentioned. But they would not have helped ours either establish air supremacy over the islands, or endure the Falkland airbases, or discover the Argentinean fleet.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 19 May 2016 21: 00
        0
        You are wrong ... it was played with us then more than once ... as a result, we came to the conclusion that our group playing for the British would have done everything there with a bang ... Just in our version, the Yaks would do what they should be doing - they supported the landing without any distractions for air defense and reconnaissance ... In general, this is a separate and big topic and I will postpone it until the end of the article ... But you make too broad generalizations on insufficient material.
        1. maximghost
          maximghost 19 May 2016 21: 05
          +3
          If you made an article on this topic it would be REALLY interesting to read.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 20 May 2016 14: 29
            +1
            Maybe I’ll post it as an article ... but my relations with local moderators somehow do not work out. Then the grammar will be attached to something else. I wrapped up several of my articles, but somehow I don’t have the time or desire to fight especially much about this.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 May 2016 21: 37
          +2
          Quote: Taoist
          But you make too broad generalizations on insufficient material.

          Everything is possible. But there is a small amendment - not on "insufficient", but on "available to me" material.
          Quote: Taoist
          as a result, they came to the conclusion that our group, playing for the British, would endure everything with a bang ... It’s just that in our version, the Yaks would do what they should do - they would support the landing without any distractions for air defense and reconnaissance ...

          It will be very interesting to read what you were going to provide air defense of the connection with :)
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 19 May 2016 23: 19
            +4
            Unlike the British castrated version on our cruisers and BOD, everything was fine with both air defense systems and air defense artillery. In any case, the level of aviation threat that the Argentines could create using airplanes in air defense did not require at all.
  • Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 19 May 2016 18: 16
    +2
    good cycle. thank . I read it with pleasure! and Comments pleased - thanks to the author and forum users!
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 19 May 2016 19: 37
    +3
    I read with great interest, thanks to the author! The Exocet attack of ships is surprising, namely: Neptune has been spinning for a long time and nobody, with the ESR of the barge, drove it off, but did not even find it. At the same time, Glasgow manages to detect the work of the Etandar radar and the missile and still work out countermeasures and also successfully) An amazing combination of responsiveness and unavailability) Maybe the missile itself went into self-liquidation because of a breakdown, and the brave Angles invented a reflection of the attack to justify somehow ?)
    Well, the possibilities of the all-aspect AIM-9L are impressive, without it, would Harrier really need the British anyway? laughing
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 May 2016 20: 29
      +4
      Quote: barbiturate
      I read with great interest, thanks to the author!

      You're welcome!
      Quote: barbiturate
      Maybe the rocket itself went to self-liquidation due to a breakdown, and the brave Angles thought up a reflection of the attack, to somehow justify itself?)

      Generally speaking, it is doubtful. I fully admit, and I'm even sure that the British fantasized a lot later, but specifically in this episode they, in my opinion, do not lie.
      The fact is that Glasgow not only noticed the radiation of the Super Etandarovka Agave - it also rang about it all over the hemisphere - in the sense that it immediately announced on the air that the attack was also on the course from which troubles were expected. The Glasgow commander and crew behaved impeccably in this case. Too lazy to climb to check, but in my opinion they even heard him either on Hermes, or on Invincible and advised not to escalate the situation, they say - the goals are false ...
      Quote: barbiturate
      Well, the possibilities of the all-aspect AIM-9L are impressive, without it, would Harrier really need the British anyway?

      I doubt it :)))
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 19 May 2016 23: 12
      0
      "At the same time, Glasgow manages to detect the work of Etandar's radar" ///

      So I think the version that Sheffield radar was temporarily
      disabled so as not to interfere with a radio session with London - true.
      Glasgow managed to put a cloud of aluminum foil and Exocet went to the cloud.
      Sheffield didn’t.
  • maximghost
    maximghost 19 May 2016 19: 55
    +3
    The articles are still good, but I do not agree with the conclusion about the futility of the KAG built around the VTOL carrier.
    Firstly, you did not write down why there were only 20 harriers at the initial stage of hostilities.
    Secondly, you did not paint the composition of the air groups of the ships, including not a word that the British learned from this war and still got some sort of air defense.
    And in the third, they did not paint the armament of the harriers (including what appeared).
    As a result, those who are only acquainted with this topic have incomplete information.

