Military Review

“Harriers” in battle: Falklands conflict 1982 (part of 6)

254

What the British air defense is worth in practice, with all the mercilessness, showed only one Aermacchi MV-339А - a training jet airplane with a maximum speed of 817 km / h, which did not have its own radar. When Lieutenant Esteban nevertheless managed to inform the command of the beginning of a full-scale British invasion, the command of the Malvinas Islands task force sent a couple of such airplanes to reconnoiter, but one of them was unable to take off for technical reasons. The second pilot, Lieutenant Commander G. Influenza, using the fog, the terrain folds, came out to the amphibious group from the north and ... of course, the appearance of the plane, flying at 800 km per hour flying 200 meters above the waves, was a complete surprise to the English. But he didn’t lose a bit and, having assessed the scale of the invasion, he decided to slightly “fool around” by attacking the frigate Argonot with his NURS and the 30-mm cannon fire. He even got in, easily wounding three sailors and slightly damaging the frigate hull, but then the British still woke up. A missile from Blupipe MANPADS was launched from the Canberra, the Intrepid docking ship attacked the impudent C-Cat missile system, but G. Influenza, performing an anti-missile maneuver, delicately shaken both missiles from the tail, and the nasal fire Plymouth’s artillery system also failed to achieve the goal. The lieutenant captain returned to Stanley and reported the invasion.


Why the plane was not intercepted by Sea Harriers? According to some information, the British at that moment were just changing shifts, and at the time of the flight of the daring Airmachi of the British air patrol there was simply no connection.

The Argentine Falkland Islands Command informed the mainland of the invasion, but without waiting aviation from continental bases, combat-ready aircraft were lifted from the airport of Goose Green (base "Condor") - there were as many as 4 "Pukars". This "thunderstorm" attempted to attack British ships, but one plane was shot down by the Blownpipe MANPADS of some lucky marine, and the second was destroyed by the Sea Harrier, which was aimed at the target by the destroyer Entrim. The other two still got to the ships, but, met by dense anti-aircraft fire, were forced to retreat. I will not ask why the Harriers did not kill the Argentines on the way, but why did the British air patrol leave them? However, then the real combat aircraft of Argentina entered into business.

In 10.31, a trio of “Daggers” at speed 980 km / h attacked “Broadsworth”, “Argonot” and “Plymouth”. Argentines fired at the CC C missiles at Argonot, Plymouth and Intrepid, but to no avail, but Broad Wolf, C Wolfe, was successful - one Dugger was shot down. Argentine bombs did not hit anywhere, but gunfire wounded 14 people on Broadsward and destroyed two helicopters on board. At the same time, the second three of the Daggers attacked the Entrym - and achieved two hits of aerial bombs. Both did not explode, but the Entrym caught fire, and some of its equipment left standing, with one of the bombs stuck inside the hull. After the attack, the Argentines attempted to intercept "Sea Harriers", but to no avail - the Daggers easily broke away from them.



Entrym tried to retreat under the protection of other ships, but did not have time - the next attack began. Two Daggers attacked the ship, firing at it with cannons, injured a 7 man, the ship caught fire even more, and the fire threatened the cellars of the SI Slug air defense system, so the missiles had to be dropped overboard. Another trio of “Daggers” attacked the “Brilliant”, the bombs went wrong, but the Argentines did not suffer any losses - all three cars returned to the base. The second attack covered the 4 fighter "Mirage", but could not detect the "Sea Harriers" and returned home without a fight.

In total, the first wave involved 15 aircraft, 11 "Daggers" and 4 "Mirage", they attacked the British four times, damaged the ship's 2, lost one aircraft and were never intercepted by the British air patrol.

An hour passed, and the fighting resumed: two Pukary from the Condor base attempted to attack the frigate Ardent, but were driven away by fire from the CC Sea missile system and artillery. However, the persistent Argentines did not lose hope, and through 20 they crumpled to attack again, but this time they were intercepted by Sea Harriers — one Pucara was shot down, the second left. But the second wave of airplanes from the continent was approaching - Skyhocks 10. Alas, only 8 of them flew to the Falklands, two of them were forced to return due to technical faults, so two F4s went to the Falklands. One of them was intercepted by Sea Harriers, Skyhawks dropped bombs and tried to break away, but only two aircraft managed to do this, the other two were shot down by Sidewinders. The second four were not too lucky either - one plane had to return home directly from West Falkland due to technical problems, the remaining three discovered the ship, but the commander, suspecting something was wrong, ordered not to attack him. Alas, one of the Skyhawks managed to drop bombs, and in vain - it would have been abandoned by the Argentines of the Rio Karakan. The remaining two aircraft attacked the "Ardent", did not get into it, but did not get into them, so that the cars left undisturbed. Another four Skyhocks, which set off a little later and reduced in flight to three, because for technical reasons, one plane returned half-way, somehow did not find the enemy, and returned to the airfield.

And then the third wave hit the British.

Two Skyhawk links “lost” the plane on the road (again, technical reasons), but the remaining five put two bombs in the Argonot, and 8 exploded near the ship. Both bombs that hit the ship did not explode, but the fire and the detonation of the rocket cellar were crying out, so the frigate was in a very difficult position. The four Daggers (five flew out, but the fifth was forced to return) went out to the British ships from the south, but were found by the Diamond frigate, which guided the Sea Harrier duty crew on them. This time, the British pilots managed to intercept the Argentines and even knock down one Dagger, but the rest entered the “no-fly zone” where they attacked the frigate “Ardent”, managing to achieve three hits, and then returned to the airfield.



At this time, two flight managers of three Daggers each attempted to attack the British ships at San Carlos - but the Diamond frigate once again distinguished itself: having noticed the enemy aircraft in time, he gave target designation to the second pair of Sea Harriers, and piling on one of the links completely destroyed it - all three aircraft, survived only one pilot. However, the second trio broke through - in order to get under concentrated anti-aircraft fire: the Entrim, Plymouth and Intrepid attacked the Sea Cat missiles, the Sea Wolfe worked with the Diamond, but not a single rocket reached the target. The Daggers attacked the Brilliant, but were only able to scratch it slightly with cannon fire.

The last chord was the attack of three Skyhocks, which finished off Ardent - 7 bombs hit the ship, 22 people died, 37 was injured. The frigate received deadly damage, the crew soon left it (the Yarmouth took off the people) and soon a strong explosion split the Ardent in half. But the Argentines were not allowed to leave - the C Sea Harrier couple, which appeared too late to save the frigate, shot down two Skyhawks, and the third one badly damaged, so the pilot barely reached Port Stanley, where he ejected.

There was a fourth wave, but the Skyhocks 9 sent to the battle could not find the enemy - low clouds and twilight reduced visibility to a minimum.

A total of 21 in May, Argentinean air detachments and individual planes attacked the British 15 once, the British VTOL failed to intercept the enemy planes before the 5 attack, but only in two of the five cases did the Argentine aerial attacks fail. In other cases, the Argentines, suffering losses, still broke through to the ships. Twice "Sea Harriers" tried to pursue the Argentines after the attack, once - successfully. The British lost the frigate Ardent, and the Entrym and Argonot were badly damaged, another 2 frigate was slightly scratched. Argentines have lost their 5 Daggers, 5 Skyhocks and 3 Pucaras - with the exception of one Dagger and one Pucara, this is the merit of Sea Harriers.

So what did happen on May 21? A categorical discrepancy between the number of Argentine aviation and the number of combat sorties made by it draws attention. The Argentinean commanders were preparing for the landing of the British and according to the plan (and simply according to common sense) at the time of the landing they were supposed to beat all that is at hand. However, having approximately 75-78 relatively modern aircraft were able to make only 58 departures (the remaining 7 departures on the account of "Pukar" and "Airmachi").

The results of the May 21 battles provide an excellent basis for analyzing the effectiveness of VTOL aircraft against horizontal takeoff and landing aviation. In total, as mentioned above, the Argentine aviation made 65 sorties. As practice shows (the actions of the MNF air force during the “Storm in the Desert”, the operation of the VKS in Syria) airplanes of first-class powers are able to make at least 2 combat sorties a day, the British at Falklands sometimes flew more often. Thus, 65-smoleto departures on British ships could provide air group number 32-33 machine, and if you divide by aircraft types according to their sorties - 1 «Eyrmachi», 3 «Pucara», 2 «Mirage», 11 «daggerov And 16 Skyhocks. In other words, the Air Force of Argentina and the Navy were able to provide such an impact on the British, which the US Air Force or the modern Russian Federation would need to have an 33 aircraft. Considering the fact that the British themselves had 25 "Sea Harriers" (the five attack aircraft do not count, since they could not perform the functions of air defense), we can talk about parity. And what is the result?

From the point of view of downed airplanes, definitely in favor of Sea Harriers, since they destroyed 11 airplanes: 2 Pukary, 4 Dagger and 5 Skyhawks, which would be 30% of the air group we calculated. But from the point of view of accomplishing its immediate task - the air defense of the compound - except as a deafening failure of the action of the British VTOL aircraft and not to name it. Of the 15 groups of aircraft that attacked the British, only 5 groups or 33% were intercepted, while the British managed to thwart only 2 attacks - 13,4%! Thirteen breakthroughs to British ships from 15 attempts ... And this is under the conditions when Argentines attacked, not having "flying control points" - DRLO planes, without covering their links with EW planes, not suppressing British fighter points with anti-radar missiles, without providing air cover shock links (4 Airplane "Mirage" disappeared in vain). Bottom line: one sunk ship and two badly damaged ones - when the Argentines did not use a guided weapons, but only free-fall bombs and NURS, and the bombs regularly did not want to explode! The tactics of the Argentine planes that operated in 1982 did not differ much from the tactics of the Second World War, and if they were different, it was only for the worse - the Argentines lacked torpedo bombers who could have done things in the Falkland Strait and the Argentines were never able to some massive attacks, nothing like the famous "star" raids, when the same Japanese surrounded the enemy ships and then attacked them from several angles, the Argentines did not show.

“Harriers” in battle: Falklands conflict 1982 (part of 6)


On the other hand, it must be remembered that not all of the British Sea Harriers available to them were used to cover the amphibious unit — a significant part (but unknown to the author) was behind the brackets and guarded the aircraft carriers. And now we can much better understand the reasons of Rear Admiral Woodworth, who did not want to place his aircraft carriers between the continental air bases of Argentina and the Falkland Islands. Assuming that he engaged half of his VTOLPs to protect aircraft carriers, even if the effectiveness of his carrier-based aviation while guarding the main forces of the 317 th operational link advanced would be 2-3 times higher than that demonstrated above the amphibious-class ships, but concentrate Argentines hitting their aircraft carriers - the British do not hold back. It is very likely that the British commander would have remained at least without one aircraft carrier (maybe not sunk, but incapacitated). And if Woodward was opposed by properly organized air forces of 30-40 aircraft (with reconnaissance, EW, etc.), trained to fight over the sea and provided with guided weapons (the same anti-rocket Exocoet) in sufficient numbers, with probability 99 % its operational connection would be destroyed.

Interestingly, in all five cases, when the British VTOL 21 in May intercepted enemy planes, the British pilots did this by hovering from their own warships. For the first time (on the four of the Pukar), Sea Harriers was brought in by the Antrim - it was there that the control point for the amphibious group air cover was located. Alas, being the center of British air defense, the ship failed to protect itself, and after being hit by two bombs, it transferred the control functions of the air patrol to the Diamond frigate. It was he who carried out the guidance in the remaining four cases: interception of four Skyhawks (two were shot down), four Daggers (one shot down) and three Daggers (all three were shot down), as well as two crazy Pukar attack aircraft, attacking the frigate Antrim. In addition, "Brilliant" was able to bring "Sea Harriers" and "Skyhawks", who finished off "Ardent."

Naturally, the ships as control points of aviation were not very good at all - even if only because of the low detection range of enemy aircraft. Of course, the position of the British ships also played its role - being in a “box” surrounded by mountainous shores, they could not detect the Argentines beforehand, as a result of which the “Sea Harriers” had very little time to intercept. However, in the open sea, the situation did not improve much - in any case, a plane going at low altitudes was detected by shipborne radar too late.



Thus, if the Argentinean pilots continued to rush to the ships after the discovery of the Sea Harriers, before the entry of their aircraft into the air defense zone of the formation, the British pilots simply did not have time to destroy the enemy. So, for example, 4 "Dagger", went on the attack, despite the fact that the air patrol managed to shoot down only one aircraft, after which he was forced to stop the pursuit, in order not to expose the attack of relatives of the air defense missile system. But in another case, when the British had more time, and the Argentines started a series of maneuvers, trying to shake off the British from the tail, not one of the three Daggers survived. If the British had air defense control posts (in the form of the same DRLO aircraft), the effectiveness of Sea Harriers would be much higher, simply due to the fact that targeting them would arrive earlier and the time for interception and air combat would be longer. However, it is necessary to recognize that if fighter planes of horizontal takeoff and landing were in place of the VTOL aircraft, their effectiveness would be even higher. Nevertheless, "Sea Harriers" lacked neither ammunition (only two "Sidewinders"), nor speed. Three Daggers, attacked by the British after they had stormed the ships, simply left the area at high speed and the VTOL aircraft could not do anything about it. In another case, intercepting the four Skyhocks, the British were able to shoot down only two of them - the rest fled. If the British had the same "Phantoms" - the above-mentioned "Daggers" and "Skyhawks" would not have left them.

The main reason for the low effectiveness of Sea Harriers as a means of air defense of the compound is the lack of timely external targeting. If the British had several “E-2C Hokai” that could control the airspace effectively and at a great distance for several hours, as well as control air patrol fighters, the number of successful interceptions would be much more - but for this the British would have to have a full-fledged ejection aircraft carrier, which they did not have.

Let's go back to the Falklands. The first day of fighting left the parties in unstable equilibrium - the Argentines suffered significant losses in the aircraft, but the British had a very hard time. Their air defense, as expected, turned out to be very imperfect, and Rear Admiral Woodworth later wrote:

“If the Argentines act for two more days, then all my destroyers and frigates will be destroyed. The question arises: can we survive in such conditions? The answer is: of course not. ”


According to the experience of 21 battles in May, the British brought their aircraft carriers closer to the landing site in order to provide the best airflight. The commander of the 317's operative compound ordered the 42 / 22 patrol (Coventry destroyer and Broadsward frigate) to be organized at the northern tip of the West Falkland island, from which, as a rule, Argentine planes appeared. The losses in the ships were replenished by the British - they were approached by 4 warships, including the 42 destroyer Exeter, the 21 Anti-Loop and Embuscade frigates, and the Forsis advice. Still, Rear Admiral Woodworth strongly counted on the Rapier air defense system, which the Marine Corps had at its disposal - it was assumed that these complexes deployed on the bridgeheads would greatly enhance the air defense of the amphibious compound.

Everything was ready for the second day of intense battles, but ... over the past day, the Argentines made 65 sorties completely exhausted, so all that was enough for their 22 May - 14 sorties. The first four Skyhocks did not find the enemy, the next “wave” of six aircraft to the Falklands “melted” up to two cars (four returned for technical reasons) and even seemed to be attacking someone, however, without success. Taking into account the fact that the British did not register any attacks on their own ships at all, it cannot be ruled out that the Rio Karakana again became the “victim” of the Argentine pilots. The departure of these Skyhocks covered two pairs of Mirage, they (as usual) failed to find anyone and returned home without a fight.

The British, concentrating on the protection of the transports, didn’t do anything at all, but their Harriers still found and sank the Argentine boat carrying two 105-mm guns and 15 gunners to Gus Green. In addition, the Harriers once again attacked the airfield of the Condor base, but, being met by dense anti-aircraft fire, retreated, without achieving any result.

On the third day, 23 May Argentines tried to resume fighting in the morning. Already in 08.45, the Argentines began to fly planes into the air, but the day did not go well: the Dagger six did not detect the tanker at the rendezvous point and returned to the airfields, and of the Skyhawks six, they returned from halfway through for technical reasons. The remaining four somehow could not find the English, the morning blow thus failed.

The second wave was also unlucky - six of the Skyhawks lifted into the air by the Skyhawk six were not found by the tanker (as it turned out, due to an equipment error, he waited for them in the 12 miles from the designated point), two more Skyhawk were forced to return to the airfield almost immediately take-off and only four cars were able to refuel (the “tanker” Hercules was finally able to deal with its instruments and went to the rendezvous point) and get to Falklands.

It was this four that attacked the newly arrived frigate "Antiloup", hitting it with two bombs (both did not explode), but lost one aircraft. The Skyhawk went so low over the attacked frigate that it caught on its mast and began to fall, and at the very water it was hit by a rocket “Sea Wolfe” from the “Broadside”.

The following nine Daggers and the covering 4s of the Mirage were supposed to finish off Antiloupe, but did not achieve anything at all - one Dagger returned for technical reasons, the other two vehicles searched the area, but the downed frigate had already left. . On departure, these aircraft were intercepted by the Sea Harriers, and one Dagger was shot down. The rest, having learned about the presence of "Harriers" in the air, did not dare to tempt fate and retreated. And only the last troop of Daggers, directed (for the first time for the operation) to bomb the ground forces of the British, brought it to the end - despite the intense anti-aircraft fire, the air strike was struck and the aircraft returned to the air base without incurring any losses. In addition, two Super Endandars conducted a search for British aircraft carriers - there was no one to direct them, so the Argentines did not hesitate to turn on board radars from time to time, but they didn’t find anyone. The British responded with two air attacks. In the first of them, the Harriers stormed the helicopter pad and destroyed the 3 helicopters located on it, and then using the four Harriers that once again hit the Stanley airfield. But still on approaching, one Sea Harrier exploded over the sea for an unknown reason. Pilot searched all night, but to no avail.

In general, nothing like 21 may have happened, the Argentines behaved extremely carefully. However, this did not save the British from casualties - already at night, while trying to demine the bombs that had fallen into AntiLoup, one of them exploded. The position of the frigate became critical, the crew had to be evacuated, the detonated ammunition and the frigate broke, sank. The result of the day - the Argentinean 40 sorties (of course, we are talking only about fighters and attack aircraft), the only (true - effective) attack and one interception of the Dagger trio is on the way out. The Argentines lost the Dagger, the Skyhawk and three helicopters, the British lost the frigate AntiLoup and Sea Harrier.



Neither 22, nor 23 in May, the Argentines could not create pressure on the British, similar to the fact that they exerted 21 in May, but the British had no special reason for joy. When attempting to fire an unidentified aerial target, the Sea Dart failed on Coventry. The “Sea Wolf” air defense missile system at Broadsworth, on which so many hopes were pinned, demonstrated an amazing programming error - he perceived only those planes that flew directly to the air defense frigate as a threat. If the Daggers or Skyhawks attacked a nearby ship, flying past the Broadsworth, then Sea Wolfe categorically refused to see the target as a threat, and its fire control system would take the Argentines to escort. However, this problem was quickly resolved.

