Military Review

“Fire in a brothel”, or the Falkland epic “Sea Harrier”

67
“Fire in a brothel”, or the Falkland epic “Sea Harrier”



The factor of the participation of “Harriers” and aircraft carriers in the conflict was somewhere in the twentieth place after destroyers and frigates, a hundred helicopters, numerous landing forces and excellent training of British crews.

The damaged Glasgow destroyer continuously described circulation for a couple of hours. The artificially created roll obstructed the penetration of water while the emergency crew tried to repair the hole in the waterline area. Here so for victory!

And what about the Harriers? Below is a short report on their exploits and real contribution to the overall victory. Looking a little ahead, I note that the Falkland War was clear evidence of the opposite. The modern fleet has a real chance of victory without air cover. And he would have had more if the British were more serious about air defense. You can laugh, but it really is. What the Harriers did, neither aviation support, nor cover can not be called. One big and worthless expense item.

The second point of view is related to the analysis of the combat use of the Harriers with the issuance of profound conclusions about the need to build a “balanced fleet" With classic aircraft carriers, catapults and the notorious AWACS aircraft. Wow This is power.

Only, gentlemen, you should not look for meaning where it is not. We all know that being rich and healthy is certainly better than poor and sick. The British also knew this, having enough money only for the replicas of warships. And, according to the personal conviction of the author, if we consider this topic, then the question should be put differently. Was it possible to spend the funds in a more rational way instead of containing the rusty Hermes and building useless Invincibles?

The rest of the Falklands War was a replica of the modern war. With the use of passenger airliners for naval intelligence, sporting rifle shooting at attack aircraft and only six Argentine anti-ship missiles for the whole theater of operations. Although that theater was more like a circus.

Argi and the British not only fired at each other from the same machine guns (FN FAL), but even used the same ships. For example, the same “Sheffield” - 42-type destroyers built in Britain a couple of years before the conflict entered the battle core of the Argentine Navy.

Now, in the era of “Google Maps”, it will seem strange, but the marines of Her Majesty, who were on the march, did not have topographic maps of those useless islands. Intelligence agencies had to collect information manually, interviewing all those who, by chance, had ever been brought to Falkland.


Rusty frigate Plymouth and submarines of the first generation Conkerror with torpedoes Mk.VIII of the 1929 model of the year (I'm not joking). Excellent complement each other


What happened to the Plymouth in the war zone? Shots from the artillery attack aircraft photo pistol



Destroyer Type 42 (sistership of the famous "Sheffield") on the background of the modern destroyer Type 45


And here you are dreaming about aircraft carriers and AEW.

The British also had the most serious intentions and the project “Queen Elizabeth” CVA-01. Two classic 300-meter monster with a mixed air group, incl. Deck "phantoms" and AWACS aircraft. With a crew of 3200 people.

The 6400 man is more than served ON ALL ESCHINES, AIRWAYS AND TRAYS that were part of the Falkland squadron. And Queen Elizabeth itself with a full wing would have been more expensive than the fleets of England and Argentina combined.

For those who have not yet realized the curiosity of the process: for the sake of maintaining a pair of CVA-01, the British admirals would have to abandon all the other ships. A fleet of a pair of aircraft carriers. And around are empty berths.

In reality, they did not even master the construction of an escort for their CVA. From the planned series of destroyers Type 82 completed only one - “Bristol”.

Another funny situation is related to the old aircraft carrier Ark Royal (R09), which was “hacked to death by cursed Laborites”. How useful he would have been in the Falklands War!

And maybe not useful.

By the time of the cancellation, the age of “Ark Royal” was: from the moment of entry into service - 24 of the year, from the moment of laying it - 36 of years. Old bucket, built on obsolete standards of the Second World War (1943). The write-off of “Royal Arc” was preceded by two significant events: a) a fire on its hangar deck; b) the termination of the process of “cannibalization” of HMS Eagle (R05), whose spare parts were used to keep his colleague on the go. Alas, by the year 1978 there was nothing to shoot.



Do not be deceived by the capabilities of the air group of the last of the British "classic" aircraft carriers. At what distance are DRLO “Genit 3AEW” airplanes with a radar from World War II able to fly low-flying airplanes and cruise ships against the backdrop of water? And would the two operators, “Genit”, have enough strength to closely monitor the situation and direct modern fighters?

As for the “Phantoms”, there were all of them on board the entire 12, at best (when they replaced all the planes of other types) - on the order of 20-25 machines. According to open sources, the complexity of servicing Phantom was 35 man-hours per flight hour. In days 24 hours. Attention, the question: how many fighters could be constantly in the air, providing air defense of the British squadron?

Big money spoils people, and small ones just disfigure

Realizing that the dreams of the “classic” 300-meter aircraft carriers are unrealizable and empty, the British Admiralty imbued with the idea of ​​“light” aircraft-carrying ships with VTOL. A ready-made sample of such a vertical was already in service ”- Houker Siddley Harrier. It remained only to adapt the “Lunya” to the sea-based and accustom to the implementation of destructive tasks.

Did the admirals understand that a subsonic “vertical line” without medium-range URVV and with a limited combat radius would always be inferior to “classical” fighters? Obviously understood. But they could not even think that everything would be so sad.