    Here is my opinion:
    Harrier is certainly not the best plane (as well as 38 yak), but you still in vain dump all the troubles of the British on it. Even with the Ark Royal, the number of aircraft on board is still insufficient to ensure air superiority. The main factor, as you yourself said, is the absence of LA AWACS. After the Falkland War, the British made a helicopter AWACS, which, if he were 82 years old, would have solved the problem of detecting an enemy fleet and would greatly help with intercepting enemy aircraft.
    Now regarding the strikes on airfields and ships. Sea Harriers had only the most primitive aiming systems for working on ground targets and did not have air-to-surface guided weapons. The land harriers, although they could carry guided bombs (target designation for which was very problematic even with the air defense possessed by Argentina) and normal sights were hastily adapted for launch from the deck (not all equipment could work correctly), and the sidewinders were almost electrical tape attached to them. TOTAL we have, if the British had a helicopter AWACS, normal air-to-surface armament on airplanes, then their air group would operate extremely successfully.

    At the same time, we are talking about the world's first VTOL aircraft, if you look at the capabilities of the yak-141 compared to the 38, the harrier and the almost leveled lag behind conventional aircraft on LTX, then your conclusion does not look so convincing.

    But they would not have helped ours either establish air supremacy over the islands, or endure the Falkland airbases, or discover the Argentinean fleet.

    Only Nimitz could establish dominance in the air over the Falklands, and even that is not a fact. But our yaks could work at airbases with mb and better harriers at the expense of guided air-to-surface missiles, and the ka-25ts would help to find the Argentine fleet (they could also help with the detection of Argentine aircraft, although their capabilities are very modest )
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 May 2016 21: 25
      +2
      Quote: maximghost
      Firstly, you did not write down why there were only 20 harriers at the initial stage of hostilities.

      Why is this important? I indicated the strength.
      Quote: maximghost
      Secondly, you did not paint the composition of the air groups of the ships, including not a word that the British learned from this war and still got some sort of air defense.
      And in the third, they did not paint the armament of the harriers (including what appeared).

      All that you wrote the situation does not fundamentally change - it is a cosmetic improvement. Therefore, I see no reason to describe it. Furthermore, such a description is clearly beyond the scope of the Falkland Conflict. In short, no tricks will give (and have not given) to the VTOL carrier the normal DRLO aircraft and the normal EW aircraft.
      Quote: maximghost
      Even with the presence of the Ark Royal, the number of aircraft on board is still insufficient to ensure air superiority

      And what, did the Argentines run over in numbers? :)) Well, okay, I will continue to analyze the sorties when we get to the "bomb alley". Let's count :))
      Quote: maximghost
      After the Falkland War, the British made an AWACS helicopter, which, if it had been in 82, would have solved the problem of finding an enemy fleet

      This is an ersatz, and it is of little use for the following reasons:
      1) A helicopter is a flying radar, not an aviation command post.
      2) The helicopter has an extremely limited time spent in the air.
      3) Surveillance radar of a helicopter is very weak compared to an airplane + helicopter, in principle, cannot provide "airborne" visibility, since it cannot operate at airplane heights.
      In general, if the British had such a few such helicopters - they could probably provide several hours of patrol directly over the aircraft carriers, but this is generally all that can be expected of them.
      You see, an AWACS helicopter is better than nothing. But this is not at all a substitute for the AWACS aircraft and cannot solve the AWACS tasks in any comparable volume.
      Quote: maximghost
      Now regarding the strikes on airfields and ships. Sea Harriers had only the most primitive aiming systems for working on ground targets and did not have air-controlled weapons - the surface at all