In general, the pendulum swung appreciably towards Britain - despite the losses suffered by warships, the British transports continued to unload without any interference. As a result of suitable reinforcements, the number of escort ships even increased. The Marine Corps deployed its Rapier air defense missile system, but more importantly, the British equipped anti-aircraft observation posts on Mount Sussex, which should help detect enemy planes in a timely manner.

The Argentines were aware that three days had passed, but they did not succeed in attacking the warships of the escort and could not inflict losses unacceptable for the British. And because of May 24 they switched to British transports.

However, the 24 in May, fighting in the air began the British, attacking the airfield of Port Stanley. " In 09.35, C-Harriers, dropping shrapnel bombs to anti-aircraft artillery positions, managed to disorganize Argentines' air defense for some time, and then the four “Harrier GR.3” threw a dozen time bombs on runways and buildings. This blow (according to the same scheme) was repeated twice more, in 12.50 and 14.55 - as a result, the airfield was out of action for six hours, and two light attack aircraft were destroyed on the ground.

But the Argentine Air Forces were preparing to give a crushing answer. The first blow should have been inflicted by 11 Skyhawks, operating in two groups of 6 and 5 planes, respectively. Six cars, traditionally “having lost” one (technical reasons!) Along the road, five of us went to the British from the southeast. Observers from Mount Sussex spotted them, anti-aircraft fire fell on them, but Sea Harriers failed to bring in and the "magnificent five" hit the transport landing ships Sir Lancelot, Sir Galahed and Sir Bidiver. Of course, all three bombs did not explode, but still a fire broke out at Lancelot. No Skyhawk was shot down, everyone returned to the airfield.



Approaching the second five "Skyhawks", which were supposed to strike from the north, found the duty destroyer "Coventry", immediately gave a target designation to the air patrol. The Skyhawks were intercepted and were forced to retire - the British this time were not able to shoot down a single aircraft, however the attack was completely disrupted. The second wave was to consist of 10 "Daggers", operating in two groups. The first, the four Daggers, attacked from the southeast, bombed Sir Bidiver, but could not hit it. Not one Dagger was shot down, but still two of them were badly damaged by anti-aircraft fire. Already on departure, the Argentines tried to catch up with the English fighter, but, of course, unsuccessfully - using their superiority in speed, the Daggers easily broke away from him. The second detachment consisted of two links of three cars. The first link broke through to the British ships, attacked Fort Austin, Stromness and Norland, and then another fuel depot on the shore. They were fired at by SAMs and artillery from ships, the Bloupips and the Rapiers of the Marine Corps, all three aircraft were damaged, but they were all still able to return home.

The second link was discovered by the Coventry and completely destroyed by the Sea Harrier air patrol that it had directed.
“The last chord” on that day was the raid of three Skyhocks, which bombed the Arrow frigate, which (according to the British data) did not receive any damage, which cannot be said of the planes attacking it. All three cars managed to lie on the opposite course, but one of the Skyhawks crashed into the sea - the pilot was killed. The other two cars were waiting for the same fate, each of them was dragged by a plume of fuel from punched tanks, but ... the Argentines made a non-standard move and sent the C-130 “flying tanker” “Hercules” to the rescue. He docked with both cars, and so, continuously supplying fuel to the mutilated Skyhawks, the three of them were able to reach the airfield.

So ended that day. Argentine aviation made the entire 24 aircraft, of the six attacking groups of aircraft, the British VTOL aircraft managed to intercept only two, but in both cases the attacks were completely disrupted. This, first of all, was a merit of the 42 / 22 patrol - Coventry and Broadsward, located in a good place, which allowed the British to learn about the groups of planes attacking from the north and direct their air patrols on them. The British did not lose a single ship, but three amphibious vehicles were damaged, but the Argentines lost three Daggers, Skyhawks, and also 2 Daggers and 2 Skyhawks were severely damaged and could hardly participate in the further battle.

Rear Admiral Woodworth saw that, the Argentines could not keep up the pace they had taken on 21 May. He also believed that 21-24 was able to destroy at least 24 airplanes and, moreover, a certain amount of damage was severely damaged. Therefore, he believed that he won in this war of attrition and that he destroys the forces of the enemy faster than they destroy his ships. In addition, the British were regularly approached by new destroyers and frigates and were still expected (in those days, the destroyers Bristol and Cardiff joined the 317 operational unit, as well as four frigates, but the author of the above ships did not get to 25 in May he knows that the frigate Avenger has most certainly arrived, but the Argentines had nowhere to wait for reinforcements. And the commander of the 317 connection looked into the future with optimism.

But he also saw that, despite the smaller number of sorties and attacks, the Argentines were again fighting extremely bravely (22 and especially 23 in May their determination to fight seemed to be greatly shaken). In addition, the British commander knew that the next day, 25 May, is celebrated by Argentina as the greatest national holiday, Independence Day. Therefore, one should expect a climax: the Argentines are likely to throw into the battle everything they can and, perhaps, their fleet will do the same.

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)
"Harriers" in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 3)
"Harriers" in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 4)
"Harriers" in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 5)
254 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 31 May 2016 07: 01
    +12
    Substantial and detailed cycle. I read with pleasure. Thanks Andrew. opened a lot for me.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 31 May 2016 08: 56
      +5
      I agree to all 100. Very interesting about the war for the Falklands-Maldives.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 11: 59
      +6
      Thanks for the kind words.
      Quote: Volga Cossack
      opened a lot for me.

      I myself discovered a lot of new things during the work on this cycle :)
    3. Malkor
      Malkor 31 May 2016 16: 46
      +2
      I read every article with pleasure and look forward to the next. Many thanks to the author. A graphomaniac Kaptsov should be worth learning from.
  2. Leto
    Leto 31 May 2016 09: 06
    +4
    I have a question, why did the Argentine Air Force command knowing that the bomb detonators did not fire did not take any measures to identify the causes and correct them?
    1. avt
      avt 31 May 2016 09: 38
      +7
      Quote: Leto
      , why did the Argentine Air Force command knowing that the bomb detonators did not fire did not take any measures to identify the causes and correct them?

      Tango dancers. It’s an unusual time ... Dolby’s people by nature. A legendary saying goes perfectly well - a general is a stupid colonel. They started a war on the principle of a sudden slip through. Without any real strategic planning. Well, right before they should to put into service the submarines, frigates and additional parties of the Exosets, that is, in fact, to rearm the invading forces. Even the Italians joined the embargo on the supply of modern weapons. And you want their leadership to REDUCE before checking the technical condition of the material part! laughing They didn’t really plan the operation. By and large, on the islands, well, besides the fact that conscripts were not trained there, not only fighting, but survive in the harsh climatic conditions, they also could not organize life support by current - they simply went hungry and froze. As a result, they gave up. Well, that’s it - in brief, without going into details such as organizing instrumental and electronic reconnaissance, rather than visual observation of shaved from passing passenger planes. However, the author in the article deals with these problems, which themselves somehow characterize the professional level of the highest command staff of Argentina.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 09: 58
        +2
        And how do you know all this? In cold Patagonia, Argentines lived before this for 200 years.
        Tango also needs to be able to dance. They simply did not take into account some details and the fact that the British also play non-American football.
        1. avt
          avt 31 May 2016 10: 17
          +2
          Quote: Simpsonian
          And how do you know all this?

          From there.
          Quote: Simpsonian
          In cold Patagonia, Argentines lived before this for 200 years.

          Well, at least read the author's cycle of articles ALL, that's not straight from 6, but 1 part carefully, if Aki Az is sinful, you don't want to learn anything from the above. Andrey paid attention to this too.
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Tango also needs to be able to dance

          laughing Well, what am I talking about !? Able and as the war showed, better shaved.
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Just didn’t take into account some details

          wassat laughing
          Quote: voyaka uh
          This is usually done in normal armies.

          But here in Israel, the tango generals dance worse than the Argentinean ones. Because they do garbage instead of dancing. Well, like
          Quote: voyaka uh
          If they had conducted practical exercises before the war on
          bombing, using bombs from their depots,

          in vain attempts
          Quote: voyaka uh
          they would know about the problem and set up the fuses.

          inspections of materiel and coordination of combat units wassat Well, you don’t know that tango gives combat training more benefits, or
          Quote: Simpsonian
          and the fact that the British also play non-American football.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 31 May 2016 14: 21
            +2
            Who would doubt that you won't write about "some details" either ...
      2. the most important
        the most important 31 May 2016 21: 49
        +1
        Quote: avt
        They started a war by the principle - and suddenly it will slip through.

        d.Bily, bl ... complete feeling that two younger schoolchildren, whose mothers regularly call to eat at home, are fighting. almost ready allowance how not to fight ...
      3. yehat
        yehat 1 June 2016 12: 22
        0
        I do not agree with what you said. Argentines are scary individualists. Even in football they have not a team, but 10 self-sufficient groups and a goalkeeper
        And in the army they do the same. Everyone does something different.
        Hence, a bunch of all sorts of ridiculous no connections. This is not foolishness, each of them can do his job very well. For example, one will lay a telephone network cable, the second will dig a trench and a cable in the same place and lay pipes there. Everyone will do their job at 5. But this will not help the phone.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 May 2016 10: 02
      +11
      If they had conducted practical exercises before the war on
      bombing, using bombs from their depots,
      they would know about the problem and set up the fuses.
      This is usually done in normal armies.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 31 May 2016 11: 35
        +5
        Quote: voyaka uh
        If they had conducted practical exercises before the war on
        bombing, using bombs from their depots,
        they would know about the problem and set up the fuses.
        This is usually done in normal armies.

        Бггг ... I immediately remember our fleet before the RYAV - how the admirals "under the spitz" refused to test new shells.
        The program of preliminary experiments was presented by the magazine of the Committee on Artillery on March 4, 1897 No. 24, the Head of the Ministry of the Sea, Vice Admiral Tyrtov, who put forward the resolution: “I agree, but in accordance with the funds available for this. Report to the General Directorate. ”
        By relationship No. 9 of April 1897, 6812, the General Directorate of Shipbuilding and Supply informed the Committee that the alleged preliminary experiments would cause an expense of up to 70000 rubles; that on the economic side, the very experiments are no longer of great importance, since the shells required for the ships were made or ordered almost to the full combat set; that it considers it possible to allow the production of experiments only in passing when testing shells, plates, etc. on current gross orders, and that these considerations are approved by the Managing Ministry.
        Such a decision, in essence, was tantamount to a complete refusal of experiments, since the conclusion of average results and any conclusions from single shots fired at different indefinite times and under different conditions would inevitably be delayed for many years, which actually happened .
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        31 May 2016 12: 08
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        This is usually done in normal armies

        Yes. In normal :)))
      3. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 14: 10
        +1
        Such use was not intended. Under normal exploded.
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. yehat
        yehat 1 June 2016 12: 29
        0
        and here you missed something.
        part of the pilots - mercenaries. they do not need teachings. They need the most boring service.
        add to this budget constraints, alienation in relationships and very weak expectations of a real blood bath.
        Any hint of objection to the teachings ruined them automatically
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 12: 05
      +6
      Quote: Leto
      why did the Argentine Air Force command knowing that the bomb detonators did not fire did not take any measures to identify the causes and correct them?

      This is really a question. Did the Argentinean command know about this? We didn’t know the whole REV about our shells that didn’t really explode. When the Americans questioned the sailors who fought at Ulsan (where the cruisers of the Vladivostok detachment lashed with Kamimura), the sailors sincerely believed that the Americans were interested, because they were struck by the effectiveness of our shells. Although in fact they were impressed by their insignificance.
      The attacks were carried out in conditions of poor visibility, there was not much time to consider / study how and where the air bombs hit, so it is not entirely clear when the Argentines learned about their problems.
      I must say one more thing: Rear Admiral Woodworth and his officers were beside themselves when the Air Force announced to the whole world that Argentinean bombs did not explode. After all, such information could tell the Argentines that something is wrong with their weapons.
  3. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 31 May 2016 09: 52
    +2
    Before the word VTOL aircraft would be nice to write in addition to "British" "subsonic". They did not take off vertically. The frivolous Pukara won the Argentine's only aerial victory in that war, shooting down a helicopter.
    The tightly covered dock ships with the Marine Corps were not hit, in which the death toll would immediately go to hundreds.
    F-4K generally could not conduct maneuverable battles with Mirages. They were supposed to intercept Tu-16s marching without fighter cover in the North Atlantic.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 31 May 2016 11: 42
      +3
      And why is the F-4K just melee when gaining air supremacy over the Falkland Islands and providing air defense landing?
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 14: 23
        0
        No need - you can remove the guns from them. Then that they would not be asked, as in Vietnam.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 12: 14
      +4
      Quote: Simpsonian
      The tightly covered docks with the Marine Corps were not hit, in which the death toll would immediately go to hundreds

      This is true, fortunately, the Argentines (and it is not clear on purpose or by accident) the first days of the fighting were attacked by warships.
      Quote: Simpsonian
      F-4K generally could not conduct maneuverable battles with Mirages.

      But the Sea Harriers did not lead them.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 14: 30
        +1
        Landing ship docks are also military. Their Harrier and cherished. The remaining guard ships were left at the mercy of their air defense.
      2. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 14: 42
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But the Sea Harriers did not lead them.

        see earlier about Ardiles popcorn ...
      3. The comment was deleted.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          31 May 2016 14: 59
          +2
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Landing ship docks are also military. Their Harrier and cherished. The remaining guard ships were left at the mercy of their air defense.

          And Rear Admiral Woodworth did not know about this. But you, of course, know better than some sort of commander of the British operational unit :)
          Quote: Simpsonian
          see earlier about Ardiles popcorn ...

          There is nothing to look at.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 31 May 2016 15: 32
            0
            Who if he did not know about it.

            Well, nothing, so nothing ... When the Mirages descend to tail and shoot infrared rockets in the back hemisphere, but the British suddenly manage to turn around before them, then this is also about nothing.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              31 May 2016 17: 33
              +3
              Quote: Simpsonian
              Who if he did not know about it.

              But in his memoirs, he carefully concealed this fact, and wrote exactly the opposite :)))
              Quote: Simpsonian
              Well, nothing, so nothing ... When the Mirages descend to tail and shoot infrared rockets in the back hemisphere, but the British suddenly manage to turn around before them, then this is also about nothing.

              Naturally - about nothing. Because in the case you described, the British spotted the Argentines as much as 25 km, from where it’s not like a combat aircraft, you can turn around Mriya twenty times :)
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 31 May 2016 18: 20
                -1
                Unbelief ... Or the deceased wanted to play a trick on you.

                When they are reduced with the expectation of falling into the tail, they take into account the probability of the enemy braking so as not to slip (not a dynamic one that they are not aware of), and doing so so that the enemy at best has time to start the lapel turning into a bend, remaining at a disadvantage, but not have time to turn around at 180 degrees, otherwise it’s just not a tail shot, but a dangerous loss of height advantage ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  31 May 2016 22: 34
                  +1
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  Unbelief ... Or the deceased wanted to play a trick on you.

                  The deceased announced the creation of a no-fly zone in a square of 10 by 10 miles and a height of 3 km, above the landing area so that the Harriers would not fall under friendly fire, and the air defense calculations would not be soared, whether it was their own plane or not. Accordingly, VTOL aircraft were supposed to cover this square, not flying into it, but destroying aircraft trying to approach the landing zone
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  When they are reduced with the expectation of entering the tail, they take into account the probability of braking by the enemy so as not to slip

                  But that was not the case. A couple of Mirages are flying, they are given the coordinates of two VTOL aircraft. Mirages are going to converge, there is no talk of any "drops, with the expectation of going into the tail", they are only approaching, and at this stage, the Harriers spot them from a distance of 25 to them.
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 31 May 2016 23: 35
                    0
                    The deceased sent even refueling patrols from Hermes to defend the Invincible to protect the dock ships and the bridgehead, leaving him only with an air defense cover.

                    Then the Mirages are fired at one semi-active rocket, just as they did not hit the last time, they begin to walk in circles and then make the wrong decision to descend, approaching the tail ...
              2. yehat
                yehat 1 June 2016 12: 37
                +1
                I think the mirage with a gentle dive could accelerate to 1600 mph
                it takes 20 seconds to turn around to the harrier
                those. the mirage during this time managed to fly 1600 / (60 * 3) = 17-18 km
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 1 June 2016 22: 28
                  0
                  the decline for tailing was half-loop since the coup after mirages missed the English behind
                  before that they fired at them on the opposite courses with radar missiles, from which the British dodged,
                  before the decline, for a while, each couple walked at their own favorable height.
                  last time after such a shelling mirages just went to base
                  the same pair of Argentines on the same day in the morning had the same unsuccessful attack and departure to the base
                  For the battle with IR missiles, there are Daggers, which are cheaper than Mirages and were better suited for this.
      4. Tigr
        Tigr 1 June 2016 15: 34
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        This is true, fortunately, the Argentines (and it is not clear on purpose or by accident) the first days of the fighting were attacked by warships.


        Here's what Sandy is quoting about this:

        Although I admit that when you fly low over water at a speed of five hundred knots, having a split second after rising above a hill or bending around the cape to make a decision, it naturally tempts to attack the first ship discovered. Thoughts and doubts will lead you to fly over it before making a decision. And you won’t want to return to make a second call, because this time the enemy will be ready to meet you ... This, I believe, explains the fact that on May 21 they severely beat our escort ships, and not transports with troops.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 June 2016 21: 42
          0
          Quote: Tigr
          Here's what Sandy is quoting about this:

          Yes, but this is only an assumption. There is no exact data on what orders the pilots received.
        2. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 1 June 2016 23: 29
          0
          In particular, therefore, he arranged his ships in a similar manner.
  4. fsb_buzuk
    fsb_buzuk 31 May 2016 09: 57
    +4
    Andrey, many thanks for the interesting series of articles !!!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 12: 25
      +2
      Huge please :) hi
  5. Operator
    Operator 31 May 2016 10: 39
    +4
    An error in the article regarding the analysis of air battles - Mirages and Daggers broke away from the Harriers in catch-up courses not at the expense of speeds (for this, the Argentines would need to turn on the afterburner and sharply reduce their flight range, risking not flying to the base), but at the expense of the miserable range Harrier - if they got involved in catch-up, they would simply fall into the ocean on the way back.