During the Argentine attacks sunk:
- Sheffield destroyer;
- the destroyer "Coventry";
- frigate "Ardent";
- frigate "Entiloup";
- the amphibious assault ship “Sir Galahed” (on the approach to the islands, an 1000-fnl. Was hit by an unexploded bomb; re-attacked and accounted for three days later in San Carlos Bay);
- transport / helicopter carrier "Atlantic Conveyor";
- landing boat Foxtrot Four (from the composition of the UDC HMS Fearless).



Damaged:
- the destroyer "Glasgow" - 454-kg unexploded bomb stuck in the engine room;
- The destroyer "Entrim" - unexploded aerial bomb;
- the frigate Plymouth - four (!) Unexploded bombs;
- frigate "Argonaut" - two unexploded bombs, "Argonaut" was withdrawn from the database area in tow;
- the frigate "Elekriti" - unexploded bombs;
- Arrow frigate - damaged by aircraft cannon fire;
- frigate "Broadsward" - punched through the unexploded bomb;
- frigate "Brilliant" - shot by "Daggers" from a strafing flight;
- landing ship "Sir Lancelot" - 454 kg unexploded bomb;
- the landing ship "Sir Tristram" - damaged by bombs, completely burned out, evacuated on a semi-submerged platform;
- amphibious assault ship "Sir Bedivere" - unexploded aerial bomb;
- British Way tanker - unexploded bombshell;
- transport "Stromness" - unexploded air bomb.

No need to finish the military academy to understand that the squadron of Woodward was in the balance from death. Whenever the Argentines flew on a mission, the British are not illusory “raked” from their opponent.



If bomb fuses worked a little more often, the Falkland Islands would have become Malvinas. With a reduction in the number of ships, the squadron’s combat capability was continuously decreasing, and the Argentine attacks would each time become more and more effective. Until you have reheated everyone like puppies.

What did the acclaimed "Sea Harriers" do at this time? The answer is known - they patrolled off the south-west coast of Falkland. It was there that the Argentine Daggers came out to test their inertial systems after the 700-km flight over the ocean. There they were waiting for the British aces, shooting helpless attack aircraft. Sailing without radar, missiles and the possibility of using the afterburner, otherwise “Dagger” on the way back collapse with empty tanks into the ocean.

As for the "Skyhawks" with the refueling system in flight, they immediately flew into the open ocean, where they unexpectedly attacked British ships from any point.

Supersonic “Super Etandara” did feel invulnerable. Quickly calculating ships, launching Exocset missiles and disappearing again in an unknown direction. On the British fortune, Argentina had only six rockets for five bomber aircraft. And instead of combat aircraft - junk from around the world: without radar, normal bombs, and with the only active aircraft tanker KS-130. But even before such a weak opponent, the naval VTOL aircraft proved to be completely ineffective.

Epilogue

All this mess comes down to a single question.

If the idea of ​​Invincible and the VTOL failed in practice a complete and obvious fiasco, then were there any other ways to improve the combat capability of the British squadron?

For example, to send funds for the purchase of the shipboard SAM C-Sparrow. This was the standard NATO practice - the complex was installed on all large (and not very) surface ships of pro-American states. AIM-7 “Sparrow”, proven in combat, in an eight-charge launcher. In general, the system was far from perfect, but still could not be compared with the British “Sea Cat”.



Own British air defense system looked wretched and had the same weak performance characteristics. As it turned out later, none of the 80 subsonic missiles launched hit the target! Based on these statistics, 13 from 15 frigates sent to the Falklands were completely defenseless from air attacks. Only two of them (“Brilliant” and “Broadsworth”, type 22) were equipped with a two-channel C-Wolfe air defense system, which are close in capabilities to the American “Sea Sparrow”. To lead in such a state the fleet to the other end of the world was pure adventure! Whoever does not believe, let him take another look at the list of bombed ships.



The presence of more or less adequate air defense missile systems on the remaining 13 ships could reduce British losses by several times, having beaten off the desire of the Argentinean pilots to engage in top mast bombing for a long time.

And this is only the simplest and most obvious solution! Otherwise, why do we need these helicopter carriers and “vertical-skaters”, if the entire fleet, excuse me, walks with bare ass ?!

It is curious that just a month after the end of the war, in July 1982, the British commission urgently left for the United States in order to acquire the latest know-how: the Phalanx anti-aircraft systems ...

And yet we will refrain from far-reaching conclusions. The need for air support, the right tactics and the appearance of the ships with the extreme lack of funds ... Life is wider than any rules and complexes. And Admiral Woodward hardly needs couch experts. He won that war without our advice.

Perhaps the only universal rule of this life: any resources need to be properly distributed. And the less of these resources, the more thoughtful should be their investment.
Author:
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. EvgNik
    EvgNik 20 May 2016 06: 35
    +14
    And Admiral Woodward hardly needs sofa experts. He won that war without our advice.

    Here I am about the same. Therefore, I will not say anything. Although not, article +.
    1. qwert
      qwert 20 May 2016 10: 20
      +8
      But this time I also put Mr. Kaptsov a fat PLUS.
      1. vvp2412
        vvp2412 20 May 2016 12: 15
        +1
        I agree. One of the few articles on his topic! Usually he has solid vysery!
    2. ammunition
      ammunition 20 May 2016 13: 31
      +9
      ,

      Quote: EvgNik
      He won that war without our advice.
      Here I am about the same. Therefore, I will not say anything. Although not, article +.