      But they had 1 I squadron Harrier GR3. And guided bombs were used by the British.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        19 May 2016 21: 26
        +1
        Quote: maximghost
        were hastily adapted to start from the deck (not all equipment could work correctly),

        And when they were transferred to the ground airfield, what prevented? By the way - I have never seen a mention that something did not work on land VTOL aircraft. Sidewinders did not work there, well, so they shouldn't have. They tried to hastily attach them - it did not work out.
        Quote: maximghost
        TOTAL we have, if the British had a helicopter AWACS, normal air-to-surface armament on airplanes, then their air group would operate extremely successfully.

        Nothing like this. A helicopter is not a replacement for an aircraft, there was no electronic warfare, and there is still no, the possibility of combating anti-aircraft artillery fire control radars and air defense missile systems - shmalny "Shrike" somewhere in that direction (in the Falklands they could not do that, but then Shriiki to them sort of screwed)
        Quote: maximghost
        At the same time, we are talking about the world's first VTOL aircraft, if you look at the capabilities of the yak-141 compared to the 38, the harrier and the almost leveled lag behind conventional aircraft on LTX, then your conclusion does not look so convincing.

        My conclusion on 90% is by no means based on LTH VTOL :))) About them is a separate topic, which is hardly worth raising now. But if you want - I think it’s worth starting with a comparison of LTX F-35В and Rafale :)))
        1. maximghost
          maximghost 19 May 2016 23: 00
          +1
          Why is this important? I indicated the strength.

          Well, this is a design feature of harriers (bicycle chassis => non-folding fenders) and invisibles (hangar structures). Stone in the garden of the British, explaining such a small number of much needed aircraft. After such a chic analysis of the number of Argentine aviation, the KMK suggested itself, although it might be. I'm wrong.

          All that you wrote the situation does not fundamentally change - it is a cosmetic improvement. Therefore, I see no reason to describe it. Furthermore, such a description is clearly beyond the scope of the Falkland Conflict.

          If the British initially had AWACS helicopters and the normal composition of weapons on airplanes, then the results of the ship's air group would be much higher. In this example, it would be seen how the composition of the air group affects the combat effectiveness of the same carrier without comparison with larger ships.

          if briefly - no tricks will give (and have not given) to the ATSS carrier a normal DRLO aircraft

          Sailing drone?

          And what, did the Argentines run over in numbers? :)) Well, okay, I will continue to analyze the sorties when we get to the "bomb alley". Let's count :))


          No, the number of Argentines is not directly related to the control of the sky. Everything depends on the number of aircraft on an aircraft carrier (rather, how much he can keep on patrol, how much and in what readiness) and the throughput of the deck in case of an emergency launch.

          This is ersatz,

          No, this is a completely independent machine. It is clear that the plane is better in all respects, but the AWACS helicopter in some cases may be sufficient.

          1) A helicopter is a flying radar, not an aviation command post.
          2) The helicopter has an extremely limited time spent in the air.

          1.) The aviation control center can be on a ship, where the helicopter can transmit data in real time (like on the KA-25C).
          2.) For this, even a destroyer can carry such helicopters, and given that the British anti-submarine helicopters were almost unnecessary.
          In general, in the Falkland War, the British and helicopters would be enough for the eyes.

          And when they were transferred to the ground airfield, what prevented? By the way - I have never seen a mention that something did not work on land VTOL aircraft.

          Well, the land airfield did not appear immediately. At the expense of equipment - I read that there were problems when installing the vertical navigation systems on the deck and this problem was not completely resolved.

          But they had 1 I squadron Harrier GR3. And guided bombs were used by the British.

          I kind of wrote about it. Target designation for these bombs was a rather dangerous business and, with their only use, target designation was given from the ground and then half of the bombs went into "milk" due to the fact that the target was stopped earlier than necessary.