    The Harriers faced the same problem of low fuel reserves when they tried to use them as air defense fighters - VTOL aircraft could not continuously barrage near the British landing zone and were forced to watch on deck of aircraft carriers. And this clearly increased the response time of the Harriers to the Argentine attacks of landing ships located at a distance from aircraft carriers

    Mast guarding aircraft, cho.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 31 May 2016 11: 40
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      An error in the article regarding the analysis of air battles - Mirages and Daggers broke away from the Harriers in catch-up courses not at the expense of speed (for this, the Argentines would need to turn on the afterburner and sharply reduce their flight range, risking not reaching the base), but due to the meager range of the Harriers - if they got involved in catching up, they would simply fall into the ocean on the way back.

      Hmmm ... it turns out that the classic fighters flying from the continent actually had the maximum fuel range, and the KVVP vehicles based near the battlefield didn’t? However... belay
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 15: 38
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        However ... belay

        The Argentines flew whenever they wanted, without first informing the British, therefore the air cover patrols had to be kept in the air constantly and spent fuel cutting circles in predetermined areas.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 31 May 2016 16: 44
          0
          Quote: Simpsonian
          The Argentines flew whenever they wanted, without first informing the British, therefore the air cover patrols had to be kept in the air constantly and spent fuel cutting circles in predetermined areas.

          By the way, a good argument for the debate about the effectiveness of AB without AWACS. smile
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 31 May 2016 17: 13
            +2
            They will only help to protect the AV itself from a sudden blow, but no more. Himself Sentry / Hawkai is a "sentry" who is almost always a bomber. The AUG does not have the ability to constantly keep almost all of its air wing around it.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              31 May 2016 17: 30
              0
              Quote: Simpsonian
              Himself Sentry / Hawkeye is a "sentry" who is almost always a bomber

              wassat Have you thought of this yourself, or who suggested? Have you read anything about air patrol tactics?
              Quote: Simpsonian
              AUG has no opportunity to constantly keep almost all of its air wing around it.

              Why is this still?
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 31 May 2016 18: 30
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Why is this still?

                And so as not to be shot down ...
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 31 May 2016 17: 50
              0
              Quote: Simpsonian
              They will only help to protect the AV itself from a sudden blow, but no more. Himself Sentry / Hawkai is a "sentry" who is almost always a bomber. The AUG does not have the ability to constantly keep almost all of its air wing around it.

              Why keep? The task of the "sentry" is to hang behind the already deployed CAP and detect in advance the enemy aircraft coming to the ship, thus giving time to raise reserves and concentrate the forces already in the air. In the meantime, the AB shoots the "hornets" from its catapults, the "Hawkeye" must leave the line of attack under the umbrella of its air defense.
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 31 May 2016 18: 33
                0
                He is too slow and will not leave. Even the transonic Boeing-707 did not leave the Syrians.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 31 May 2016 19: 06
                  +1
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian NO Today, 18:33 ↑ New

                  He is too slow and will not leave.

                  Who will not leave? The Hawkeye spins 50-100 miles behind the forward patrol. Until the planes discovered by him reach the launch line of the RVV, they will already have someone to do other than AWACS.
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 31 May 2016 19: 36
                    0
                    From the attacking group to remove it in the same 15 cars. And then when the aircraft lifted from the AV fly there, no one will be there.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      31 May 2016 20: 00
                      +1
                      Quote: Simpsonian
                      From the attacking group to remove it in the same 15 cars. And then when the aircraft lifted from the AV fly there, no one will be there.

                      Kindergarten...
                      An air patrol consists of 1 AWACS + 1 EW aircraft + 2 or 4 fighters, depending on how serious the air threat is. At the same time (surprise-surprise!) The main role in reconnaissance is played by ... an electronic warfare aircraft, which in passive mode listens to the air in anticipation. The AWAC in search mode either does not work at all or periodically and briefly cuts its radar to illuminate the situation.
                      Therefore, in order to find a DRLO patrol you MUST have a DRLO plane (which essentially imposes restrictions on the speed of the group), and even such a plane, but if it comes with a constantly on radar, then the EW patrol plane will draw an enemy DRLO long before how he will be able to see our patrol with his radar. And then - the evasion maneuver (we don’t need to get close to the enemy AWACS) and the fighter’s lift into the air, and 15 aircraft do it in 15 minutes :))
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 31 May 2016 20: 29
                        0
                        The main aircraft in the AUG air patrol is always the AWACS aircraft, since its task is to detect within the radio horizon любые aircraft, not just radio-emitting ones.

                        According to the degree of danger to the ASG, the first place is occupied by anti-ship cruise missiles, which, if they radiate, are only in the face of the RCC leader and then only in the direct visibility of the ASG from a low altitude at a distance of about 40-60 km or several minutes of approach.

                        Relying on RTR aircraft data in this case will be too late.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        31 May 2016 20: 55
                        +1
                        Quote: Operator
                        The main aircraft in the AUG air patrol is always the AWACS aircraft, since its task is to detect any aircraft, not just radio-emitting ones, within the radio horizon.

                        Take the trouble to learn the tactics of American air patrols. I understand that fantasizing yourself is much more interesting, but it would not hurt to find out how this actually happens.
                        Quote: Operator
                        According to the degree of danger to the ASG, the first place is occupied by anti-ship cruise missiles, which, if they radiate, are only in the face of the RCC leader and then only in the direct visibility of the ASG from a low altitude at a distance of about 40-60 km or several minutes of approach.

                        In the world lovingly invented by you - absolutely. Well, on the sinful planet Earth, everything is a little different. reconnaissance means, which make it possible to determine its current location, without which the strike of the Kyrgyz Republic is impossible, constitute the main threat of AOG. Alas, the states do not share your opinion on the omnipotence of ZGRLS :) Therefore (again, a surprise!) It is not often used for reconnaissance of early warning systems at all - EW aircraft alone.
                        RCCs cut their radars when they enter the area where the AUG is likely to be located, but not within sight. At the same time, RCCs are relatively easily detected by modern detection tools (in the infrared range) because you can’t hide the engine’s work.
                      3. Operator
                        Operator 31 May 2016 21: 26
                        -3
                        RCCs fly their legal 1600 km in two hours, during this time AUG, God forbid, to be able to crawl to 100 km from where it was discovered at the time of the launch of RCC. Therefore, the RCC leader begins to wool the space of its active WGS no earlier than it flies up to the specified distance to the calculated point.

                        In this case, the calculated point before the launch of the RCC on the carrier is determined taking into account the direction of the AUG movement, therefore the actual distance to the AUG at the moment of switching on the RGSN of the RCC leader is no more than 60 km. Which also corresponds to the value of the radio horizon from the marching flight altitude of the RCC.

                        There is no need to cast a shadow on the fence about the detection range of subsonic RCC in the infrared from the front of the front hemisphere - the nozzle of a weak DDR rocket shines backward in flight and not forward, so the detection distance is clearly less than 60 km and even then in simple weather conditions.

                        If there is cloudiness in the area where AOG is located, the detection range of subsonic RCC in the infrared range will be reduced to a few km or less than one minute of flight time.

                        In other words, the air defense AUG, forced to fight the anti-ship missiles, but built "often" (C) on the detection of air targets by means of electronic and optical reconnaissance, will be similar in its capabilities exactly to the air defense of the AUG of the WWII period.

                        But, as a historian, you naturally know better laughing
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        31 May 2016 22: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Operator
                        RCCs fly their rightful 1600 km in two hours

                        The Russian Federation has no anti-ship missiles flying 1600 km :))
                        Quote: Operator
                        during this time AUG, God forbid, to be able to crawl 100 km from where it was discovered at the time of the launch of the RCC.

                        At present, the Russian Federation does not have the means capable of tracking the AOG with the accuracy required for issuing a control at similar ranges (i.e., the current position in space / course / speed). This time. The second - let’s imagine for a second that there are such funds - here the very ZGRLS has acquired super-capabilities. Well, only you with your engineering education can consider that not a minute will pass between target detection and missile launch :)
                        Quote: Operator
                        There is no need to cast a shadow on the fence about the detection of subsonic RCC in the infrared from the front hemisphere - the nozzle of its weak engine shines backward in flight and not forward, so the detection distance is clearly less than 60 km, and even then in simple weather conditions.

                        But in the USA they don’t know about it, so their IR managed to see ballistic missiles from 1300 km.
                        Quote: Operator
                        If there is cloudiness in the area where AOG is located, the detection range of subsonic RCC in the infrared will be reduced to a few km or less than one minute of flight time

                        And taking into account what their plane detects, patrolling at a distance of 300 to 600 km to the aircraft carrier, taking into account the fact that a flying subsonic anti-ship missile system today is a fairly simple target for any more or less modern missile launcher (shoot them even from air cannons ) given the fact that aircraft carriers in the same Atlantic and off the coast of Norway will be guarded by reconnaissance aircraft from the coast (just the detection radius at Sentry inspires) and a massive salvo can be spotted even before an air patrol with AB sees it, taking into account that that the start of a dozen fighters with 4-6 SD each can be completed in less than 15 minutes, taking into account the fact that the usual AGSN is quite easily knocked out by electronic warfare means and there is a lot of everything else "taking into account" - your calculations are worth nothing
                        Quote: Operator
                        But, as a historian, you naturally know better

                        I am not a historian. And yes, of course I know better.
                      5. Operator
                        Operator 31 May 2016 23: 06
                        0
                        Of course, of course, Russia does not have cruise missiles flying over a range of over 300 km, only the Club, and even that for export laughing
                        Have you finally seen the existence of the ZG radar "Container" (a couple more articles and you admit the existence of a two-hop mode of coverage of this radar with a surface target detection range of 6000 km).
                        But I did not understand your skepticism about the speed of targeting transmission from the radar to the carrier of anti-ship cruise missiles - a submarine or surface ship. It takes less than one minute to transmit four digits (media code, launch command code, target longitude and latitude). The time to prepare the launch of the anti-ship missiles is also calculated in minutes. In terms of the distance of the AUG, this will amount to several km (i.e., within the limits of detection accuracy).

                        I remind you that we are discussing the visibility range in the front hemisphere in the infrared range of a cruise missile glider (including under the clouds), rather than the torch of a ballistic missile rocket engine above the clouds.

                        How many deck-based optical reconnaissance aircraft need to be placed along the perimeter of an AUG order at a distance from 300 to 600 km from an aircraft carrier in order to detect subsonic anti-ship missiles regardless of weather conditions: the answer is from 60 to 120 units.

                        In the North Atlantic and especially off the coast of Norway, the American ACG may have an adversary of only one nationality - Russian. And Russia did not guarantee anyone that the retaliatory strike would be exclusively conventional, especially against the AUG. On the contrary, the current military doctrine of the Russian Federation speaks of the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against an aggressor using conventional weapons.

                        Therefore, in response to Sentry and their ilk, a layered attack will be used with a leading detonation of a tactical 100-kt nuclear charge in the upper atmosphere (30-40 km above sea surface) delivered by a ballistic missile. The striking factor of such an explosion is the EMP, therefore, the QUO is quite enough within 1 km from the center of the order. The explosion itself is extremely humane in its consequences - not a single sailor or pilot will suffer, though all the antennas of radars and radio transmitters, unshielded electronic and electrical devices of the AUG (including electromagnetic catapults) will fail (catapults, electrics and electronics forever, the antennas of radars and radio transmitters will require a reboot within 15-30 minutes).

                        The only possible victims are aircraft pilots in the air, and even then only those whose electronics are not shielded (but the question is with the manufacturers Hornets, Hokaev and Sentry).

                        Guaranteed victims of a blinded and incapacitated AUG (in terms of an aircraft carrier with electromagnetic catapults) will appear only after a strike of the second echelon of a missile attack - an anti-ship missile with conventional warheads (for example).

                        And so yes - my "calculations" do not cost anything, you know better laughing
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        31 May 2016 23: 28
                        +1
                        Quote: Operator
                        Have you finally seen the existence of the ZG radar "Container"

                        I saw him a long time ago. But what has not yet been seen - so is his ability to give TsU for RCC :)))
                        Quote: Operator
                        But I did not understand your skepticism about the speed of targeting transmission from the radar to the carrier of anti-ship cruise missiles - a submarine or surface ship. It takes less than one minute to transmit four digits (media code, launch command code, target longitude and latitude)

                        Yes, I didn’t doubt :))) You, I feel so, will soon have anti-ship missiles directly with ZGRLS and will direct them, with direct transmission to the rocket :)))
                        Quote: Operator
                        I remind you that we are discussing the visibility range in the front hemisphere in the infrared range of a cruise missile glider (including under the clouds), rather than the torch of a ballistic missile rocket engine above the clouds.

                        not a glider, but a cruise missile engine
                        Quote: Operator
                        How many decked optical reconnaissance aircraft need to be placed around the perimeter of an AUG warrant at a distance of 300 to 600 km from an aircraft carrier

                        One, maximum two in a menacing direction
                        Quote: Operator
                        Therefore, in response to Sentry and others like them, an echeloned attack with a leading detonation of a tactical 100-kt nuclear charge in the upper atmosphere will be used by AOG

                        Maybe. But this attack will have to be very massive, because we don’t have any ballistic missiles capable of hitting moving targets (work was stopped in the last century due to futility), and it can do the AN / SPY-1 missile defense functions so that a solitary ballista, even if it can be aimed at AUG with some kind of stocking, the SM-3 will be shot down. And to arrange a ballistic mass launch ... this is no longer limited, but a full-scale nuclear war, because the mass ballist launch can only be interpreted by the United States. This is an uninteresting option.
                      7. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 23: 39
                        0
                        Because of the contract beneficial as always only the United States.
                        It turns out that with SM-3 and no SDI is needed ...
                      8. The comment was deleted.
                      9. Operator
                        Operator 1 June 2016 13: 53
                        -1
                        In a subsonic cruise missile in the IR range, only the engine nozzle shines. It is not visible to the attacked. The IR glider in the IR range is no more distinguishable than that visible with the human eye.

                        When launching anti-ship missiles from a submarine, all azimuths are threatening for the ACG.

                        The maximum detection distance of surface targets using the ZG radar is 6000 km, the flight range of the Rubezh ICBM is about 5500 km, the flight time is about 20 minutes, and the AUG travel distance is about 17 km. The task of the ICBM warhead with a megaton charge (EMP generator) is to get into the center of a circle with a radius of 17 km with a KVO 0,5 km and explode at an altitude of 40 km. For this, no other BB homing system is needed, except for the standard astro-inertial one.

                        Outside the atmosphere, Russian and Chinese warheads fly surrounded by false targets, while descending in the atmosphere they maneuver. SM-3 missiles can continue to train on cats - not covered by false targets and not maneuvering simulators of Iranian and North Korean BBs.
                    2. yehat
                      yehat 1 June 2016 12: 45
                      0
                      probably this is normal now, but the stronger the RF will be, the more carefully you need to do it
                    3. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 1 June 2016 21: 29
                      +1
                      There are non-nuclear EMI ammunition that is exported by Russia around the world.
                    4. Operator
                      Operator 2 June 2016 00: 26
                      -1
                      Quite true, but in order to blind the radars of the entire AUG immediately, including the radar of aircraft within a radius of 300-400 km, a megaton warhead is required.

                      The conventional EMR explosive generator in the cruise missile form factor is good for targeting the failure of specific ground-based AWACS aircraft, which can be located up to 1000 km from the ACG along the ASR flight path.
                    5. yehat
                      yehat 2 June 2016 09: 46
                      0
                      in order to blind the radars of the entire aug, you just need to start the EMP source closer. what kind of megatons ???
                    6. Operator
                      Operator 2 June 2016 11: 10
                      -1
                      In order to start the EMP source closer, it is necessary to overcome the AUG air defense, but what for is it necessary?
                  2. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 3 June 2016 18: 33
                    0
                    even one for each ship is not much
              2. Operator
                Operator 2 June 2016 00: 21
                0
                "I will hit hard, but carefully" (C)
        2. alexmach
          alexmach 1 June 2016 22: 46
          0
          Sorry, but the subsonic anti-ship missile flying to the target for 2 hours on the ships and especially not shoot, only for stationary targets on the ground
        3. Operator
          Operator 2 June 2016 00: 30
          -1
          Within two hours of the RCC’s flight, the AUG will be able to move away from the detection area by no more than 100 km — the range of the radar seeker of the RCC leader.
        4. yehat
          yehat 2 June 2016 09: 50
          0
          For example, the missiles will even find the target, but due to the shift in the order, the missiles will have to break through at least 70 km of air defense operating at full capacity. Considering that you have subsonic harpoon-type missiles, their survivability is low and a couple of "Arlie Berks" will be able to knock down a swarm of PKO missiles of almost any size.
        5. Operator
          Operator 2 June 2016 11: 11
          -1
          For cutting down the AUG air defense before the RCC approaches, the ICBM combat unit with a megaton charge is responsible.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 31 May 2016 20: 51
    0
    AWAC flies emits and gives out its position. A pair or link cannot withstand 15 aircraft.
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    31 May 2016 20: 59
    0
    Quote: Simpsonian
    AWAC flies emits and gives out its position.

    AWAC flies and DOES NOT emit :) Why - indicated above :))) I advise you to put up with this - well, or just read the tactics of the American air patrols, at one time it was laid out in the ZVO very thoroughly
  10. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 31 May 2016 21: 47
    0
    Maybe some kind of "ambush" AWACS, but completely passive AWACS have not yet been invented.
  11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    31 May 2016 22: 15
    +1
    Quote: Simpsonian
    Maybe some kind of "ambush" AWACS

    Yes, this is not the point, it is clear that if the radar is turned on, it will emit. But Americans primarily rely on passive detection, and complement it with active ones when necessary. Therefore, just like that, you can’t take AWACS. This does not mean that he is an unkillable child prodigy; everything can be killed, but he is not at all a suicide bomber and it’s hard to fight against them
  12. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 31 May 2016 23: 21
    0
    Passive detection is radio intelligence and not AWACS.
    It’s hard to fight against them when the fleet is in the fleet and the other fleet does not have them.
    The English DRLO Gannet at the islands would be cut even faster than it was with the American at the Syrians a year later.
  13. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 31 May 2016 23: 21
    0
    Passive detection is radio intelligence and not AWACS.
    It’s hard to fight against them when the fleet is in the fleet and the other fleet does not have them.
    The English DRLO Gannet at the islands would be cut even faster than it was with the American at the Syrians a year later.
  14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    31 May 2016 23: 31
    0
    Quote: Simpsonian
    Passive detection is radio intelligence and not AWACS.

    For this, an EW aircraft is attached to the air patrol. In a number of situations, only EW is attached, without AWACS.
  15. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 31 May 2016 23: 47
    0
    Then this is not a DRLO patrol at all, but an RE-spy.
    And how will he detect attacking planes going to the aircraft carrier area if they also go, and how smart people don’t shine with radars?