      Here I am generally land. Just wondering.
      Counted unexploded bombs from the Argentines. I figured that if they were torn, Woodward might not have won the war.
      ---------
      Who would explain - Why most of the bombs did not explode? What are they? Training bombed?
      --------
      It’s strange. Of the half ton of cartridges that I personally fired, there were no misfires. So I understand that an expensive and responsible munition, like an air bomb, should have a hundredfold greater reliability. But the bombs did not explode. What is the matter here?
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 20 May 2016 13: 44
        +9
        The bomb detonator is more difficult than the shooter. Very often this happens (especially if it is stored incorrectly) And if it is used too ... There are several steps of protection. Any not fired explosion will not. I don't know exactly what kind of fuses Argentina used, but for example, the old "impellers" simply did not have time to trigger if the bomb was dropped from too low a height.
        1. ammunition
          ammunition 20 May 2016 13: 58
          +4
          Quote: Taoist
          The bomb detonator is more difficult than the shooter. Very often this happens (especially if it is stored incorrectly) And if it is used too ... There are several steps of protection. Any not fired explosion will not. I don't know exactly what kind of fuses Argentina used, but for example, the old "impellers" simply did not have time to trigger if the bomb was dropped from too low a height.


          Thank you for the answer. smile
          By the way - Grenades, mines and shells ... also did not refuse.
          ------------
          Further, a quote from the article - " frigate "Brodsward" - pierced through by an unexploded bomb; "
          That is - the bomb gained transonic speed. Therefore, it flew from a great height, or from a high-speed dive of a carrier aircraft. So, it would have cocked.
          --------------
          But! Seriously. If you count, it turns out that almost 80-90% of bombs did not explode.
          Moreover. Argentina has been preparing for this operation for many years.
          And the Argentine pilots had a lot of training bombing.
          Yes, not a single general in the war would have started, knowing that his bombs explode only one out of ten.
          So ... Yes, you try to find info about at least one our unexploded bomb in Syria. In the operation of our VKS.
          There is something wrong !! .. you were not convinced. repeat
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 20 May 2016 14: 05
            +6
            I do not know how much Argentina was preparing ... But a defective fuse from improper storage is like hello ... Ftulka is oxidized and good. Ours in Syria I think 15 times with pens everything went through in order to avoid.
            1. ammunition
              ammunition 20 May 2016 15: 16
              +2
              Quote: Taoist
              I do not know how much Argentina was preparing.


              For 20 years they waited a moment, prepared and worked out operational plans.

              Quote: Taoist
              . But a defective fuse from improper storage is like hello ... Ftulka has oxidized and is good. Ours in Syria I think 15 times with pens everything went through in order to avoid.

              I still can’t get it. - How so?
              Cost one naval bombardment from 100 000 to 500 000 $. In war - and more. The fuse is the cheapest part. So it must be super reliable.
              Okay. Every hundredth bomb did not explode in the Patriotic War. 1%. But! In the Patriotic bombs were produced and used in large quantities. In large quantities. And then the technique was not the same ..
              So - all this is strange.
              1. Xsanchez
                Xsanchez 20 May 2016 16: 54
                +2
                It would be nice to clarify whose production the bombs were, for sure a certain amount was released in Argentina itself, something was bought from neighbors who were still with WWII. It is generally not clear how the logistics departments reacted to the pilots' reports that the air bombs were not working. It’s how big the "rift" in their department has reached that they did not even bother to check the ammunition, eliminate deficiencies, conduct an investigation, identify the culprits.
            2. ammunition
              ammunition 20 May 2016 15: 32
              +1
              Quote: Taoist
              . But a defective fuse from improper storage is like hello ... Ftulka has oxidized and is good.


              Maybe American nuclear warheads ... also ... that - phthulics have oxidized? belay
              40 years of storage.
              ----------
              Can not be ? That and that which cannot be.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 20 May 2016 16: 38
                +1
                Nuclear thinks they still keep it brighter ... and the rules are again ... But I judge by the way we kept the old bombs and fuses for them ... Sailors dragged fuses to kill the fuses ... so they also worked every other time. Again, if you recall the story, often bombs and torpedoes did not explode ... Fuse defect and hello. Or the conditions did not match. For example, fugaski did not explode in soft soil ... By the way, another option. Modern bombs have an electric fuse cocking - at the time of reset. If there are problems with the airplane’s electrics, then the fuse will simply not cock ... I alas, I don’t know how this is implemented on the Daggers ...
                1. ammunition
                  ammunition 20 May 2016 18: 11
                  +2
                  Quote: Taoist
                  . And I judge by the way we had old bombs and fuses for them ... Sailors dragged fuses to kill the fuses ... so they also fired once.

                  Wow. I thought the fleet was a model of order.
                  In land warehouses (warehouses behind barbed wire, guarded and sealed, closed), the fuses are at least old .. at least new - all in zinc-plated, and no corrosion.
                  The right amount of shells, mines, and bombs! Previously, the divisions had their own aviation.
                  In general, fuses screwed in as ammunition was consumed. -))
                  "Oxnarized".
          2. PPD
            PPD 20 May 2016 15: 57
            0
            Under Tsushima, there were also similar problems. And here is a complete analogue.
            1. ammunition
              ammunition 20 May 2016 16: 08
              +2
              Quote: PPD
              Under Tsushima, there were also similar problems. And here is a complete analogue.