          In general, the Invizible kmc with Hermes, with a certain amount of harrier upgrades and the presence of AWACS helicopters, would be able to speak in the WAR FOR FOLKLANDS not much worse than an ordinary aircraft carrier.

          start with a comparison of the LTX F-35V and Rafal :)))

          Better Yak-141 and 29 instant)
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. strannik1985
      strannik1985 19 May 2016 21: 56
      +2
      I didn’t decide, the Searchwater radar of the Sea King AEW.2 helicopter was sharpened for surface or air, but low-speed targets. The British received a normal AWACS helicopter only in 2002 with the installation of Searchwater 2000AEW radar on Sea King (the helicopter from AEW.7 was renamed to ASaC 7).
  • rubin6286
    rubin6286 20 May 2016 17: 45
    +1
    Dear author!
    You wrote a rather interesting and lengthy article, but it would be better to publish it on the VO website in the Fleet section and name it the “Falkland Conflict of the 1982 of the Year.” Results and lessons. "

    Speaking about the use of aircraft in combat, it is necessary to begin with an analysis of the theater of operations, the qualitative and quantitative state of the aviation groupings, combat capabilities and technical and technical specifications of the combat vehicles used, the state of their weapons, the specifics of the combat use, the course of combat operations, the results of the fulfillment of tasks, the ratio and non-combat losses, using the principles of scientificness, efficiency and concreteness as efficiently as possible. This will invariably affect the quality and content of most comments.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 May 2016 23: 10
      +3
      Quote: rubin6286
      You wrote a rather interesting and lengthy article, but it would be better to publish it on the VO website in the Fleet section and name it the “Falkland Conflict of the 1982 of the Year.” Results and lessons. "

      Thank you for your appreciation of my work. I agree with you that the name I have chosen for my article is not entirely successful, but I want to draw your attention to the fact that, despite the detailed description of the hostilities, my goal was not to conduct a full analysis of this conflict, but how the deck British aviation influenced the course of hostilities.
      Quote: rubin6286
      Speaking about the use of aircraft in combat, you need to start with an analysis of the theater of operations, the qualitative and quantitative state of aviation groups

      I presented quantitative and qualitative analysis in the very first article of the cycle, as for everything else, I absolutely agree with you that such data would certainly add completeness to the material I published.
      But I have to draw your attention to the fact that in this case there would be a final transition from a series of articles to a full-fledged (well, or not very full-fledged laughing ) book - I already stretched this work very much. Currently, I have laid out three parts (the fourth is laid out too, waiting for moderation and laying out on the main one) - but even taking into account the fourth part, I have not yet reached the actual landing operation!
      At the same time, having been on the VO website for a rather long time, I understand that most of my readers have an idea of ​​the performance characteristics of the aircraft participating in battles, etc.
      Quote: rubin6286
      using the principles of scientificness, efficiency and concreteness as efficiently as possible

      Honestly, it gives me great pleasure to work in the format of an article - here we will admit humor, and malice, and the well-known liberty of interpretations. For example, I am making a statement that the concept of building aircraft carrier formations around VTOL carriers is vicious and unpromising. This is my opinion and I am sure of it - that is the basis of many years of research that I conducted on aircraft carrier topics. But if I were not writing a series of articles, but a scientific work on the Falklands, then such a conclusion in this work would not be acceptable - strictly speaking, the argumentation given in the article is insufficient. I can argue - but it will stretch to a few more articles, and I’ve already spread too much on the tree :)
      Quote: rubin6286
      This will invariably affect the quality and content of most comments.

      In any case, thanks for your suggestions. In the future, to the extent of my modest strength, I will definitely take into account your advice.
      Yours faithfully,
  • exo
    exo 21 May 2016 19: 41
    +1
    Thank you, Andrey! Read in one breath. Indeed, the conflict, or rather its results, led to the creation of "ersatz AWACS", based on helicopters. They have: Sea King AEW, we have, later Ka-31. Well, as it was correctly noted: this is not a victory Britain, and a joint work of England and the United States.
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 26 May 2016 22: 46
    0
    Good article.