    EW is necessary in order to interfere with the needs of the AWACS aircraft and its escort.
  16. yehat
    yehat 2 June 2016 09: 53
    0
    planes attacking without locators are nonsense, because they are much more vulnerable than ships in the warrant. A little gape and immediately receive.
    In addition, if they meet with an air patrol, then a distance close to the use of weapons and the radar is necessary for target designation.
  17. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 3 June 2016 18: 37
    0
    With a third-party control center, this is ideal; ESR ships have orders of magnitude more.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 1 June 2016 09: 48
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    At the same time (surprise-surprise!) The main role in reconnaissance is played by ... an electronic warfare aircraft, which in passive mode listens to the air in anticipation. The AWAC in search mode either does not work at all or periodically and briefly cuts its radar to illuminate the situation.

    EMNIP, "Hawkeye" operates in the "full circular scan once every few minutes" mode. The rest of the time he sits quieter than a mouse. smile
  • Operator
    Operator 31 May 2016 18: 49
    0
    Hawkeye, like any AWACS aircraft, is a suicide bomber if the enemy has air-to-air or surface-to-air missiles with an anti-radar seeker and a flight range of 300 to 600 km.

    At present, among potential US adversaries, only Russia has such (RVV-BD, KS-172 and 40Н6Е).
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 20: 03
      0
      Quote: Operator
      Hawkeye, like any AWACS aircraft, is a suicide bomber if the enemy has air-to-air or surface-to-air missiles with an anti-radar seeker and a flight range of 300 to 600 km.

      EW? No, have not heard...
      1. Operator
        Operator 31 May 2016 20: 31
        -1
        Apparently, we also did not hear about the existence of multispectral passive GOS with guidance on the target circuit embedded in computer memory laughing
        "There is a screw for every cunning nut" (C)
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          31 May 2016 21: 28
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          Apparently, we also did not hear about the existence of multispectral passive GOS with guidance on the target circuit embedded in computer memory

          Oh, it’s necessary, another child prodigy drew :)))
          Once again, I strongly advise you - look at the statistics on the use of medium-range missiles. For the USA, which operated on Iraqi planes in the Bur, in a glass, the AIM-7 did not exceed 40% (and that, it seems, was very tight), and they were usually used from a relatively short distance. For non-maneuvering purposes. Not using electronic warfare. For AMRAAM, this indicator is better, but it is unclear whether it was used at least once at distances exceeding the range of the melee range. And - again, as in the case of Iraq, targets generally did not maneuver and did not use electronic warfare.
          Under conditions of strong electronic warfare, the effectiveness of such missiles is generally unclear. At least with a passive GOS, at least with an active one.
          In general, get out of the captivity of numbers. If we take the passport data of the Sea Wolf, so he had to shoot down 4-6 Argentine planes in one attack. And in fact? :)
          1. Operator
            Operator 31 May 2016 22: 04
            -2
            Oh, another horn horn of electronic warfare sounded.

            Look at the root of the discussion: we are only discussing the use of anti-radar missiles on an AWACS aircraft - an air fool, which you can’t cover with any electronic warfare (joke).

            False emitting targets with the same radio frequency spectrum as the protected radar are the only effective anti-PRR methods. So imagine the effect for an air defense system from the operation of a radar AWACS in the midst of such false targets.

            But the cherry on the cake is the GOS of modern PRS, which are aimed at the target in three modes - the radio command from the carrier aircraft immediately after launch, the radio reception of the radar of the early warning radar in the decimeter range on the march and the thermal imaging in the final section with recognition of the target image (contour and size) .

            The latter mode allows you to completely rebuild from false targets (unless, of course, they do not repeat the outline and size of the AWACS aircraft laughing ).
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              31 May 2016 22: 27
              0
              Quote: Operator
              Look at the root of the discussion: we are only discussing the use of anti-radar missiles on an AWACS aircraft - an air fool, which you can’t cover with any electronic warfare (joke).

              Hope that is a joke
              Quote: Operator
              False emitting targets with the same radio frequency spectrum as the protected radar are the only effective anti-PRR methods.

              M-dya :))))
              Quote: Operator
              But the cherry on the cake is the GOS of modern PRS, which are aimed at the target in three modes - the radio command from the carrier aircraft immediately after launch, the radio reception of the radar of the early warning radar in the decimeter range on the march and the thermal imaging in the final section with recognition of the target image (contour and size) .

              The cherry on the cake is just a terrible lack of any logic in your comments.
              1) So, for an early warning attack, we must find it. As you wrote to us here, IR costs nothing, which means that it remains its own radar. Good.
              2) The EW escort accompanying the DRLO detects radio emission, there is no need to hide anymore, so the DRLO cuts its radar.
              3) We see a long-range missile attack.
              Quote: Operator
              radio command from the aircraft carrier immediately after launch

              which is choked
              Quote: Operator
              radio reception radar DRLO in the decimeter range on the march

              And he turns off. Why would he lure rockets? All that is needed has already been seen.
              Quote: Operator
              and thermal imaging in the final section with the recognition of the image (contour and size) of the target.

              To which the missile esessno simply did not reach, because after performing a simple U-turn / climb, the SD will not get close to the AWAC
              An extreme option is that an EW aircraft includes radiation similar to an AWACS radar, transfers the missile to itself and knocks it down with an anti-ballistic maneuver, which the AWACS is incapable of, and Growler can.
              I’m already silent about the fact that modern IR-GOS fall in the reliability of capture by three orders of magnitude, if they are allowed "somewhere in that direction." Modern missile launchers "catch" the enemy while still hanging on the carrier aircraft.
            2. Operator
              Operator 31 May 2016 23: 51
              0
              In your imagination, the AWAC flies with the radar turned off, and anti-ship missiles are detected by the 100500 optical receivers of carrier-based aircraft flying continuously around the AUG laughing

              In reality, AWACS rises into the air with only one purpose - to shine in the radio range like a chandelier in the Bolshoi Theater. False airborne targets with matching energy have not yet been invented.

              The DRLA detection range of an air target with an EPR of 0,01 sq. M (modern stealth RCC) is about 120 km. The distance of detection of the AWACS itself from the RTR satellite or high-flying RTR aircraft is more than 1200 km. From this and dance.

              The full name of the AWACS aircraft is AWACS, so it cannot turn off its radar, since then there will be no one to direct anti-aircraft missiles of AUG air defense ships beyond the horizon.

              From PRR, made on the basis of 40Н6Е with a range of 600 km, speed 1 km / s and radio command guidance on a marching section launched from a supersonic fighter with a radar with a target detection range with EPR 100 sq. Meters in 300 km, you will not fly away AWACS at 250 m / s.

              Modern thermal imaging seeker missiles "air-to-air" perfectly catch multi-engine AWACS aircraft with the radar off at a distance of 10-15 km after the completion of radio command guidance.

              However, the fun of your option to protect a DRLOU airplane is different - after turning off its radar, the entire AUG will remain without a radar view, with the exception of a view within the radio horizon of ship radars (40 km, if I'm not mistaken), which was required from the PRR attack.

              The phrase about the "clinging" of the air target of the seeker modern missiles suspended on a carrier, I attribute to your erudition in this matter.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    31 May 2016 12: 18
    +2
    Quote: Operator
    An error in the article regarding the analysis of air battles - Mirages and Daggers were torn off from the Harriers at catch-up courses not at the expense of speed (for this, the Argentines would need to turn on the afterburner and sharply reduce their flight range, risking not reaching the base)

    Nevertheless, they still had some fuel for short afterburner.
    Quote: Operator
    and due to the meager range of the Harriers - if they got involved in catch-up, they would simply fall into the ocean on the way back.

    Nevertheless, sometimes they caught up with Argentine planes and shot them down :)
    Quote: Operator
    and the Harriers faced the very problem of a small fuel reserve when they tried to use them as air defense fighters - VTOL aircraft could not continuously barrage near the British landing zone

    Could and barrage. At least one pair. Sometimes two.
    Quote: Operator
    And this clearly increased the response time of the Harriers to the Argentine attacks of landing ships located at a distance from aircraft carriers

    If the British tried to intercept enemy aircraft from the deck of aircraft carriers located at 80-150 and more than a kilometer from the landing site, they would never have intercepted anyone.
    1. Operator
      Operator 31 May 2016 18: 40
      -1
      "Sometimes, sometimes, a certain margin" - as an exception to the rule.

      Judging by your articles, the Harriers in most attacks of the Argentines precisely that did not intercept anyone.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 1 June 2016 21: 32
        0
        judging by that link, the Daggers in most of their flights did not meet anyone
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 31 May 2016 14: 37
    0
    Afterburner briefly turned on, only came off when there was already a sufficient distance and height difference, and also when the British spent a lot of time on patrol spending their kerosene. The speed of the British was significantly higher than that of the Argentinians, which allowed them to catch up with them.
    If they were on duty on aircraft carriers, then they could not intercept anyone.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 15: 03
      +2
      Quote: Simpsonian
      The speed of the British was significantly higher than that of the Argentinians, which allowed them to catch up with them.

      It's amazing how the air patrol of the Sea Harriers on May 1 pursued 3 Daggers for 130 km and could not get close to them for an attack
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 15: 20
        0
        Probably a strong headwind was blowing which the English pilots did not take into account - the Harrier has more midship. Or they had to switch to another attacking group that had not yet bombed.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Operator
      Operator 31 May 2016 17: 08
      0
      Harriers were equipped with a turbojet engine without an afterburner, the maximum speed of 1102 km / h was achieved due to the high thrust-to-weight ratio> 1.

      On Mirages stood a turbojet engine with afterburner, but the thrust-to-weight ratio was low - 0,3 without afterburner and 0,5 at afterburner. When using afterburner, the kilometer fuel consumption doubled, which is critical when operating at the limit of the combat radius.

      At the height of the ship's attack, the afterburning speed of the Mirage was at 1390 km / h, and the afterburning speed was at the maximum speed of the Harriers. Those. the British were technically unable to catch up with the Argentines.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 18: 41
        0
        The afterburner of the Mirage at low altitude is at least 100 miles per hour less.
        In order to go to a height where afterburner matters more, time is needed.

        In general, the efficiency of the Argentines declined over the next two days because the British already had a coastal refueling station. Before that, they could only land in emergency situations on "hot" helipads, which were not on all ships of the amphibious group.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Verdun
    Verdun 31 May 2016 10: 45
    +5
    And if Woodworth were opposed by properly organized air forces of 30–40 aircraft (with reconnaissance, electronic warfare, etc.), trained to fight over the sea and provided with guided weapons (the same Exocet anti-ship missiles) in sufficient quantity, with a probability of 99 % his operational connection would be destroyed.
    If the Argentines worked at least a third of the bombs and torpedoes that hit the target, the result would be the same. At the same time, I personally have a question - how can I land an assault for four days? One of the two - either landed at least the army, or the landing was carried out on air mattresses.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 11: 58
      +2
      Quote: Verdun
      At the same time, I personally have a question - how can I land an assault for four days?

      So there, after all, it’s not only people with machine guns to land. Rear Admiral Woodworth wrote that on average supplies per ton were unloaded on one paratrooper.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 31 May 2016 13: 27
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So there, after all, it’s not only people with machine guns to land.

        For a normally planned landing operation, the maximum work day. True, in the presence of appropriate landing equipment. Although, if desired, during such a time it is possible to land from a cruise ship. In Soviet times, in the Baltic states, I watched a couple of times how our marines worked off the landing. In a couple of hours, people, artillery, armored vehicles were thrown from the BDK onto the shore ... And all this - with the support of aircraft and artillery fire from ships, with the opposition of the enemy forces. It’s clear that exercise is not a real battle. But, as I understand it, the Argentines did not try to throw the English troops into the water from the occupied bridgehead.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 31 May 2016 18: 49
          0
          In order to reset, you need to approach, and there the Harriers fly and there are several ships in the strait with each automatic gun. Which with open infantry will make the city of OFS with radio fuses something that the Americans and Germans did not do in the Ardennes, why they all hid in dugouts.
      2. Verdun
        Verdun 31 May 2016 15: 55
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Rear Admiral Woodworth wrote that on average supplies per ton were unloaded on one paratrooper.

        I did not serve in special forces at all. Mobile part of the air defense. With a normal commander, our alarm battalion at a standard of 45 minutes was swept out of the unit in 27 minutes. At the same time, for example, a box of ammunition from a weapon, which was supposed to be dragged by four in accordance with the instructions (the dog was heavy,) was easily dragged together by an extraordinary couple.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 31 May 2016 16: 49
          +3
          And in the water with him, with extraordinary ease, ten will drown at once. There were no Soviet nasal ramps and trim systems on British ships. They were carried by barges. Different "Sirs" even had them on the oar run ...
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 31 May 2016 17: 31
            +3
            Quote: Simpsonian
            Soviet nose ramps and trim systems were not on the English ships. They carried barges.

            I hasten to note that no one made the British fight for the Falklands. And if you are going to war, then please comply. But even if they carried barges. From what distance did the landing take place that it took so much time? And if it’s loading time, then it’s not at all. In his youth, when in the days of the USSR engineers were sent to vegetable bases, he worked in a team of eight people. In the manual, for four to five hours, two railway carriages of watermelons were unloaded.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 31 May 2016 18: 08
              0
              With a little. Did you have to reload from boat to boat? When they are already hooked, the berth is being done - this also takes time.

              The manpower was landed in a few hours, first of all.
    2. avt
      avt 31 May 2016 13: 57
      +5
      Quote: Verdun
      . At the same time, I personally have a question - how can I land an assault for four days?

      Elementary Watson! You drive so not to the shore, but a little further a couple of "Sirs" of different Galaheds with a landing party and land the first on the beach ... a field hospital wassat and meanwhile the marines in the hold are waiting for the air raid. But then there will be much to store for processing in the 300s. bully
      Quote: Verdun
      For a normally planned landing operation, the maximum work day.

      Well, like that, "dump and dump" -yes, but the rest can be brought down later. But after all, "gentlemen" do not do that! Before disembarking, you need to deploy the hospital .... again, it would be good to prepare the golf course, bring the golf clubs, and then you can land.
      Quote: Verdun
      . In Soviet times, in the Baltic states, I watched a couple of times how our marines worked off the landing. From the BDK, people, artillery, armored vehicles were thrown to the shore in a couple of hours ...

      request Asians! Barbarians and .... Horde wassat Well, the rest, like the great Ukrainians, can still be added.
      Quote: Alexez
      I read and before my eyes some kind of chronicle of the madhouse ...

      The author described only at least one third of the madhouse, proportionally on both sides.
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Relative mess / confusion is always present in them. Everyone makes mistakes.
      It is inevitable.

      No. Okay when they sculpt! But then, in general, the picture turned out - some forgot how to fight after the Second World War and with great difficulty were honored with an expeditionary divisional operation (This is not counting the drop in the technical and performance level of the former World Factory! Search and you will find why abruptly, in series they went to write off the British nuclear submarines - the reactors cracked, literally unable to withstand operation), and the latter did not learn to fight on a large scale, with a strong enemy and with the coordination of the combat arms and the fleet at all. They were exclusively engaged in coups, between parties on the principle of "each for himself. They also arranged coups like that!" Straight anecdote - the aviators against the infantry and the naval to some side.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 15: 09
        +1
        The Marines would do this simply in individual means of salvation and without asking anyone.
        The Welsh National Guard were there, not the Marines, who were simply lazy to unload ashore in the chilly fog and interrupt their football game. Perhaps there were still big bets. On ships they came there at night because it was lazy for them to take care of their lives to do "yomp" (move the pistons) like everyone else.
        Almost all other British units on the islands belonged to special forces except these. The Argentines, on the contrary, had almost no special forces there.

        The security ships that had previously been guarded and received in San Carlos were not around, the air patrol did not wait for the end of the game and left. As a result, in the morning, the tops of the masts in the fog were noticed by the roofing felts walking patrols of the Argentineans on ATVs, there was a raid, the Argentine Air Force team defeated and the head game in the hold still had to be interrupted, and how to start to land ...
        1. avt
          avt 31 May 2016 20: 11
          0
          Quote: Simpsonian
          The Marines would do this simply in individual means of salvation and without asking anyone.

          laughing "Have you seen enough of the Pirates of the Caribbean? Or, like the soldiers' committee of the Morphs decided to jump overboard?" fool
          Quote: Simpsonian
          The Welsh National Guard was there, not the Marines, who were just lazy to unload ashore in the dank fog, and interrupt the game of football.

          And the soldier’s committee of the 2nd, if I’m not mistaken, according to the seniority of the regiment of the guard, decided to hammer the bolt before the fog dissipates and the temperature leading overboard reaches 20 degrees Celsius ... green roofing felts wassat
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 31 May 2016 21: 04
            0
            Usually climb over networks.

            it was so, and the authorities were at the door to them, or even wanted it, otherwise they would have let the water in the hold so that they moved
            these "guards" are just reservists, they just arrived at the end of the war, and they had not seen it before.
  • Alexez
    Alexez 31 May 2016 10: 51
    +9
    I read and before my eyes some kind of chronicle of the madhouse ... This is not about this series of articles, the articles are gorgeous, but about the conflict itself. Some send subsonic vertical lines to battle, and this is in 1982, and the second ones cannot even provide ordinary AWACS reconnaissance ... about freely planning blanks in the form of air bombs and torpedoes that stubbornly do not want to explode for several days, it is generally surprising to read.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 12: 20
      +4
      Quote: Alexez
      I read and before my eyes some kind of chronicle of the madhouse ...

      drinks I understand you perfectly. In the course of work on articles, the same thoughts regularly visited me :)))
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 May 2016 12: 46
      +4
      This is because you have not been inside any real "shooters".
      Relative mess / confusion is always present in them. Everyone makes mistakes.
      It is inevitable.
      But if one side makes less mistakes than the other, then it wins.
    3. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 31 May 2016 14: 14
      +3
      You can read how, 30 years earlier, one American boat stuck 20 torpedoes into Japanese vehicles and none of them exploded. Probably "in a normal country" they were not tested either.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 31 May 2016 16: 55
        +1
        During intense wars, like World War II, there were
        not up to regular checks. Do you think that everything in WWII
        fired bombs and shells exploded?
        Both in Europe and in Russia are still being pulled out unexploded from the earth.
        1. Maegrom
          Maegrom 31 May 2016 17: 09
          0
          there the constructive problem was serious, during the development they did not take into account the increase in the speed of new types of torpedoes. And the tests were flawed. There is a large series of materials on the warspot.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 31 May 2016 18: 09
            +3
            Quote: Maegrom
            there the constructive problem was serious, during the development they did not take into account the increase in the speed of new types of torpedoes.