              These are incomparable situations!
              1) Under Tsushima, wet pyroxylin was not set on fire in Russian shells. The fuses worked fine.
              2) It is impossible to compare the technical culture of the times of Tsushima and Volkland.
              3) The Russian Empire was not at all preparing for a war at sea .. moreover, with Japan.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 20 May 2016 16: 39
                +1
                Well, about General Brink's fuses to say that they "worked fine" ... hi
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 20 May 2016 16: 45
                  +2
                  Quote: Taoist
                  Well, about General Brink's fuses to say that they "worked fine" ... hi

                  Well, in the end they worked the same way! It’s just that they were soooooooo-thoughtful fuses. smile

                  It was especially pleasing that someone had the idea of ​​putting them on high-explosive shells, which a priori needed instant fuses.
                  Experimental firing from the cruiser "Russia" at old ship's boilers, bed nets and a tank car showed that 152-mm high-explosive shells with bottom two-capsule Brink tubes and equipped with 920 g of wet and 45 g of dry pyroxylin pierced through light obstacles and exploded only when hitting the ground (in this case, 30 meters behind the target, that is, at a distance exceeding the width of the ship). This was explained by the fact that the Brink tubes were designed for armor-piercing shells, and therefore gave too long a break delay.
                  1. Taoist
                    Taoist 20 May 2016 17: 04
                    +1
                    Listen, maybe Brink was an Estonian? ;-)
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 20 May 2016 17: 28
                      0
                      Quote: Taoist
                      Listen, maybe Brink was an Estonian? ;-)

                      Nah ... it's all a gloomy Teutonic genius. smile
              2. PPD
                PPD 20 May 2016 19: 27
                0
                Why not compare? What is the difference why the charge does not work? Ammunition must be monitored. And check regularly. Including on real targets. On old ships in this case. It is also advisable to try to simulate the situation that will be in a real war, rather than the teachings invented for evaluation. If such a long list did not go after these hits to the bottom, then we should not talk about technical culture, about technical unculture. For tsushima, this is still excusable, but in our time ...
                The thesis that the RIF was not preparing for war is probably better not to comment .. lol
              3. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 20 May 2016 23: 38
                +2
                "The Russian Empire did not prepare for a war at sea at all ... especially with Japan" ////

                Excuse me, why then were battleships and cruisers built? For war on land? belay
              4. Orionvit
                Orionvit 22 May 2016 20: 34
                0
                To the attention of comrade ammunition, pyroxylin and gunpowder based on it, are not afraid of moisture.
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 20 May 2016 16: 41
            +5
            Quote: ammunition
            Further, a quote from the article - "the frigate" Brodsward "- pierced through by an unexploded bomb;
            That is - the bomb gained transonic speed. Therefore, it flew from a great height, or from a high-speed dive of a carrier aircraft. So, it would have cocked.

            EMNIP, the args had a problem with the installation of fuses - they were put on completely unimaginable delays, of the order of 25-30 seconds. No, when striking from the PMV, a small delay in the explosion is needed - so as not to fall under the explosions of their own bombs. But with such values, it turned out that the bombs either pierced the cans of British ships through or through, or the fuse failed before the explosion.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 20 May 2016 17: 03
              +5
              Well, then this is an indicator of the level of qualification of personnel ... It seems they planned to mine British ships ... wassat
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 20 May 2016 17: 24
                +3
                Quote: Taoist
                Well, then this is an indicator of the level of qualification of personnel ... It seems they planned to mine British ships ...

                Or they hoped that the British ships had armor that could slow the bombs.

                Chihiks ... directly proof of Makarov’s theory: armor is bad because it causes shells to burst, and without it shells would fly right through.
                If the sides that cover the cannon were covered with thick armor, then, despite the large size of the port, they would cover the guns and servants, especially from oblique shots, but thin armor, and especially thin unarmored side, would not give adequate protection, meanwhile, shells, falling into this thin side, will pierce it and burst. We can assume that the board is 15 feet to the right or left of the 200 square-meter gun. feet, causing shell explosions, will contribute to the destruction of the guns and injuring the servants.
                (...)
                On an armadillo, 32% of the team is on a thin side, and each exploding shell can damage dozens of people. All enclosed spaces will be filled with thick, suffocating gases that will go everywhere, which will greatly complicate the conduct of the battle.

                In completely different conditions there will be an armless vessel. There are no people on a thin side, because all the guns and mine devices are on the upper deck. To damage something, you need to get into the subject, and this is difficult.
            2. ammunition
              ammunition 20 May 2016 17: 27
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              the args had a problem installing fuses - they were set for completely unimaginable delays of the order of 25-30 seconds.

              Aha winked
              Quote: Alexey RA
              or the fuse failed before the explosion.


              A curious and believable version.
              They had to learn the craft of bombing from the same Britts.
  2. Doznanied
    Doznanied 20 May 2016 07: 15
    +20
    Spoiler (regarding the work of art) - prematurely disclosed important information that spoils the impression of the work of art, destroying intrigue.
    Very ugly in relation to Andrei from Chelyabinsk, with his unfinished series of articles on this topic!
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 20 May 2016 07: 51
      +24
      Torn off the tongue. It would be ethical to issue a polemic article at the end of the cycle. And this claim is not only to Oleg, but also to the editors of the portal. The lack of respect for the work of their own authors, and those rare ones who carry out serious work on the material, is a very, very bad tone.
      1. qwert
        qwert 20 May 2016 10: 26
        +5
        Quote: Doznanied
        Spoiler (regarding the work of art) - prematurely disclosed important information that spoils the impression of the work of art, destroying intrigue.
        Very ugly in relation to Andrei from Chelyabinsk, with his unfinished series of articles on this topic!

        Quote: Maegrom
        Torn off the tongue. It would be ethical to issue a polemic article at the end of the cycle. And this claim is not only to Oleg, but also to the editors of the portal. The lack of respect for the work of their own authors, and those rare ones who carry out serious work on the material, is a very, very bad tone.

        Articles are completely different in style and in essence. Than an article by Oleg can prevent Andrei. He will also systematically talk about each episode of Harrier’s use in this conflict. Oleg, however, without any lengthy narratives, expressed his opinion. What is the crime. What, now nobody will read Andrei’s article? Yes, all the same and will read them. On the other hand, some people have the correct opinion that the British won completely even not thanks exclusively to the Harriers. And this is a completely correct opinion.

        In short, you blame the site and Oleg for (as an example) that Oleg reported that in the 1945 year the USSR defeated Germany, thanks to the heroism of the infantry, tank corps to the heroes of the pilots. Does this prevent Andrei from writing a series of articles about tank battles near Prokhorovka?
        1. Maegrom
          Maegrom 20 May 2016 11: 17
          +4
          Let me explain to you.
          Imagine.
          You are reading a report to the Board of Directors. You prepared for it, prepared illustrative material, and conducted an analysis. The report is long and reasoned. Suddenly, in the middle of the report, one of your colleagues rises, with the permission of the management, and states that your report is essentially wrong and the topic does not require attention, and gives conclusions that coincide with yours or differ - it does not matter. How then do you continue the report. Polemicize? Violated the logic of the narrative, the outline of the report. Ignore? Lose in the eyes of some representatives of the council of treaties. Their attitude towards your report will inevitably change.
          1. brn521
            brn521 20 May 2016 13: 12
            0
            Quote: Maegrom
            How then do you continue the report. Polemicize? Violated the logic of the narrative, the outline of the report. Ignore?

            These are different ways of presenting information. Reports are one thing, and article cycles are another. Unlike reports, readers can choose the amount and procedure for providing the information they need. Therefore, in the series of articles you do not need to necessarily change anything. On the contrary, it must first be completed. And only then respond to criticism, explain and supplement something, if the author considers it necessary. In my opinion, there is no problem.
    2. avt
      avt 20 May 2016 08: 39
      +5
      Quote: Doznanied
      Very ugly in relation to Andrei from Chelyabinsk, with his unfinished series of articles on this topic!

      Yes, this is an old dispute between Oleg and Andrey. Again, how could Oleg survive Andrey's show and not sing his favorite song - "Death to aircraft carriers!" laughing For in spite of
      And yet we will refrain from far-reaching conclusions. The need for air support, the right tactics and the appearance of the ships with the extreme lack of funds ... Life is wider than any rules and complexes. And Admiral Woodward hardly needs couch experts. He won that war without our advice.
      The quintessential struggle at sea Oleg carries a personal standard high above his head -
      The modern fleet has a real chance of victory without air cover.
      And although
      And Admiral Woodward hardly needs sofa experts. He won that war without our advice.
      If he had drowned with the C Harriers there - still at the quay wall in England
      . Could the money be spent in a more rational way instead of keeping the rusty Hermes and building the useless Invincibles?
      He would have won the war without going to the Falklands.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 20 May 2016 13: 45
        +1
        What if the British hadn't cut the Vanguard? ;-)
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 20 May 2016 16: 31
          0
          And if the British had short barrel CVA-01? smile

          And for this, only one thing was needed - for the conservatives to win the elections.
  3. sevtrash
    sevtrash 20 May 2016 07: 36
    +3
    As if everything is clear - in order to have something good / better - you need to invest the appropriate resources. The economy is primary. Great Britain was a more economically advanced state - and it won. Despite a number of critical points, the British still won. With all the shortcomings of the British expeditionary force, the capabilities of the Argentinean armed forces turned out to be even worse - for the final result. The British drew their conclusions, type 45, probably from the thoughts of the Falklands. Like Queen Elizabeth.
  4. Alex_59
    Alex_59 20 May 2016 07: 50
    +11
    No offense for past disputes and not as revenge - but Andrei wrote more interesting and the topic worked out much deeper and more diligently. I’ll go read it.

    I don’t put minuses, but there’s nothing to put pluses for.
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 20 May 2016 20: 27
      +1
      In my opinion, the author outlined part of the material in the comments to Andrey's articles. Then from there I copied, looked torn.
  5. surrozh
    surrozh 20 May 2016 08: 04
    0
    Now Argentina is being drowned economically, and yet it (Argentina) seems to have gathered our fighters to buy.
    1. yehat
      yehat 20 May 2016 11: 28
      +1
      Argentina is drowned by the United States financially, because it needs to strengthen its influence in South America and because Argentina is strongly engaged in trade with, say, not Washington's friends - for example, China and the Russian Federation.
      In addition, the United States is trying to reanimate and improve the work of its real sector of the economy, and Argentina in agriculture. in some places competes.
  6. spech
    spech 20 May 2016 08: 08
    0
    Intelligence agencies had to collect information manually, interviewing everyone whom, by chance, had ever been brought to the Falklands.