            There was a whole range of problems.
            At first, everything was attributed to misses and excuses from commanders.
            Then, after naval tests, BuOrd, gritting her teeth, admitted - yes, there is a problem: torpedoes go almost twice as deep as the values ​​displayed. But this is the only reason!
            However, despite all the assurances of BuOrd, the problems continued.
            Then, under pressure from the Navy (Lockwood Strong!), BuOrd acknowledged problems with the proximity fuse. He managed to give two types of errors at once: either it worked right after being put on a combat platoon, or it did not work under the target. The fuse was turned off.
            And then suddenly it turned out that the mechanical fuse also had problems: at collision angles close to normal. it failed before it worked. But the naval again had to prove it, having carried out their own tests.

            Torpedo saga (or big torpedo scandal) stretched right up to the end of 1943.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 31 May 2016 17: 26
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          During intense wars, like World War II, there were
          not up to regular checks. Do you think that everything in WWII
          fired bombs and shells exploded?

          Well, one, well, two ... but not eleven torpedoes from the BC! belay
          Patrolling in the Truk Islands area, in the daytime, Dan came across the Tonan Maru whaling whale with a tonnage of 19000 tons, which was following without security, and, remaining at periscope depth, fired four torpedoes at an angle of 95 degrees, that is, almost perpendicular to her course. Two torpedoes hit the target but did not explode. The ship increased its speed and turned away. At this moment, Dan fired from the bow torpedo tubes with the two remaining torpedoes, which exploded aft. The ship lost its speed. These two torpedoes hit the ship at an acute angle. This was where the key to solving the whole problem lay, as we realized a little later: torpedoes did not explode, hitting the target at a right angle, but exploded when they slid against it.
          Dan, with the usual caution and composure, proceeded to destroy his victim. He could not come up and use artillery, because the enemy was armed, and he did not want to spend a lot of torpedoes. Therefore, having come close to a distance of 4 cables and going out on a target beam, Dan fired one torpedo. She was struck by the ship’s hull, and the commander noticed a big splash at the point of impact, but there was no explosion. Then an unprecedented thing happened - not one of the eight torpedoes fired one after another from carefully chosen positions - from positions that were considered ideal - did not explode! Total, 11 unexploded torpedoes!
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 31 May 2016 17: 20
        +2
        Quote: Simpsonian
        You can read how, 30 years earlier, one American boat stuck 20 torpedoes into Japanese vehicles and none of them exploded. Probably "in a normal country" they were not tested either.

        Bggg ... the whole joke is that for a couple of years they simply did not pay attention to reports on unexploded torpedoes - they say, this is just an excuse for submarine commanders who missed the target.

        By the way, there is one more fascinating reading material - reports of the commander of the AV Enterprise. For example, in November 1942, he wrote that the directors (PUAZO) 5 "38 are buggy nipadezzi, slowing down the rate of fire of the guns. And without them, 5" / 38 is only suitable for work on high-altitude horizontal bombers. As for the radar, they do not see the targets seen visually.
        And in February 1943 he wrote that in order to control BVP fighters, it was necessary to use the radio guidance system in an abnormal way. Because regular fighter radios do not provide normal communication when moving away from the AB to the intercept line. Moreover, the relevant authorities have long been notified - but no response, no greetings.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 31 May 2016 10: 59
    +5
    The series of articles is interesting, thanks to the author. In any war, there are a lot of shortcomings and failures, in this conflict you still have to pay tribute to the British, acting on the other side of the Atlantic, thousands of kilometers from their bases, being very limited in reserves, they fulfilled their main task Of course, they suffered losses, for that it was a war. But imagine, even for a second, the fleet of Argentina would come with a similar task to the North Atlantic to fight with England for some islands (for example, the Channel Islands). It does not even seem ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 12: 22
      +2
      Quote: Dimon19661
      The series of articles is interesting, thanks to the author.

      And thank you!
      Quote: Dimon19661
      All the same, we must pay tribute to the British

      Yes, definitely. The sailors fought with the weapons that they had and fought (despite some incidents) with dignity.
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette 31 May 2016 11: 27
    +6
    However, pulls on Publishing the Year. Read with great interest. Great material and proper feed. I immediately remembered our 1982 rocket fire, according to the experience of the Anglo-Argentine conflict. well then shot. Missiles were not spared.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 12: 24
      +2
      Thank you for your appreciation!
      Quote: Silhouette
      I immediately remembered our 1982 rocket fire, according to the experience of the Anglo-Argentine conflict. well then shot

      I know about them, but without special details, unfortunately.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Taoist
      Taoist 31 May 2016 13: 04
      +3
      Yes, then it was the first experience of a modern war at sea - they gutted it "by the bones" - everyone drew the appropriate conclusions ... Almost like after the Russian-Japanese ... True, this time the shaved themselves became "laboratory rats" ... ;-)
  • sharkmen
    sharkmen 31 May 2016 11: 52
    +2
    Hello everyone. as for me, this conflict between two chronically underfunded armies, whose leadership
    over the years, the headquarters reports drove everything in order. I’ll clarify again - on both sides. hence the eternal problem of choosing between a bad and a very bad option, a shortage of sane command personnel and technical personnel, etc.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 31 May 2016 12: 34
    +3
    I don’t know why, but at one time this war didn’t look like a joke, right now I can’t get rid of this feeling by re-reading the author ... And it’s difficult for me to determine who holds the first place in terms of the number of fools per capita ...
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 31 May 2016 15: 21
      0
      Do you trust more in your professionalism or what?
    2. aiw
      aiw 31 May 2016 19: 08
      0
      I suspect that in hindsight this can be said about any war. If you read about 2MB in the Pacific Ocean - the same feeling, only the scale is much larger. About the capture of France - the same thing. About WWII - how much foolishness was on our part? It’s more difficult to say about the German side (everything seems to be heroic in our country), but it was also certain that there was one gloomy Teutonic genius with their Mausses ...

      Only here people always died for real, and they were not at all funny. And about the Falklands - the feeling of a joke is probably amplified by the fact that on the one hand there are small losses (by our standards), and on the other hand, complex equipment inevitably gave a lot of failures.

      Many thanks to the author, I read the entire cycle with satisfaction and look forward to continuing!
  • Operator
    Operator 31 May 2016 14: 02
    0
    It is a mistake to perceive the Falkland War as a madhouse: during the conflict, the British only increased their strength, and the Argentines only lost.

    At the same time, the United States stood behind the British, who in extreme cases could provide their historical allies and part of the bridgehead in Europe with an almost unlimited amount of weapons, ranging from dozens of destroyers with modern air defense to aircraft carriers with a full range of catapult take-off and aerofinish landing planes.

    It is useful to remember the nuclear status of Britain, which had enough special charges to dust all the air forces and naval bases, as well as other military targets of the enemy.

    Argentina was surrounded by hostile states (Chile, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay) with pro-American regimes that have territorial claims to their neighbor.

    From the point of view of international law, Argentina violated the UN Charter by committing an act of aggression.

    Therefore, the Falkland War from the Argentine side was pure adventure. The lack of control over the technical condition of bombs and torpedoes due to the low qualification of technical personnel or counterintelligence was only a cherry on the cake.
    1. avt
      avt 31 May 2016 15: 06
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      It is a mistake to perceive the Falkland War as a madhouse: during the conflict, the British only increased their strength, and the Argentines only lost.

      wassat Wisely! Oh, do not enlighten us - when did the Argentineans get the next batch of Exocets? Well, when did those first 5 come to an end? At the same time, write down how the English shipboard grew exponentially, how did the shipyards work?
      Quote: Operator
      At the same time, the United States stood behind the British,

      They stood and not just stood - actively helped at least intelligence.
      Quote: Operator
      which in a pinch could provide their historical allies and part-time bridgehead in Europe with an almost unlimited amount of weapons, from dozens of destroyers with modern air defense to aircraft carriers with a full range of catapult take-off and landing aircraft.

      wassat laughing “Oh, these fairy tales! Oh, these storytellers! "You at least google and find FOR WHAT during World War II Chechella Roosevelt
      Quote: Operator
      almost unlimited weapons, ranging from dozens of destroyers with modern air defense

      handed over the same old four-pipe pipes for convoys with land lease.
      1. Operator
        Operator 31 May 2016 17: 18
        -1
        You will delve into the memory or, in extreme cases, Wikipedia - why the United States was interested in the British Isles and Britain in one thousand nine hundred and eighty-second year and how many destroyers could be given for it.
        1. avt
          avt 31 May 2016 20: 44
          0
          Quote: Operator
          as a last resort, on Wikipedia

          Oooooooo !!!! Wikipedia-I-I-I-I! laughing It's straight -Yes, Wikipedia will outweigh the thousand of your arguments in court! laughing laughingHere and Goethe with Faust quietly on tiptoe to roll past necessary.
          1. Operator
            Operator 31 May 2016 20: 59
            0
            If memory fails you, then Vicki will do. laughing
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 31 May 2016 15: 12
      +1
      from hostile was only Chile
      1. Operator
        Operator 31 May 2016 17: 24
        +1
        In 1982, pro-American military regimes were in power in Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, and Chile. Chile simply put pressure on Argentina of its own free will, and the rest on command from Washington.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 31 May 2016 17: 59
          +2
          There was also a pro-American in Argentina ... When its air forces began to thin, all these countries transferred their planes to Argentina and their pilots began to prepare for combat flights to the Falkland area.
          They don't like gringos.
          1. Operator
            Operator 31 May 2016 18: 57
            0
            In Argentina, the regime was pro-American exactly until the occupation of the Falkland Islands.

            In the 1982 year and later I read everything that was published in the Western Military District about the Falkland War, so I’ll read with great interest about the transfer to Argentina of military aircraft of neighboring states - if possible, give a link.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 31 May 2016 20: 39
              0
              Before the 1977 embargo, they don't like gringos there at all
              fast it only got
              http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/folkl/mirage/mirage.html
              in the end.
              almost all countries in South America began to take off aviation, first to help with spare parts, to overcome the embargo, then to strengthen the protection of the continental part of Argentina, pilots of one of the countries seemed to have time to fly to the islands without entering the battle zone

              Guatemala even has complaints against the British; they and the Americans got everyone.

              Now ships and ships that have entered these islands can not then enter any South American port ...
              1. Operator
                Operator 31 May 2016 21: 04
                -1
                Thank you for the link - it clearly describes the actions of Argentine aviation in the Falkland War.

                But from the facts of Latin American military assistance to Argentina, only the delivery at the end of the conflict of ten Mirages V from Peru, where since 1980 of the year there has been a civilian government that received power from the hands of the anti-American military junta, is mentioned.
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 31 May 2016 21: 55
                  0
                  This article about Mirages was supplied and transferred by other countries to Skyhawks and other planes.
                  They are all except Chileans more friends with each other than with someone from the outside, and rightly so.
            2. The comment was deleted.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 31 May 2016 14: 57
    0
    By the way, the author promised to walk around Tsushima, we are waiting.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 15: 00
      +2
      Quote: Dimon19661
      By the way, the author promised to walk around Tsushima, we are waiting

      In what sense? :))) I published a whole series of articles here, back in that year :)
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 16: 34
        0
        When it is necessary to tighten the nut in some war, it is easier to make sure that the weapon of one of their opponents (bombs, torpedoes or shells) does not explode, and then blame it on sloppiness or "nothing like that happened."
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • itvs
    itvs 31 May 2016 15: 36
    0
    Amazed by the amount of unexploded ordnance.
    Is it possible that after the first incidents their technical condition was not evaluated. Diversion?
    maybe masochism? Just kidding of course.
    In general, the actions of the Argentine leadership in the strategic plan can be called inadequate. Well, if you tried to play on the confrontation between NATO and the USSR. And so the image of Don Quixote comes to mind. Proud, lonely, against everyone, with a rusty old blunt sword. And without Sanchopanso
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 31 May 2016 16: 01
      0
      How do you find out about these "incidents"? To turn around to look at the result is almost certain to fall victim to air defense. In vain was the Navy "dissatisfied" when the press wrote about it?
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 31 May 2016 15: 56
    0
    Quote: Simpsonian
    No need - you can remove the guns from them. Then that they would not be asked, as in Vietnam.

    How? Range of detection of air targets AN / APS-20E Fairey Gannet AEW 3 260 km, the Argentines will have to send planes into the unknown, against a previously informed enemy. Where do you see Vietnam?
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 31 May 2016 16: 14
      0
      And how did the MiG-21 beat the American F-4?

      They would have to send planes to bypass this "beacon that shines" or to be shot down by a sudden crowd of this low-speed propeller-driven unit and its security link, so that the British would then suffer the unknown on their pelvis until they were destroyed by the next completely sudden wave on the ships. Or the next AWACS (and so on until they run out).
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 31 May 2016 16: 45
        +1
        From ambushes, from jump airfields, attacking escort vehicles, having guidance from ground-based radars. Don't you find that land and sea are somewhat different things?

        Which detour? They were working on the Falklands at the limit of their combat radius. What "sudden crowd" if it will be known about their approach hundreds of kilometers away?
        Especially fun, these games will be held against the backdrop of an attack by the Buccaneers of the ground group of Argentines.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 31 May 2016 17: 36
          +1
          This is a MiG-17. In the maneuverable F-4 battle, no MiG can withstand. For this, the Navy of the United States and France were the Crusaders. In the British Navy, subsonic Buccaneers would not be able to cope with this task. The Vietnamese were never given a lot of supersonic MiG-21s to exclude an attempt to hit them on aircraft carriers. The United States, even from Korea, promised to answer with a nucleus for this.

          The Argentines made attacks from different directions on the Invincible, which was the airfield of the jump east of Falkland and even on Hermes, which stood even east of the islands.

          If there was such an opportunity, it would make sense to strengthen the Harrier Phantoms, but only the Phantoms would have been defeated there even with AWACS.

          Ark Royal was a small aircraft carrier, the F-4 was a large aircraft, they were intermeddle with only 12 pieces.
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 31 May 2016 18: 32
            0
            Mig-21 is also an attack by supersonic rockets from the rear hemisphere and the withdrawal of missiles from the ground. Who and how will provide the same conditions for you?
            And what were Mi-21 supposed to attack aircraft carriers? FAB?

            Why give the Buccaneers unusual tasks? We build 1-2 type CVA-01 instead of LAV, Harriers and Nimrod AEW. Here's an Ark Royal and / or 1-2 heavy AB, in this case it makes no sense for the British to drive ships to the islands before disembarking, but AB in general (combat radius of F-4K is 1610 km).

            Again. How are you going to shoot down Gannet AEW 3?
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 31 May 2016 19: 04
              0
              MiG-21 in any case, if the F-4 did not have time to break away in the afterburner. The MiG-21 had its own radar. An additional external CPU is always good.
              Hit on AB, yes with anything. Better first NURS or cassette to light it, ask McCain about it.
              It’s still necessary to push the ships with the landing to the shore.

              Gannet - ordinary, like the An-2.

              Here is Ark Royal, the one on the left
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 1 June 2016 00: 23
                0
                AND? Where did you see the analogue of Vietnam?

                Remarkably, in the 77 OS, there are always from 1 to 5 aircraft carriers and up to 30-40 guard ships, up to 300-340 aircraft, AWACS aircraft are constantly present in the sky, and you suggest attacking with NURSs and free-falling bombs, referring to the experience of an accident.

                How ordinary? Attackers long before reaching the line of attack will be intercepted by the British BWP.
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 1 June 2016 00: 48
                  0
                  Here is no ... This "patrol of the British" attacking Argentine group would simply crush with numbers.
                  The number of high-speed Vietnamese aircraft, on the contrary, was many times smaller, and not a single English aircraft reached South Africa like U-Tapao or Da Nang, so that it would have happened to aircraft carriers.
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 1 June 2016 16: 05
                    0
                    Taking into account the takeoff of the F-4K units on duty, a possible missile trap (a ship with an air defense missile system is moving forward, a central control unit, according to SDRLO information, the Americans practiced this in exercises)? Moreover, on Mirages up to 3 UR "Matra" explosives, and on F-4K 4 AIM-7 and AIM-9 each, and the latter is all-round, unlike the French.
                    1. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 1 June 2016 21: 40
                      0
                      A ship will be spotted before it attacks planes; the aircraft carrier releases its planes slowly.
                      Therefore, the Americans have always kept in the air between the Vietnamese coast and their AUG three times as many phantoms and crusaders as the MiG-21 Vietnamese could throw at them.
                      During raids on the airborne aircraft in its airspace there were 4 times more supersonic aircraft than its air force.

                      It is much easier to dodge an infrared rocket thrown into the forehead than from a thrown tail.
                      GOS Radar Matrah much better takes and holds the target than AIM-7

                      Even the full wing of the "Arc-Royal" the Argentines would have crushed, Had the British for close combat Harriers from Hermes - no. But Gannette would have been lost anyway.
                      1. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 1 June 2016 22: 04
                        0
                        or most likely not, but if they were engaged in phantoms after breaking through to them, they would have suffered much harder losses from harriers than when attacking ships.
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 1 June 2016 23: 37
                        0
                        The ship will receive information from the Gannet AEW 3 much earlier than it is spotted by the Mirages, what threat will it pose to aircraft armed with B-B missiles?
                        The BS-6 steam catapult launches 2 aircraft per minute, on the CVA-01 there are two of them, an air group of up to 36 combat aircraft, equally "Phantoms" and "Bukanians". Keeping 4 F-4Ks ready to fly on the deck of one AB is no problem. One CVA-01-4 F-4K, two-8 F-4K.
                        A link to the design / preparation of the attack MiG-21 aircraft carriers 77 OS 7 fleet possible?
                      3. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 3 June 2016 18: 46
                        0
                        These missiles will be knocked out of his radar posts to begin with. Then they will call others who will completely gouge him. Therefore, aviation AB flies farther than the escort covered by it departs from it. Do you think coast reconnaissance misses such a smart target for tactical aviation with such a large ESR like a ship? In order to see him from afar, AWACS is not needed.
                        Look at how much the AB raises its entire wing, eight F-4K of the entire Argentinean aviation is not a hindrance.

                        I thought I ask for a link to why the Americans constantly kept in the air 3 times more aircraft than the SRV had the MiG-21 ...
                      4. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 4 June 2016 04: 45
                        0
                        Scraptor you nonsense to carry nonsense?
                        Examples of the application of Matra SD as a PRR can?
                        How will coast reconnaissance detect a ship in the Falkland Islands?
                        Finished aircraft raises quickly, the question is the number of parking spaces on deck AB.
                        I'm interested in a reference about the plans for using the Mig-21 against ships, do you have one?
                      5. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 4 June 2016 09: 42
                        0
                        It is difficult to think of anything more than using a "unexpectedly surfaced" stealth submarine as an external ambush battalion of air defense AB. Which, even if she would have succeeded later with the speed of an aircraft, would not slip out of the square under the protection of its wing.