    The staff did the same thing before landing in Panama.
  7. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 20 May 2016 08: 34
    +4
    Andrei’s article is more complete, thoughtful and historically grounded! Oleg, as usual, compiled the facts and presented the conclusions in a condensed form. These are articles of different levels, they do not overlap, and do not complement each other.
    I put a plus. One of the few articles by Kaptsov, claiming to be adequate!
    1. qwert
      qwert 20 May 2016 10: 29
      0
      AlNikolaich, forgive the sinful, missed fool I wanted to plus a comment, but slapped a minus
  8. Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 20 May 2016 08: 49
    +2
    Great, Kaptsov! As they say, accurately, but strongly.
    1. avt
      avt 20 May 2016 09: 13
      +5
      Quote: Panikovsky
      Great, Kaptsov! As they say, accurately, but strongly.

      wassat Deep reading! But it can be even easier - Hari Oleg! Hari Kaptsov!
      1. Panikovsky
        Panikovsky 20 May 2016 09: 40
        +4
        Quote: avt
        Deep reading! But it can be even easier - Hari Oleg! Hari Kaptsov!

        but don’t have to jerk, Kaptsov explained in a nutshell that the efficiency of the Harriers in Folk. War was extremely low and the next series of essays on this can not be read.
        1. Maegrom
          Maegrom 20 May 2016 10: 10
          +2
          And in the wiki at the same level, an unknown author described that the efficiency was very high - a lot of frags, no losses. This article by Oleg is a mixture of personal speculation and well-known facts with a speculative analysis that is not related to strict military or technical sciences. Plus interesting illustrative material. Its value as an opinion and commentary on a detailed article is debatable, as a full-fledged article - ...
        2. avt
          avt 20 May 2016 10: 14
          +2
          Quote: Panikovsky
          , Kaptsov explained in a nutshell,

          Quote: Panikovsky
          and the next series of essays on this can not be read.

          laughing Well, they found a replacement for the god Kuse who issued another divine revelation to the adherents. Well, don’t read it.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 20 May 2016 14: 32
            +4
            "There is no God except the battleship and Katsov his prophet" (c) bully
            1. avt
              avt 20 May 2016 15: 33
              +3
              Quote: Taoist
              There is no God except the battleship and Katsov is his prophet "

              what No. That's all the battleship! laughing
        3. fomin
          fomin 20 May 2016 10: 23
          +4
          Kaptsov did not explain, but stated. But this does not mean at all that a war at sea can be won without airplanes (unless of course you are fighting not with the Papuans there, but you can win without airplanes). This does not mean that Harrier is a bad plane. This only speaks of an ugly, mediocre scheme of their application, why didn’t anyone pay attention to the photo where Argentinean planes fly at low altitude above the English ships and there is no fire from English ships, no one has a question, Why? And you read what air defense potential was on the English ships and you yourself will understand.
          As for the disrespectful attitude to the author on this site - they simply got too big here, from a big offer. Less offer more will be respected.
        4. Papandopulo
          Papandopulo 20 May 2016 10: 27
          +2
          In 1833, the British managed completely without aviation.

          How many bombs on ships and on the English marines on the coast could each of the 20 aircraft shot down by them drop?
        5. The comment was deleted.
        6. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 20 May 2016 23: 52
          0
          Sea Harriers shot down 21 Argentinean aircraft, casualties: 6 vehicles from anti-aircraft fire or accidents.
        7. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 20 May 2016 23: 53
          +1
          Sea Harriers shot down 21 Argentinean aircraft, casualties: 6 vehicles from anti-aircraft fire or accidents.
  9. sharkmen
    sharkmen 20 May 2016 09: 44
    +5
    Hello everyone. For a long time I tried to understand what exactly the articles of Oleg reminded me, and finally I understood. our political officer also watered the probable enemy and had considerable success with the rank and file. it was more difficult for him with the officers - he was not particularly trusted in the NATO, which was broken into snot without real facts. but it was funny to listen to it - there the fact was torn out of context, there is a salty joke and the recipe for a successful speech is ready.
  10. yehat
    yehat 20 May 2016 10: 04
    +1
    I would like to criticize Kaptsov a bit about anti-aircraft systems.
    The problem of non-response of the English complexes was partly in reaction time:
    From the beginning of contact with the target, to charging (if necessary), turning (and other preparatory operations) and tracking the target, not a little time passed, as well as the stability of radar tracking + waiting for the launch order. A bunch of pads led to fatal delays. You need to understand that the missile service of air defense ships was still very young and raw. The performance characteristics of the missiles also played a role, but the planes flew up to the ships in the UPOR, so even these missiles could do something.
    Hence the simple conclusion - even if the British did not "oversleep" anything and would stick all the ships from stern to bow with Sea Sparrow installations (it seems like a sea sparrow), this would not make their protection sufficient without the support of an aircraft carrier.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 20 May 2016 10: 27
      +5
      Quote: yehat
      The problem of non-response of the English complexes was partly in reaction time:
      From the beginning of contact with the target, to charging (if necessary), turning (and other preparatory operations) and tracking the target, not a little time passed, as well as the stability of radar tracking + waiting for the launch order.

      It's just that people who have not dealt with radio engineering believe that the radar detects and accompanies the target according to the "yes / no" principle. As in computer games. Those. the plane flew up to a certain distance - that's it, it was definitely captured.