                        How did she spot Sheffield? Who are you talking to now?
                        With the lack of these places, as well as with the capacity of the catapults, there are no questions ... Are you interested in a reference or think? This article writes how even subsonic Skyhawks were used, but air defense aircraft were also subsonic there.
                        There was somewhere a link to Wikipedia that the Americans had a special type of aircraft carrier patrol "MiG CAP" against these very supersonic MiG-21s.
                      6. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 4 June 2016 12: 51
                        0
                        Where did you see the PL? BNK, for example EM URO type 82 (one of the four that was planned to be built to accompany the CVA-01) with 2 "Sea Dart" launchers.

                        TSU "Etandaram" gave SP-2H Neptun with radar AN / APS-20S similar to those that were on the Gannet AEW.3 (if not the British for their new AB do not buy the E-2C "Hawkeye" instead of the program for the development of the base AWACS aircraft " Nimrod AEW "). Question-the means of the squadron's RTR detect the radiation of the radar, "Phantoms" are flying into the area - how will you organize the cover of the reconnaissance aircraft if the "Mirages" can be in the area of ​​the islands for 10 minutes?
                        I’m interested in the link about the plans of the attack by AB forces Mig-21.
                      7. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 4 June 2016 20: 19
                        0
                        Only the submarine has a chance to go beyond the radius of the aircraft AB, ships accompany it nearby.
                        They wanted to put the same radar on the next modification of Gannet as on Hokai.
                        In this connection a question? It seems they themselves decided to cover the AWACS plane with an invisible ship, then with phantoms. Mirages will bring them down in a battle with an equal number of opponents, just like the MiG-21 they shot down in Vietnam
                      8. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 5 June 2016 05: 37
                        0
                        The combat radius of F-4K is 1610 km, it makes no sense to go beyond an air defense umbrella to a ship; moreover, Phantoms and Bukanirs can also visit Argentines if necessary.
                        Due to the fact that the Argentines have nothing to do with reconnaissance, except for the SP-2H, the civil Boeing-707 and C-130 are even less suitable for this role, your appeal to the example of Sheffield does not make sense. The question remains open, how are you going to organize a BVP of a reconnaissance aircraft, if the Mirage-3 can be in the area of ​​the islands for 10 minutes at an altitude of 10 km. In what you found similarities with the conditions of Vietnam, I also did not see.
                      9. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 5 June 2016 06: 26
                        0
                        This ship was just about to fight as the main means of protecting the AWACS aircraft. It seems only to hear yourself: The subsonic buccaneer, this is not the Cruzader, without which the F-4K will be swept away even by those 2-fold numerical superiority. The British Navy was not designed for battles with Mirages or MiG-21s, their business with the appearance of these aircraft was a fight in the framework of the combined NATO fleet with the Tu-16, and there was and remains an anti-submarine battle in the North Atlantic.

                        Well, they didn’t see contrast, and didn’t see ...
                      10. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 5 June 2016 07: 03
                        0
                        Re-read the comments if you see the word "main" somewhere - write.
                        According to the results of the Red Flag exercises (since 1977), the Buccaneers hardly intercepted the F-15, and the ubiquitous Mirages will be doing this for you on the guidance of ground-based radars, yes.
                        This is not calculated with LAV and Harriers, with CVA-01 and F-4k, what is in the way?

                        Thank you, your position is clear.
                      11. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 5 June 2016 07: 13
                        0
                        The word "intercepted" could not have been written, leaving only "with difficulty" - so, referring to the re-reading of the comments, it would be easier to try to get out of the rapid changes of priorities ...

                        Of all NATO, only France pursued a relatively independent policy, also in the field of supersonic aviation and missile weapons, England, even having, unlike the Swedes in the F-4K, its engines (and this is the most important in the plane) completely fell under the Americans, becoming "51 -m State ", then they bent Canada too. The "pan-European" Tornado was also not an enemy to the French or the Americans ...

                        It is clear that you consider the F-4 a "miracle plane", and you do not know anything about the outcome of the battles in Vietnam, which was so because of its 3 times larger bend radius than the MiG-21.
                        Mirages also have their own radar, as well as medium-range RVV. This here they are, on the contrary, with Harrier and "LOVE" could not cope even once.
                        The mirage was a very dangerous aircraft, and its scheme was scaled from a tactical aircraft to a supersonic strategic bomber.
                        In the American F-4, when it was turned in one direction for a long time they could not cope with the automatic roll arising in the other. It seems that before this aircraft began to be made, it was never purged in a wind tunnel.
                        The British in it had to redo even the chassis.
                      12. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 5 June 2016 20: 18
                        0
                        Suspend the flight of fantasy and read carefully, if, something is unclear, ask, do not fantasize.
                        This technique was described by Andy Picot in describing the teachings of NORPAC 82.
                        I do not consider the "Phantom" a miracle, as you might have noticed, I do not dispute the possible superiority of the "Mirage" in close combat, I do not understand how it will be implemented in these conditions and you, except for the phrase: "everything will be like in Vietnam", can do nothing.
                        For a more or less equal fight, the Argentine Air Force needs more serviceable Mirages than 8-9 in b / d and 3 in the defense of the capital (or even better Mirage F1E), an air refueling system (which appeared on Mirage IIING, first flight on May 27, 1981 years), a base on Malvinas with shelters for aircraft, the required number of KS-130, a full contract for Super Etandars and an increased number of anti-ship missiles, RC aircraft, at least SP-2H (and provide them with spare parts under the embargo since 1976 ), master flying at night. And that's just the Air Force, the Navy has its own troubles.
                      13. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 5 June 2016 22: 11
                        0
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        This technique was described by Andy Picot in describing the teachings of NORPAC 82.

                        Turn to the facts of Vietnam, Syria and Falkland.
                        8/9 times more Mirages because the Mirage was about the same size as the MiG-21, against which 3-4 times more Phantom planes were constantly kept in carrier-based patrols (counter-MIG CAP) and cruzader?
                        The latter was sold to Greece without the possibility of afterburner so that it would better hold on to NATO and not weigh the Turks with their F-4s.
                        The Argentines needed SP-2H to guide the Daggers and that part of the Skyhawks who did not have their own radar.
                        With your position, everything is clear without rhetorical questions.
                        Re-read my comments and find the words "flight of fantasy" there - then answer ...

                        In the only group battle in which the MiG-21 were defeated by a group of only F-4s, the Americans had a multiple advantage, a favorable tactical situation and an element of surprise - this is if there is a 3-fold greater turn radius about nothing.
                      14. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 6 June 2016 10: 54
                        0
                        Turn to the facts of Vietnam, Syria and Falkland.

                        In Vietnam and Syria there were examples of air war over the sea? Attempts to attack air groups or fleet ships?
                        What facts of the Falkland conflict need to be addressed?

                        The Argentines needed SP-2H to guide the Daggers and that part of the Skyhawks who did not have their own radar.

                        What are you talking about? Super Etandars were also guided by them, for example, when attacking Sheffield.

                        Re-read my comments and find the words "flight of fantasy" there - then answer ...


                        Examples of the application of Matra SD as a PRR can?

                        Question-the means of the squadron's RTR detect the radiation of the radar, "Phantoms" are flying into the area - how will you organize the cover of the reconnaissance aircraft if the "Mirages" can be in the area of ​​the islands for 10 minutes?
                        I’m interested in the link about the plans of the attack by AB forces Mig-21.

                        The question remains open, how are you going to organize an airborne reconnaissance reconnaissance aircraft carrier if the Mirage-3 can be located in the area of ​​the islands for 10 minutes at an altitude of 10 km.

                        Will there be answers to these questions?
                      15. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 6 June 2016 12: 58
                        0
                        There were, but what's the difference? The performance characteristics of aircraft over the sea do not change. He couldn’t hide under water from the MiG-21 and then jump out of there. Once they were only able to deceive by flying tightly and pretending to be a single bomber.

                        The same coastal radars as the Vietnamese had the Argentines + AWACS aircraft.
                        The Argentines had aircraft roughly equivalent to the Vietnamese MiG-21, which beat the Phantoms even inferior to them in numbers.
                        In addition to this, the numerical superiority on the contrary with Falkland was on the side of the Argentine Air Force.
                        Well, who would have won the wing of one or two unfortunate "Arc-Royals" with such a fleet?

                        SP2-H was with you for something. A semi-active missile is aimed at a source of radio waves, no difference emitted or reflected.

                        No, they won’t - it’s like you were going to use AWACS with Phantoms, to the emission of which the Mirages would fly in a crowd and in the absence of the British, the Cruzaders would easily kill everyone. With the presence of the Crusaders, with such a numerical superiority, they would have threatened everyone without question.
                      16. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 6 June 2016 13: 29
                        0
                        There were, but what's the difference? The performance characteristics of aircraft over the sea do not change.

                        The large, tactical situation is completely different, any Argentine aircraft flying up will be detected long before they themselves detect targets, and eventually they will encounter a BVP with reinforcements. How "Mirages" will "beat Phantoms" if they have fuel for 10 minutes and one or two medium-range missiles (out of three)? Any long maneuvers and the plane is lost, it simply won't have enough fuel to return to base.

                        The same coastal radars as the Vietnamese had the Argentines + AWACS aircraft.

                        The Argentines did not have AWACS aircraft, which coastal radars should reflect the situation in the area of ​​the islands?
                        Well, who would have won the wing of one or two unfortunate "Arc-Royals" with such a fleet?

                        One "unfortunate" "Ark Royal" will bring 892 NAS with 12 Phantoms, this is more than 8-9 Mirages that the Argentine Air Force was able to use in the war, CVA-01 from 12 to 18 Phantoms.
                        SP2-H was with you for something. A semi-active missile is aimed at a source of radio waves, no difference emitted or reflected.

                        How did you find Sheffield? Found "Neptune", from which "Super Etandars" were directed.

                        No, they will not do

                        And you write that it’s not a storyteller.
                      17. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 6 June 2016 16: 22
                        0
                        With such a difference in LTH - no. As a result, it turns out that peas are on the wall ... The Vietnamese MiG-21 had 0 medium-range missiles. The battle is minutes or seconds. And not the F-4 next to Gannet or over his landing group they choose him. More than 12 F-4s will not take part in it and even their first wave from this article will crush.

                        SP-2H is no longer AWACS? Coastal radars prevent the coast from attacking with such forces.

                        The Argentine Air Force had only 15 vehicles in the first wave. in order to annihilate with it it would be necessary to have 2,5 times more F-4 in the area on duty in the air, and then there will be 2nd and 3rd waves.
                        The Argentine Air Force / Navy was armed with 4 supersonic Superettandars, 17 Mirages and 30 Daggers - multiply these numbers by 2 and then by 4 more because the patrol is XNUMX/XNUMX and don't forget to add the same amount of Crusaders. But keep in mind that even with this "Phantom" air wing in several Nimitzes, there would still not have been a landing on the islands, because the DKs, naked with such aircraft, cannot be approached to the islands.

                        It was a rhetorical question to what happened to him as a floating post-air defense system, he could have been discovered non-visually from the same Mirage, sea Skyhawk with radar and many more ...

                        You write that the propeller-driven AWACS and the F-4 splitter interceptor, and even outnumbered, will "win everyone" - and you will be answered!

                        Some chance with the Phantoms of the British Navy would have had the Crusaders to them, and then insignificant. And they didn’t have them (although they even had the French Navy) because the USA had already made a pocket lap out of it in the form of its 51st staff, without a universal fleet, a supersonic aircraft industry and almost no independent foreign policy. They gave them to the French so that they wouldn’t do something like that for themselves longer, or even better than he ... for example, Rafale. And England is now able to master such a plane only in the pan-European plan.
                      18. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 6 June 2016 17: 08
                        0
                        . The Vietnamese MiG-21 had 0 medium-range missiles.

                        The Vietnamese MiGs worked on their territory, on the ground control center from the ground, could use jump airfields, terrain, how will you do this over the sea, at an altitude of 10 km?

                        SP-2H is no longer AWACS? Coastal radars prevent the coast from attacking with such forces.

                        Base aircraft PLO, serviceable - 2 pcs and then not the whole conflict. Are you going to cover them? Than?
                        The coastal radar does not provide timely detection of aircraft at low / extremely low altitude, i.e., all possibilities for attacks remain. What are you going to cover the coast?
                        The Argentine Air Force had only 15 vehicles in the first wave. in order to annihilate with it it would be necessary to have 2,5 times more F-4 in the area on duty in the air, and then there will be 2nd and 3rd waves.

                        According to the author of the series of articles, 19-21 Mirage IIIEA and 39 Daggers were delivered, of which 12 Mirages and 25 Daggers were in good order, according to A. Kotlobovsky "The use of Mirage III and Dagger aircraft", 8-9 Mirage took part in the battles defense of the capital) and 3 Daggers. Can you see your sources? Which planes are the 19nd and 2rd wave?
                        multiply these numbers by 2 then another 4 because the patrol is round-the-clock and do not forget to add as many Cruzers

                        Argentines did not fly at night. And if they were flying, then why? What should they look for at night around the islands?
                      19. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 6 June 2016 18: 55
                        0
                        How could this affect their LTH, and the fact that they were many times numerically inferior to the Phantoms and Cruzaders? They also fought over the sea. Like Syria (along with the MiG-23). Over the sea, sometimes even in Korea and neighboring countries, battles took place. There Vietnamese and Arab pilots flew, you can not forbid them.

                        This one you just had was an AWAC. Radars were then installed in other aircraft, including passenger ones, as they are now being deployed everywhere. Fortunately there is something and there are no problems with the placement. How did the Vietnamese cover the coast?
                        You were going to cover the almighty imperial AWACS "Gunnet", F-4K cleavers, as well as fighting them with brisk Mirages without Crusaders.
                        For "everything" you can look into the order of battle in Wikipedia, it says exactly that much, taking into account "cannibalism" and without taking into account the help of Latin American countries, which compensated for the losses indicated in brackets.
                        It’s possible to start up all supersonic aviation in the same wavelength, 2-3 was due to the specifics of the Harrier use, which before that, on the contrary, had always lost air battles.
                        Argentines flew at night. Search and bomb - the same as during the day.
                      20. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 6 June 2016 22: 47
                        0
                        Excluding help and the Argentine reserve, only those who took part in the battles
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_air_forces_in_the_Falklands_War
                        and only supersonic.
                      21. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 7 June 2016 07: 12
                        0
                        They also fought over the sea.

                        At the limit of the radius? And with what result?

                        This one you just had was an AWAC.

                        Successfully "Neptune" provided the control center for the ships, there were problems with targeting the aircraft: "the planes received the control center, but they did not find targets" or "from nowhere, enemy fighters appeared from where they shot down Argentine cars." So, the big question is from what distance AN / APS-20S will provide guidance to aircraft, how long the Neptune will live in such a situation without fighter cover, how the search equipment will behave when the British use electronic warfare equipment.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_air_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

                        8th Air Brigade - Dassault Mirage IIIEA 17 (2)
                        Are you talking about this? This is the general list of the brigade, where is the indication that the brigade fought in full force?
                        http://profilib.com/chtenie/133144/zhurnal-aviatsiya-i-vremya-2001-01-lib-22.php

                        By the beginning of the war for the Falklands, the 8th IAG of the Argentine Air Force (Grupo 8 de Casa), stationed at the Mariano Moreno airbase and responsible for the air defense of the capital, was armed with Mirages. The head of this part was the komodoro (p-k) K. Corino. Of the 16 vehicles at his disposal, 12 were considered combat-ready.
                        The 8th IAG dispatched a squadron of 8 Mirages (Escuadron de Casa Interceptora) to the war, led by Corino himself. Arriving at the Komodoro Rivadavia airbase, the eight split up: one half stayed there, and the other went to Rio Gallegas.
                      22. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 7 June 2016 15: 32
                        0
                        Not at the limit and, as almost always, with good.

                        After aiming, problems began "from nowhere", because the cleaver in comparison with the English Harrier was already Mirage.

                        The "question" was how long Gannett and Phantoms would live against the Mirages.


                        Listed immediately under the heading of the "Units" section for all divisions in my link you "cited":
                        "The numbers in bold are the number of aircraft engaged in combat"
                        + Section "Deployments" just above:
                        "Air units moved from home bases to southern facilities... Amid fears about British / Chilean air strikes and / or SAS raids, Argentine aircraft were dispersed in the surrounding areas of their southern airfields, eg, several parts of the national route # 3 were used for this purpose. "
                      23. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 7 June 2016 16: 13
                        0
                        Not at the limit and, as almost always, with good.

                        Statistics? Examples?

                        After aiming, problems began "from nowhere", because the cleaver in comparison with the English Harrier was already Mirage.

                        What does agility have to do with it? What will you be guiding with during an episodic review of the situation ("Neptune" turned on the radar, the "Phantoms" caught up with it, if it had time, to transmit something, there is a control center, if not ...).

                        The "question" was how long Gannett and Phantoms would live against the Mirages.

                        As much as you like, the Mirages simply will not have the opportunity to fly an extra hundred kilometers to the Gannet, and against the Mirage there is a well-known tactic - a pair / squad gets involved in close combat, another pair / squad is attacked from medium distance.

                        Listed immediately under the heading of the "Units" section for all units in my,

                        Let me write that the British had a "Death Star", the screen will endure. Why not?
                      24. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 7 June 2016 20: 24
                        0
                        What other interesting questions will there be? "And what does the air battle have to do with it?"
                        Mirages with Phantoms will fly through each other, because both of these ghosts? But the MiG-21s are not ghosts, and they did it ...

                        Mirage will have another two-three-four-five links. Which with its radar.
                        The battle of Phantom and Mirage will be like with the MiG-21 in half of its turn. Or even a third.

                        Gannet and not Neptune. As many as Phantoms.

                        Write, he already endures everything that you write ...
                      25. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 8 June 2016 09: 10
                        0
                        Does it make sense to ask? You still do not answer laughing

                        Mirages simply will not find them in those 10 minutes that they will have to attack, and if they do, then they will not have time. There is no point in constantly holding an air group with AWACS over the islands, only for the organization of a battalion control system for Argentinean positions. To intercept the S-130 airborne duty bridge, 2 F-4K is enough for the eyes.
                        A round-the-clock BVP (ideally) is needed over the AUG, the Super Etandars should be intercepted, there is no point for aircraft carriers to hang around the islands, even during the landing.

                        How interesting is it that 8 planes are divided into "other" 4-5-6 links, do they multiply by division?

                        The difference is that "Neptune" has no cover, but "Gannet" does.
                      26. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 8 June 2016 11: 53
                        0
                        No, let’s you just write that you didn’t know that the carrier-based fighter was not Phantom but the Cruzader of which the British did not? And then they scored that the fighters are fighting for air supremacy with the fighters, if the ABs have them - from that very first and one more counter-MiG CAP pair of mixed composition, by close combat while its F-4 interceptors are standing and smoking nervously aside . You just don’t understand that you don’t need Neptune at all to attack Gannet with the F-4K, just like the fact that landing ships cannot reach the islands without air supremacy, and they are an even more fatal target than the aircraft carriers themselves.
                      27. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 8 June 2016 12: 48
                        0
                        You see smile
                        An alternative to guiding with the SP-2H BWP from Mirages over the islands, how do you provide it with 8 aircraft for 10 minutes at least during daylight hours? How are you going to fight for supremacy in the air based on the devil on the fuss?
                      28. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 8 June 2016 22: 37
                        0
                        What? A couple of painted F-4K Stars from Star Wars?
                        Mirages and daggers fly to shoot down AWACS Gannet its radiation by 48+ planes as a beacon.
                        The struggle for state dominance in the air with the clumsy small F-4K interceptors would have lasted less than a minute.

                        Padded by Harrier, Garcia-Cuerva flew to sit in Port Stanley in an aerofinisher.

                        Gannet will have time to crawl back to the aircraft carrier only if it is 100-200 km away from him, in which case AB itself will become a priority target and Gannet will be destroyed not in the air, but with it on his deck.

                        To prevent all this from happening against only 20 MiG-21s, next to the American AB located in the Gulf of Tonkin, "in addition to" their patrols and duty units, there was the Danang Air Force base and other bases, with several hundred aircraft.
                        Only one
                        The US Air Force Base at Da Nang was one of the largest US bases in history, with the busiest airport: the day before 2595 takeoffs and landings.

                        With an aircraft carrier no more 100, if the database is maintained for more than one day, it is better not more than 60.
                      29. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 June 2016 08: 54
                        0
                        Mirages and daggers will fly to shoot down the AWAC Gannet on its radiation with 48+ planes as a radio beacon.


                        How? The Mirage IIIEA has a warning system for radar exposure, I don’t know on Dagger, the plane was with simplified avionics, in particular, there was no Cyrano radar, only an Agava-2 sighting. How are you going to use it to locate a radar source?
                        You do not confuse AN / ALR-59 (the RTR system on the E-2C Hokai, which allows you to pinpoint radiation sources, determine their location and identify by the signal spectrum at a distance approximately twice as long as the detection range of air targets of AN / APS-120 radar)?
                      30. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 9 June 2016 09: 50
                        0
                        Together with Mirages ...

                        there is already the seventh came out the day before yesterday
                      31. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 June 2016 10: 03
                        0
                        Together with Mirages ...

                        How???? This system notifies you about the exposure, the location of the radiation source with its help you will not know.
                      32. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 9 June 2016 10: 21
                        0
                        Just like radar shows the maximum radiation mark ...
                      33. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 June 2016 10: 34
                        0
                        Source of in-depth knowledge is possible ???
                        And also any information that in this way someone found someone.
                      34. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 9 June 2016 11: 20
                        0
                        You want too much, but yeah
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Радиопеленгация
                        You can immediately go to sports ...
                      35. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 June 2016 11: 26
                        0
                        / Direction finding

                        And now, please, the same thing, but with regard to war in the air.
                      36. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 9 June 2016 11: 41
                        0
                        Over or without the sea?

                        Poor radio operator ...
                      37. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 June 2016 12: 00
                        0
                        Arguments, albeit fantastic, are over, are we starting to scuffle?
                      38. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 9 June 2016 12: 08
                        0
                        Not yet. The same as for a sports "fox hunt", but without leaving the cockpit.
                      39. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 June 2016 12: 16
                        0
                        Ahem ... NYA warning system just squeaks, without changing the tone closer / further, what will it give? At some distance from the islands, the Mirage IIIEA pilot learns that somewhere in the area of ​​the islands an AWACS aircraft is operating (presumably), will he look for it?
                      40. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 9 June 2016 13: 27
                        0
                        Mirage radar does not squeak and shows a direction finding.
                      41. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 June 2016 14: 13
                        0
                        Is "Cyrano" also an RTR station? A source of intimate knowledge is it possible?
                      42. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 9 June 2016 14: 28
                        0
                        Is it really written on it?
                        Do we also have inventory numbers for all athletes?
                      43. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 June 2016 15: 27
                        0
                        So you took it from your head? THD. Thank you for your attention. The conversation is over.
                      44. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 9 June 2016 15: 42
                        0
                        Thanks you can’t put in your pocket. CTD Well, not from yours. Here, read more, questions may appear again.
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Радиолокация
                        About angular coordinate systems, and about over the sea or over land, too.
                      45. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 9 June 2016 16: 09
                        0
                        With the transmitter turned off, the signal is passively received and processed by the radar in the usual way (see passive radar), the azimuth and elevation angle are taken on it, there can be some problems with determining the range.
                        An athlete with more, and even with the most primitive equipment, all this is done by handles (in the air - without leaving the cockpit).
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 31 May 2016 19: 33
    0
    There has never been such a war - in Vietnam, the United States, with its supercarriers, relied on Thai and South Vietnamese air bases. In WWII, they seriously had business with coastal aviation only in Okinawa. You can compare the losses ...
    AB has an advantage over the coast only in nuclear war - this is not an airfield, it still needs to be found.

    The first Lebanese Israelis lost 3 of 4 barges with special forces covered by their Syrian MiG-23s and American airfield and carrier-based aircraft, and the Americans lost 2 AWACS (one shot down missiles), the British a little earlier at San Carlos just one of the four landing barges, and with technology.

    Everything would have been generally smooth for them if they were not Welsh, but it was a transportation by sea of ​​those who thought that the war was already over and not a landing operation.
    1. Orakul2000
      Orakul2000 1 June 2016 20: 45
      0
      Dear, be so kind as to provide a link to the Israelis losing 3 from 4 barges with special forces in the first Levan ??? Or is it again from unsubstantiated unfounded tales and revelations of Soviet advisers ???
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 1 June 2016 21: 55
        0
        The fourth managed to reach the shore and the people from it managed to scatter ...
        Do you need a link, or are you trying to deny this episode?
        The American B-707 was shot down by the Syrian MiG-23 on the same day, look for a link to this, maybe there will be about barges.
  • itvs
    itvs 31 May 2016 16: 01
    0
    Yet again. Organization of coastal defense. Well, you challenged a great power. Well, try to at least somehow match. But no, proudly, with bare w. Forgive the recoilless guns, against a well-organized, with centuries-old traditions, able to fight the army. Of course history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. Yes, aviation proved itself heroically, the fleet also tried. But the desire to win the political leadership of Argentina was not.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 31 May 2016 16: 19
      0
      The BO was mobile, much more dangerous - ATGM crews (by means of landing) and MANPADS or carried by Rapira SAM systems, as well as their infantry escort carried by jeeps and helicopters. All this was flipped by the British VTOL / KVVP before the landing. And getting into such a tower would be even easier for them.
      In previous articles, not a word about this, just about a pair of 105mm infantry cannons that are 114mm with radar guidance not an adversary - one OFS with a radio fuse for each.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 May 2016 16: 42
        +1
        Mirages, Daggers and Skyhawks, which were supposed to prevent them from doing so, did not shoot down a single Englishman and thwarted only one or two English attacks. Therefore, the British danced there the "dance of death" (a helicopter funnel) over almost every target, or bombed the squares with cassettes from pitching up, or from a gentle dive with small NURS.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          31 May 2016 17: 27
          +1
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Therefore, the British danced there the "dance of death" (helicopter funnel) over almost every target, or bombed with cassettes over the squares from pitching

          M-dya. The only cases of bombardment from the cabbage were when the British bombed guided bombs. Well then, yes, they threw them from the cabling over the hill, thereby not entering the Argentinean weapons area, and a bomb flying over the hill was aimed at the beam.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 31 May 2016 17: 50
            0
            These cases were many. If they hit a firing point, then even more covered air defense of an area airdrome is even easier and safer to cover with a cassette from cabling.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        31 May 2016 17: 24
        +2
        Quote: Simpsonian
        BO was mobile, much more dangerous - ATGM crews (by means of landing) and MANPADS or carried by Rapira air defense systems

        Maybe it's good to fill it already? Where did the Argentines have rapiers? What mobility did they have if all the troops were pulled to Port Stanley da Goose Green? What place can a jeep give off-road mobility?
        Quote: Simpsonian
        In previous articles not a word about it

        Because I fantasize on the alternativehistory site :)
        Quote: Simpsonian
        All this was skipped by the English VTOL / KVVP before landing

        The number of "flipped" PTUs, jeeps, MANPADS and air defense systems - in the studio :)) With links to sources :)
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 31 May 2016 17: 46
          0
          Jeeps are designed for off-road use, helicopters and the Falkland Strait are not an obstacle.

          Apparently more than the number of helicopters flushed. Not all troops - a map of the deployment of the Argenin units on the stages of the war on the Internet is available. The same goose green is in the center of the islands. You can read how much then surrendered to about. West Falkland.
      3. maximghost
        maximghost 31 May 2016 18: 51
        +1
        I am so sorry, but how could the harriers get into "such" tower? The only type of guided weapon that the harriers could use would be to aim either from the ground or from another harrier. In addition, the chances against the air defense were slightly more than that of the Pukar and the Argentine Ubs. Although I do not consider VTOL aircraft and their carriers to be a complete inability, it is not worth overestimating the capabilities and contribution of the harriers to the war.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 31 May 2016 19: 12
          0
          From the ground at the firing points during the battles along the road to Stanley, special forces directed abrasives.
          Such a tower penetrates the roof with a 30mm cannon or NUR.
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 31 May 2016 21: 50
            +1
            What embrasures? The special forces directed bombs exactly 1 time during the whole war, and then 2 of 4 fell off (because of the curvature of the special forces, but this is not directly related to the matter).
            And about breaking through the tower of Isa II. Well, tell me what kind of armor penetration the harrier’s guns have, at what angle he will dive onto this tower, and from what time he will be able to hit it exactly.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 31 May 2016 22: 03
              0
              Once 10. This assault support, as well as the widespread use of counter-enfilade firing by infantrymen, to a large extent explains their success.

              Ask the rudder ... Harrier was originally made for Europe only in the GR version of the attack aircraft with an armored cockpit for the CAS.
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 31 May 2016 22: 23
                0
                It is also explained by the fact that, according to the English infantry orders, the Argentine aviation, on the contrary, had practically no opportunity to work. None - neither counter-partisan Pukars, nor helicopters, nor supersonic or subsonic jet.
              2. maximghost
                maximghost 31 May 2016 22: 48
                +2
                Again. Harriers in the Falkland War used laser-guided bombs (their only guided air-to-ground weapons) only 1 time in the entire war.
                If you have any excellent data - feel free to indicate the source.

                Ask the rudel ...

                And then Rudel, who is this Rudel? Your relative (alteration of a quote from the Golden Calf if that).

                And now seriously - Rudel flew on a completely different plane. It has a speed of about 300 km / h, while diving it is small that it had a high drag due to its bast shoes, it also used brake flaps. So he dived slower than a harrier in a straight line. Consequently, the rudel on its own thing had much more time to find a target and aim at a dive than the British at the harriers. And the big question is how many tanks he knocked out. Well, all this without considering the disguise of such bunkers. So if you give such arguments, then you are either a troll, or well, a very ardent fan of harriers.
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 1 June 2016 00: 16
                  0
                  Only once the application was canceled seconds before the reset, because the Argentines gave up ...

                  A-10 with the same caliber which shields does it use? Its flaps are large, and the Harrier can make the same "funnel" along a curve as the Ka-50 helicopter. It can also turn on the spot on the top of the hill like the Mi-28 and then pick up speed in the descent not soon enough ... And then how will he do his own thing if they do not shoot back - fly away at an airplane speed and land no one knows where.
                  The target is first discovered, then it is dived, it can be done this way, it can be through the wing if it is pointed, so as not to lose sight of it, and not to search for a new one.
                  Aiming equipment usually does not get worse over time.

                  This disguise if the bunker position is opened easily move with him?
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 1 June 2016 00: 27
                    0
                    Not the most favorite plane - it brought a lot of problems, like this sprudel.
                  2. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 1 June 2016 00: 27
                    0
                    Not the most favorite plane - it brought a lot of problems, like this sprudel.
                  3. maximghost
                    maximghost 1 June 2016 00: 39
                    +1
                    Only once the application was canceled seconds before the reset, because the Argentines gave up ...

                    From empty to empty. Give links to sources.

                    A-10 with the same caliber which guards use?

                    Firstly, the A-10 does not dive with large angles, and secondly, the role of the air brake on it is played by flaps that open in different directions. The Su-25 also has air brakes at the ends of the wing.

                    Harrier can make the same "funnel" in a curve like a Ka-50 helicopter

                    He can’t make a funnel, he can’t even hang until he produces about 70% of the fuel.

                    The target is first discovered, then it is dived, it can be done this way, it can be through the wing if it is pointed, so as not to lose sight of it, and not to search for a new one.

                    A point small-sized motionless target covered by at least a masket can be detected only from a small height, and there can be no question of any dive.

                    This disguise if the bunker position is opened easily move with him?

                    I did not understand this proposal at all. Who will move? Where will it move?

                    In general, it seems that you swooped in a harrier in the second army / f-35 in battlefield and came here. Well, or read somewhere nonsense about "helicopter combat techniques."
                    1. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 1 June 2016 01: 02
                      0
                      I have to look for them for a long time. Hill defense was hacked by these bombings.

                      It depends on what kind of harrier, if it’s American then it can be.
                      On the flap area of ​​his flaps, you can also catch a glimpse.

                      Iron? They discover it with a small one, then they make a maneuver with a turn on the hill. A funnel is usually for a target that shoots back.

                      It was humor. Search the Internet for these tricks ...
                      1. maximghost
                        maximghost 1 June 2016 01: 21
                        +1
                        I have to look for them for a long time. Hill defense was hacked by these bombings.

                        Well, yes, 1 application on the positions of the Argentines on the last day of the war is all right, but earlier you wrote about
                        10 times


                        It depends on what kind of harrier, if it’s American then it can be.
                        On the flap area of ​​his flaps, you can also catch a glimpse.

                        Any harrier cannot take off and hang with undeveloped fuel and BC. The flap area has nothing to do with it. Any harrier cannot make a funnel. can’t hang, and even if he could, he would hardly start doing it.

                        Iron? They discover it with a small one, then they make a maneuver with a turn on the hill.

                        And now we have come to the conclusion that the pillbox does not snap so easily, it remains to be determined with the dive angle to the pillbox => the angle of hit of shells and missiles at it and the disorder of the guns.
                      2. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 1 June 2016 01: 38
                        0
                        The hills gradually cracked from June 8th until the last day.
                        The characteristics of the first Harrier are much closer to the fighter than the second. They have a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1 at 75% fuel reserve, and not at such an expense

                        It clicks simply, it is more difficult to find. The obscenity of A-10 guns and dive-bombers is certainly not an obstacle ...
                        neither a maneuver (helicopter) with such a turn on a hill turning into a dive can either be done by the zealot.
                      3. maximghost
                        maximghost 1 June 2016 01: 45
                        +1
                        thrust-to-weight ratio of 1 at 75% fuel reserve, and not at such an expense

                        So, in addition to fuel, the BC also hangs.

                        neither a maneuver (helicopter) with such a turn on a hill turning into a dive can either be done by the zealot.

                        About the U-turn on the hill you wrote, not me. What claims to me?

                        The hills gradually cracked from June 8th until the last day.

                        but the bombs were only used on the last day

                        In the final stages of Operation Corporation, 1st Squadron launched two successful Paveway precision bombs on 13 June against positions on Mount Tumbledown. The squire was using target illumination from a ground targeting post on a nearby hill. A direct hit was achieved, and soon Poke repeated the attack, achieving the destruction of the second target - a 105-mm gun. The next day, with suspended bombs, the Payway took off from the forward airfield in San Carlos, Lieutenant Harris. While maneuvering over the target, ground guidance suddenly ceased, and the flight director reported that the Port Stanley garrison had posted white flags The war was over

                        Here is a quote from an article from a corner of the sky.
                      4. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 1 June 2016 02: 11
                        0
                        Ammunition and PTB are different. The TV should equal 1 when entering the battlefield.

                        None - a harrier can.

                        This corner does not know everything. Little is written about the period of feeling for weaknesses from Goose Green and until June 10. Besides the fact that the Israeli special forces would have dealt faster, but the English commandos made it more elegant.
                      5. maximghost
                        maximghost 1 June 2016 10: 33
                        +3
                        When attacking enemy positions, the BK will be loaded at the maximum.

                        Regarding the storming of heights: if it is not written about it anywhere, how do you know about it? And where does the information come from about the use of guided bombs "10 times"? I would like to see the source ...
                      6. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 1 June 2016 21: 47
                        0
                        Since it’s probably VTOL / KVVP, it’s probably designed for this, the use of a large airfield with its bicycle chassis, and therefore it will not be necessary to have a low separation speed, does not fly from them.

                        A source for the fact that they write little about these battles or "besides"?

                        I read somewhere that there were so many KABs available, 12 attacks, unsuccessful 1, cancellation of 1, 10 pillboxes hit, usually there were at least 2 firing points in height, so many hills taken ... and that the Argentinean machine gunners had excellent stamina, which is why they stopped shooting without leaving a position until they were thrown with grenades.
                      7. maximghost
                        maximghost 1 June 2016 22: 51
                        +1
                        Harrier is designed only for a short take-off (in the case of the Invisible, the springboard will still be achieved) He is not designed for any maneuvers that ordinary planes cannot do. By the way, when hovering, the engine’s power is taken away by jet rudders, so that the thrust-weight ratio, even for simple hitching, needs to have more than one + reserve, in case you need to climb.

                        On "besides"
                      8. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 1 June 2016 23: 03
                        0
                        Harrier does not make sense to operate from a strip more than 700m - racks with wheels will fly off and it will break.
                        To begin with, can ordinary planes hang with pitch angles from ~ 30 to +95? Can they fly sideways or back like a helicopter?
                        As far as they take it so much and create traction, and probably this is taken into account as well as the loss in transmission from helicopters and other equipment.

                        "moreover" is that the British made this work more elegant. is it so important?
                      9. maximghost
                        maximghost 1 June 2016 23: 54
                        +1
                        "moreover" is that the British made this work more elegant. is it so important?

                        It is important to use bombs with guidance more than 2 times.

                        Harrier does not make sense to operate from a strip more than 700m - racks with wheels will fly off and it will break.