      In fact, this is not so. If the target is actively maneuvering even near the radar, a capture failure is possible, simply because the radiation pattern of the reflected radar radiation even from a regular (not stealth) aircraft is not the same at different angles of exposure. For example, the target was stably captured during irradiation aboard, but then turned its nose to the radar — the EPR from the nasal angles is smaller and the contact of the radar is broken. Even if there is a reflected radar signal at the receiving radar antenna, it can be rejected in such a situation as false, because it does not meet the criteria for the mathematical expectation of a reliable signal embedded in the logic of the radar.

      When contact is resumed, time is again needed to determine the parameters of the target’s movement, calculate the meeting point of the missile with the target, and enter the flight mission into the missile. All this leads to the fact that the reaction time declared by the manufacturer in the advertising performance characteristics of the air defense systems in practice is always significantly longer. Tabular performance characteristics are achievable only in polygon conditions for non-maneuvering targets that do not exhibit interference.
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 20 May 2016 12: 28
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        Actually, this is not so. [...] since it does not meet the criteria for the mathematical expectation of a reliable signal embedded in the logic of the radar.

        Alex, in vain you wrote it, right now one famous person will begin to prove to you that you are wrong. Well, purely from the principle =)
      2. Taoist
        Taoist 20 May 2016 13: 50
        0
        And today we don’t learn how to materiel ... I’ve memorized a plate with TTX and thinks that in real life it’s like a computer toy - it got into the light or didn’t hit ... ;-)
  11. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 20 May 2016 10: 09
    +2
    He set the article as a minus. History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood, the British generally performed their tasks in this war. Having very limited capabilities, thousands of kilometers from their bases, they completely turned off the Argentine Navy and defeated the Argentine Air Force. As for the losses, this is a war, while Argentina suffered much greater losses, both human and technical. The disputed territory remained with the British. The war naturally demonstrated the shortcomings of the Navy and the British Air Force, but it would be so with any power, the main thing is to draw the right conclusions. Yes and publication This article in spite of the series of articles by Andrey is very doubtful.
  12. alexej123
    alexej123 20 May 2016 10: 52
    +3
    Oleg "BURNS" as usual. Well done. A person has his own opinion and defends it. I think that Oleg's article perfectly complements Andrey's LABOR.
    1. yehat
      yehat 20 May 2016 11: 40
      +2
      Oleg is an apologist for the doctrine of the high seas fleet. And in every way he defends the possibility of the growth of the potential of classical ships - from a destroyer to a battleship. And they have better protection, and weapons, and speed, and that's all. But how much objectivity is there?
      Most ships, alas, chronically have outdated mechanisms, because it takes a lot of time from a draft design to commissioning and it is far from always that the best is laid at the start, and therefore, a really functioning ship, as a rule, does not have the best equipment possible. And therefore, it will CONSTANTLY be experiencing problems.
      Multiplying these problems to the size of the English grandflit creates big problems, which is why ships are guaranteed not to realize the maximum potential.
      So what's the point of sighing about it? Isn’t it time to take this as an axiom and proceed from this?
      1. S-kerrigan
        S-kerrigan 23 May 2016 05: 36
        0
        On the whole, I agree with your theses. However ... how is it in the classics? "Katz offers to surrender." Seriously though, history shows us what? The fact that people without exception begin to conduct a variety of erroneous actions in various areas. And then "he" comes - the one to whom they "forgot" to say that it is impossible. This can include as the author of the T-34 (Koshkin), Ka50 / 52 (Mikheev), Falcon / Tesla / Hyperloop (Mask).
        What am I talking about? Yes, even one of the IBM CEOs before the computer boom said that there will never be many of them.

        People everywhere always en masse have the wrong opinion (of course, each of the people everywhere has "his own" mistakes, therefore, in general, the correct decision often prevails). Even the experts. Therefore, in terms of the totality of qualities, the battleship of the 21st century, and in my opinion, has a chance to become a pain in the ass. For it can be rolled up into armor, and active armor can be placed, and reactive armor can be wrapped. And anti-torpedo underwater art installations can also be assembled. Modern air defense + huge reactors will provide the most serious protection. The same reactors will provide power for ultra-long-range weapons. And you can water the Papuans with pigs very cheaply. Have rockets for an advanced enemy. Even going under water is possible.
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 20 May 2016 13: 52
      +4
      Complements what? The opponent has at least detailed and step-by-step the course of action - you can agree with the conclusions or not, but the facts are in place ... And in this opus, besides "hysteria", there is no specifics.
  13. Verdun
    Verdun 20 May 2016 11: 35
    -2
    And here you are dreaming about aircraft carriers and AEW.
    The lack of funds for the purchase and maintenance of modern weapons is a weak excuse in the event of war. At the same time, the cost of a classic aircraft carrier is far from as high as many are trying to imagine. A floating hangar with elevators and a flight deck is by no means more expensive than a normal URO cruiser. And the effectiveness, in the presence of a high-quality aviation group, is often higher. That is why aircraft carriers have spread in modern fleets. Another thing is that the composition of the aircraft on board and the experience of pilots greatly affects the work of an aircraft carrier.
    For example, allocate funds for the acquisition of Sea Sparrow
    I strongly don’t understand how such complexes with a maximum range of 30 km (and therefore effective - about 20) could help counter aircraft armed with Exocet missiles with a firing range of 40 km if France had not frozen the already paid deliveries!
    1. yehat
      yehat 20 May 2016 11: 56
      +3
      You forget about the time of events, about what level of armament was in the countries.
      Remember what a revelation a missile attack on an Israeli ship was and when it was!
      It might seem that the exoset could reach further 40 km, but it still needed to be brought in, delivered and put into operation, this was not a small problem.
  14. itvs
    itvs 20 May 2016 12: 41
    +2
    Kaptsov usually has interesting collections of photographs. But in this case, he was too lazy to sign some of them. But I read to the end, I was waiting for the accordion to unfold about how events would develop, if one of the sides had a battleship, or at worst, something about insufficient booking. Oh, I didn’t wait - I read it in vain.
  15. Operator
    Operator 20 May 2016 15: 35
    +1
    Finally, a reasoned article from Oleg came out after the "armored" series.

    The article perfectly complements the cycle "Harriers" in battle: Falklands Conflict 1982 "by Andrey, who writes not about the Harriers themselves, but about the war in general.

    Oleg and Andrey talk about the same thing - the local role of decked VTOL aircraft in the Falkland War and the global role of normal land-based aviation (Argentinean in this case). An impressive list of sunken ships and an even more impressive list of ships hit by unexploded bombs clearly speak of the potential defeat of the British squadron.

    It is possible that this was prevented by sabotage in the form of covert damage or coarsening of bomb detonators at storage bases with the help of Argentinean military personnel, overbought by the allies of Britain and the United States (many Argentinean military personnel studied at American military schools and were recruited there).

    It’s clear what causes the rejection of Oleg’s article by fans of carrier-based aviation - the powerlessness of aircraft carriers against the actions of ground-based aircraft demonstrated in the conflict. The outcome of the conflict was not decided by the military successes of the Harriers, but only by the technical condition of the aviation weapons of the Argentinean Air Force - free-falling bombs.

    The findings in the articles vary:
    - Oleg talks about the priority of air defense systems and the uselessness of carrier-based aircraft in the issue of air defense of naval formations, which is confirmed by the real course of the military conflict;
    - Andrei mentions special cases of the use of carrier-based aircraft, which were not noted during the military conflict.

    Therefore, the first statement is proved, and the second requires proof (if at all possible).
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 21 May 2016 12: 00
      +1
      "It is possible that this was prevented by sabotage in the form of covert damage or coarsening of bomb fuses at storage bases with the help of Argentine military personnel, bought by the allies of Britain - the United States" ////

      Conspiracy? What a trifle: the USA bribed Argentine generals
      and so they fought so lousy ... laughing
  16. sivuch
    sivuch 20 May 2016 17: 06
    +1
    Only two of them (“Diamond” and “Broadsworth”, type 22) were equipped with a two-channel air defense “Sea Wolf”, which was close in capabilities to the American “Sea Sparrow”
    ----------------------------
    This is what caught my eye. So, is short-range air defense system (8km) close in its capabilities to medium-range air defense system? It’s another matter that Si Wolfe has significantly shorter reaction time (if sclerosis does not change, less than 10 sec, I don’t remember ) and much better suited for working on targets at extremely low altitudes. And yes, we compared the hedgehog and snake. And the naval Phantoms F-4M with the AN / AWG-12 station as interceptors were much better than marine Harriers, not to mention land ones. , in 82 they began to rearm on Sky Flash.
    But the conclusion of a number of comrades that since the Shavers defeated, then they are right, seems to me extremely doubtful. The British fleet of that time was created to deal with a much stronger opponent. And if the frail Argentinean forces defeated with a creak, then they would have shot down Soviet anti-ship missiles By the way, in Tsushima they wrote that in the USSR there really were plans to help the junta in the struggle against British imperialism
    A series of articles by Andrei is really much deeper.
  17. Oprychnik
    Oprychnik 20 May 2016 20: 14
    +1
    "And yet we will refrain from far-reaching conclusions. The need for air support, the right tactics and appearance of ships with an extreme lack of funds ... "
    I don’t interfere in the disputes of specialists, although I follow them with interest, but explain to me, Oleg, what if, excuse me, is there an appearance here? I agree that a modern submarine looks much more perfect than a galleon, but Hamvolt looks like it, how is a coal iron?
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 21 May 2016 12: 07
      0
      Quote: Oprychnik
      with some, excuse me, is there an appearance here?

      all that will not be banned - sucks. that’s the whole logic.
  18. AlexanderBrv
    AlexanderBrv 20 May 2016 22: 21
    +1
    "If the bomb detonators were detonated a little more often, the Falkland Islands would become Malvinas. With the reduction in the number of ships, the squadron's combat effectiveness would continuously decrease, and the Argentine attacks would become more and more effective each time. Until they would have drowned everyone like puppies ..."

    The British were just wildly lucky! With the existing air defense at that time, they would have no chance of success!
  19. exo
    exo 21 May 2016 21: 42
    +1
    In general, interesting. Plus. Only about labor costs for the "Phantom" - not entirely accurate. The figure 35 is man / hours. That is, after an hour of flight, it is necessary to spend 35 hours by ONE person. As a rule, this service is done at least 4-5 people, of different specialties. And the plane is idle after each departure for no more than 7 hours. At the same time, in combat conditions, as a rule, these numbers are reduced. Unfortunately, there are no figures for the use of the F-4, in Vietnam. departures of one side.