                        Harrier does not make sense to operate from a strip more than 700m - racks with wheels will fly off and it will break.

                        What? why should racks fly off?

                        Yak-28

                        From above I stuck a picture of 28 yaks, he also has a bicycle chassis with additional struts at the wingtips. Take-off run 1000m, no vertical or short take-off is provided.

                        Anyway, why did you start writing about runway length?

                        To begin with, can ordinary planes hang with pitch angles from ~ 30 to +95?

                        And the harrier cannot.

                        Can they fly sideways or back like a helicopter?

                        So the Harrier flies like this only at near-zero speeds and for a very short time and not at full load. (I won’t say for everything, but on some versions I use water injection into the engine when it hangs.) And for freezing this hang does not apply.

                        As far as almost as much is selected and traction is created,

                        They do not create traction, they create torque around the center of mass of the aircraft.
                      10. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 3 June 2016 19: 41
                        0
                        Where did you read about the KAB, about the 13th was it written "for the first time"?

                        The maximum allowable lift-off and touch speeds for a bicycle circuit are always lower. You could still have a photo of the American U-2. The Yak-28 has at least other overclocking characteristics, and a wing load.

                        If the length would be only 100m, would it not?

                        The moment is created by force or their resultant. Does the wing lift drop significantly when the ailerons break away?
                        It seems that while the wheels do not work, the harrier from the power take-off should burst on them. Again, this all counts ...

                        Does he also do dynamic helicopter braking at near-zero speeds?

                        Video of flights, see what it can, what is not.
                      11. maximghost
                        maximghost 4 June 2016 16: 02
                        +1
                        Where did you read about the KAB, about the 13th was it written "for the first time"?


                        The British could counter this 314-kg rocket with only a 454-kg guided laser-guided LGB-16 bomb that the ground-based Harrier could carry. Throughout the war, these bombs were used by the British only once, "at the end" of the conflict, during the storming of Mount Tumbledown. Those four bombs were dropped by a pair of “Harrier GR.3”, of the 4 bombs, only half hit their targets - the position of heavy artillery of the Argentines. Laser target illumination was carried out from the ground, from the battle formations of the British Marine Corps - the planes “popped up” over the terrain only to drop bombs, they did not have time to search and identify the target.


                        Can you refute this?

                        The maximum allowable lift-off and touch speeds for a bicycle circuit are always lower. You could still have a photo of the American U-2. The Yak-28 has at least other overclocking characteristics, and a wing load.

                        Well, give a link to the maximum allowable separation speed for the harrier. So far, all this is an empty phrase.

                        If the length would be only 100m, would it not?

                        What’s this all about?

                        The moment is created by force or their resultant. Does the wing lift drop significantly when the ailerons break away?

                        Again, what is it for? How does this contradict anything that I wrote or proves any of what you wrote?

                        It seems that while the wheels do not work, the harrier from the power take-off should burst on them. Again, this all counts ...

                        While the wheels do not work, there is no power take-off, but there should always be a margin for this power take-off at speeds at which conventional controls are not effective.

                        Does he also do dynamic helicopter braking at near-zero speeds?

                        Is this when the nozzles are turned forward? This "maneuver" has nothing to do with helicopters, and is hardly applicable in combat.

                        Video of flights, see what it can, what is not.

                        I looked, I did not see a U-turn on the hill or a funnel. So attach a video with a spread on the hill.
                      12. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 4 June 2016 20: 29
                        0
                        It is strange to contrast a missile with a bomb rather than an air defense system. This article was about the GBU-12 Paveway II, its weight is 227 kg.
                        Why "ground"? Now twice, now once, now four times. The planes did not jump over the relief ... What else needs to be refuted?

                        This is generally due to the fact that the smaller the take-off, the faster it will reach TV at 1 with fuel consumption. The same amount was loaded onto the attack aircraft so that it would take off like the fighter from the same distance, would not fall after separation or fall apart during the take-off. Therefore, they took off with the same weight, differed only in the reservation and location of the cabin, and the presence or absence of radar.

                        So far, you require systemic links. See the English wiki article about the harrier there is about this and about its chassis. The "delight" of the pilots of the long-run airfield U-2 and Yak-28 is also easily googled.

                        This is taken into account, otherwise this vacuum cleaner would burst.
                        They looked poorly, especially as a couple walking in a funnel slowly opposite each other. With this yawing torque, the tail of the harrier turns to the desired position as on a slide with a tail rotor at the Mi-28,
                        Shifting the nozzles down works like a helicopter "step-gas" ...
                      13. maximghost
                        maximghost 4 June 2016 22: 16
                        +1
                        It is strange to contrast a missile with a bomb rather than an air defense system.

                        The article compares the guided weapons of the Yak-38 and the Harrier GR.3, therefore, the Kh-23 is opposed to the Harrier's guided bomb.

                        This article was about the GBU-12 Paveway II, its weight is 227 kg.

                        The article claims that they used the GBU-16 Paveway II, respectively, and its weight is given.

                        Ground-based because GR.3 is a land version, not a marine FRS.1.
                        Bombs are used 1 time, with 2 aircraft only 4 bombs.

                        In total, during the campaign, only the Sea Harriers of the 800th AE dropped forty-two 1000-pound bombs and 21 BL.755 cassettes, and the Harriers of the 1st Squadron dropped 150 bombs, of which 4 were guided. These UABs were used on June 13 at the final stage of the operation against the Argentine defensive positions on Tumbledown Mountain. Target illumination was carried out from the battle formations of ground forces. "Harriers" GR.3 with two UABs on the outer underwing pylons approached the target at an altitude of 150 m at a speed of 1020 km / h, disguising themselves behind Mount Harriet. Above the selected ground reference, the pilot began pitching and, with a pitch angle of 30ывал, dropped the bombs so that they would fly over the ridge and enter the cone of the laser beam of the designator. After that, the plane immediately turned away and went to the base, remaining out of sight of the enemy. 2 targets were hit, one of which was a 105-mm gun in cover, but there were also two undershoots due to the early deactivation of the target designator. The next day, Lt. Harris took off from FOB with two more UABs, but on approaching Mount Harriet, the flight director reported that the Port Stanley garrison had posted white flags. War is over.


                        This is generally to the fact that the smaller the acceleration, the faster it will reach TV in 1 with fuel consumption.

                        The statement is controversial + we did not talk about it at all.

                        The attack aircraft was loaded as much so that it took off like a fighter from the same distance, did not fall after separation or did not fall apart during the take-off. Therefore, they took off with the same weight, differed only in the reservation and location of the cabin, and the presence or absence of radar.

                        A combat load is hooked onto an airplane based on the task and the range to the target (even the individual mass of each particular machine is taken into account). And it is not necessary that frs harrier and gr harrier take off with the same weight. Most likely frs harrier flew out on patrol with less load, because should have been in the air for the maximum amount of time.

                        They looked poorly, especially as a couple walking in a funnel slowly opposite each other.

                        I saw similar pirouettes performed by 38 yaks, but that's just not even close combat maneuvers. If only because the slightest oversight instantly leads to the rollover of the aircraft (the Yak-38 had an automatic ejection seat for this reason).

                        So far, you systematically require links.

                        And you systematically ignore these requests.
                      14. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 4 June 2016 23: 09
                        0
                        Intuitively it was like comparing to Exocet, "-38" was mentioned for the first time just now. But what about GR.3 flew there from ships? He is not a ground attack aircraft, he is a forward-based reconnaissance aircraft. What is terrestrial cannot fly.
                        The rest probably were GBU-12, all Paveway II -12, -16, -10 differ only in the 500,1000,2000 pound bomb Mark -82.-83, -84 on which the same GOS and controls are hung, it seems to not lied about LGB-16, but did not tell the whole truth ...

                        Nothing controversial, and you wrote about the fact that "the attack aircraft will be loaded to the maximum" - because of this, the maximum orb is necessarily the same as that of the fighter. PTBs were not hung on attack aircraft only when flying from ships to Stanley. All that is shown on the show is combat maneuvers. It is much more difficult for an anti-aircraft gunner to get into a plane flying sideways and continuing to shoot than a pilot into his stationary anti-aircraft gun. For attacking "tank towers" from a dive after turning on the spot on the TV = 1 slide, it is not even close at all.
                        And how do helicopter pilots with the same controls without oversights shoot in a similar situation?

                        Why should most of these Google Wikipedia links look for you? Instead of thinking again ...
                      15. maximghost
                        maximghost 4 June 2016 23: 33
                        +1
                        -38 "was mentioned for the first time just now.

                        In the article that compares the "bomb with a rocket" there is a comparison of the Yak-38 with a harrier, but the Yak 38 is not interesting to us in this discussion, so it was not mentioned about it.

                        But what about GR.3 flew there from the ships? He is not a ground-based, he is a forward-based reconnaissance aircraft. That which is land is not air and cannot fly.


                        Initially, the GR 3 was not intended to be based on an aircraft carrier, for this it was prepared, moreover, in an emergency, which is why it was called ground (i.e., ground based). Why find fault with words.

                        The rest were probably GBU-12,


                        Re-quote
                        In general, during the campaign, only the Sea Harriers of the 800th AE dropped forty-two 1000-pound bombs and 21 BL.755 cassettes, and the Harriers of the 1st Squadron dropped 150 bombs, 4 of which are controlled


                        his maximum because of this is necessarily the same as that of a fighter

                        No, not necessarily. I already wrote why. Although it may be the same. And you yourself write about replacing additional fuel with a bomb load.

                        All that is shown on the show is combat maneuvers.

                        No. Have you ever wondered why combat aircraft at an air show spin aerobatics with empty pylons?
                        In the case of the crow, we get an extremely dangerous maneuver in which it is almost impossible to shoot, the chance is high to kill, and they will shoot at the plane from everything (including the shooter) with real chances of hitting.

                        And how do helicopter pilots with the same controls without oversights shoot in a similar situation?

                        You can not compare VTOL on hovering and a helicopter - they have completely different flight physics.

                        Why should most of these Google Wikipedia links look for you?

                        Well, somehow I even get lost with the answer. Maybe because the dispute is adversarial and each side must prove its point of view with arguments (in this case, citing references)? Or maybe just out of elementary politeness (I throw you quotes from my sources, and do not send you to Google). What do you think?
                      16. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 5 June 2016 00: 08
                        0
                        There in this paragraph it’s hard not to find fault with at least something.
                        It is not ground but air force. They do not write about "ground" aviation even when it is in a museum or in a landfill.

                        Harriers of other units could not throw these bombs?

                        Mandatory - the replacement concerned only two internal pylons. It could have some significance only when attacking from ships on only one point of the Argentine defense out of many.

                        Why do they need weapons at an air show? In the case of a funnel, we get the same as with a funnel performed by a helicopter.
                        They have different when flying at a speed ahead.

                        You throw quotes without links and which I especially need, the only link on this page is still mine.

                        Here you go to the wiki and according to Hawker Siddeley Harrier immediately issues

                        If most of the Sea Harriers had been lost, the GR.3s would have replaced them in air patrol duties, even though the Harrier GR.3 was not designed for air defense operations; as such the GR.3s quickly had their outboard weapons pylons modified to take air-to-air Sidewinder missiles. [88] From 10 to 24 May 1982, prior to British forces landing in the Falklands, a detachment of three GR.3s provided air defense for Ascension Island until three F-4 Phantom IIs arrived to take on this responsibility. [94]

                        And in the previous parts of the article it was stated that GR.3 would let them in, and could not do anything like that ... The word "defense" is really written twice with an error ...

                        The Englishman quoted here and in truth, and even a little Commander-in-Chief, Sandy Woodworth cheated as if he were lost in the dock why the Argentines are attacking exactly the ships that they attacked, as if he himself did not indicate where to anchor and how to deal with each of them .
                      17. maximghost
                        maximghost 5 June 2016 00: 44
                        +1
                        Harriers of other units could not throw these bombs?


                        The Hermes carried 12 Sea Harrier FRS fighters. 1, and the Invincible - 10. The aircraft carriers also carried 24 Sea King helicopters. The planes belonged to the 800th, 801th, 899th Squadrons from the Navy Yowilton Air Station. In addition, for action against Argentina by April 27 was urgent the 809th AE was formed, which included 8 Sea Harrierstaken from conservation. They immediately flew to about. Ascension, accompanied by tankers "Victor" K.2 and joined the ADS.

                        In addition to naval aircraft, the British decided to send Harrier GR.3 fighter-bombers from 1st Air Force Squadron into the combat zone.stationed at Wittering AFB. To be used in a marine theater of operations, they had to be modified: to carry out anti-corrosion treatment of structural elements, to install mooring nodes to fix the machines on the deck and to drill drainage holes to remove condensed moisture from the glider cavities. In addition, it was decided to add to the main combat tasks of GR.3 (direct air support for ground forces and reconnaissance) the fight against air targets and thus bring their capabilities closer to the level of FRS.1. For this, the outer underwing pylons of the aircraft were modified for the suspension of the Sidewinder AIM-9L missile launcher with an IR seeker.


                        Therefore, no, harriers from other units could not use these bombs, because in service with the marine harriers they were not, but here's another quote:

                        In general, during the campaign, only Sea Harriers of the 800th AE dropped forty-two 1000-pound bombs and 21 BL.755 cassettes, and the Harriers of the 1st Squadron dropped 150 bombs, of which 4 were guided.

                        http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/folkl/harrier/harrier.html

                        Why do they need weapons at an air show?

                        It’s not necessary, only without armament they can maneuver more energetically + the most trained pilots fly at an air show + non-standard aerobatics are performed. The same funnel is an example.

                        In the case of a funnel, we get the same as with a funnel performed by a helicopter.

                        No, not the same. The helicopter is "suspended" on its propeller + under it there is also a cushion of compacted air, which is formed when flying at low altitude. VTOL aircraft, as it were, perched on the stream of their AP. (if we draw an analogy, then a helicopter is a swing located at the bottom point of the circle. They are in a state of equilibrium and, when deflected, tend to return to their original state. VTOL aircraft are the same swing, but frozen in the upper part of the circle. They are also in equilibrium, but unstable . When deflected, they lose this balance and turn over.)
                        This is without taking into account the fact that hot gases reflected from the ground can get into the air intake, draining engine power, and the possibility of the appearance of a suction effect.

                        And according to the quotes, I would like to see material about the use of guided bombs in excess of those 4 and about the flying off landing gear. Or rather the length of the takeoff run of the horrier during takeoff "along the plane."
                      18. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 5 June 2016 01: 23
                        0
                        There were also Harriers (mostly GR) from other squadrons from two container ships, except for those that came with refueling in the air. These CAB ship could use and Sea Harrier. On Invincible they were based 8 pieces. What about the other KAB, smaller LGB-12?

                        They usually do this at an air show at lower speeds, otherwise the audience becomes uninterested and they feel dizzy. A funnel, if its plane or helicopter can do, is the standard for combat, like everything else.

                        When flying at low altitude, this is the same as a screen effect or SVP.
                        KVVP / VTOL are kept on the vertical leaving thrust of their engines + wing. I wonder how low-flying planes fly?
                        Yaks are sitting on a hardware-controlled tricycle; Harrier is generally on a jet stool. Stand on your own two and do not fall.
                        These aircraft are built so that there is no gas leak, which happens on a helicopter.
                        the helicopter pilot usually corrects it with a pen for some reason while the test pilot Yak-36 throws it ...

                        About more than 4 bombs he replied that it would take a long time to look, about flying off - too, about the fact that the bicycle scheme imposes additional restrictions, it is easy to search. For "the range of speeds at which this can be done is narrow due to relatively vulnerable outrigger undercarriage" see.
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet
                        it’s about landing, on takeoff it’s about the same thing, a heavily loaded plane to accelerate and break away from the runway is disproportionately difficult due to the increased rolling friction, which also load these landing gears with a twisting moment.
                      19. maximghost
                        maximghost 5 June 2016 02: 03
                        +1
                        then with other KAB, smaller LGB-12?


                        The British used a fab of 1000 pounds (454 kg), BL.755 bomb cartridges, laser-controlled Paveway LGB-16 bombs and 50-mm NAR.


                        There were also Harriers (mostly GR) from other squadrons from two container ships, except for those that came with refueling in the air.


                        The pilots of the 1st AE at that time were engaged in intensive combat training. Particular attention was paid to mastering the skills of take-off from the ramp, as well as tactics of air combat. To make training conditions as close to combat conditions as possible, on April 22 and 23, the GR.3 Harriers met over the North Sea in a training battle with the French Mirages-3 and Super Etandars - vehicles of the same type as the Argentine. On April 30, at the Ebercourt test site, the first practical launch of the Sidewinder with GR.3 was made.

                        It was planned that the 1st AE will go to the Falklands on the Atlantic Conveyor container ship, and upon arriving there, it will operate from the Hermes. However, the squadron didn’t have time to finish training before its "side" went to sea, and it had to catch up with the ship on Vozneseniya Island. On May 3, the first 3 GR.3 Harriers, accompanied by a tanker, took off from Saint Mogan airbase and landed at Widewake 9 hours later. On May 4 and 5, this flight was successfully repeated by two more similar groups of aircraft. Soon 6 of them were already on the Atlantic Conveyor and followed to the place of the upcoming battles, and 3 remained on Ascension and carried out the air defense functions of the air base that are not characteristic of them. On May 21, they were replaced by Phantom FGR.2 fighters from the 29th AE (Coningsby airbase), the Harriers were then loaded aboard another container ship, Contender Besant, and also sent south.

                        So all GR.3 were from 1 squadron.

                        These CAB ship could use and Sea Harrier.

                        Could not. They were not part of the si harrier's armament, and the si harrier could not direct them.

                        KVVP / VTOL are kept on the vertical leaving thrust of their engines + wing. I wonder how low-flying planes fly?

                        When flying at near-zero speeds, and even more so when performing the VTOL funnel, keep only on the thrust of the engines, as free flow around the wing incorrectly.
                      20. maximghost
                        maximghost 5 June 2016 02: 13
                        +2
                        Yaks are sitting on a hardware-controlled tricycle; Harrier is generally on a jet stool. Stand on your own two and do not fall.

                        I can adjust the position of the center of gravity, the VTOL can also to some extent regulate it with jet rudders, but if you go beyond these limits the situation will develop so rapidly that a person simply does not have time to react.


                        Here is an example. The comments there are not entirely correct - the pilot was automatically catapulted.

                        it’s about landing, on takeoff it’s about the same thing, a heavily loaded plane to accelerate and break away from the runway is disproportionately difficult due to the increased rolling friction, which also load these landing gears with a twisting moment.

                        Only the length of the takeoff run is not affected. The aircraft will not exceed the maximum speed, because the take-off speed is always the same (albeit different for the aircraft with different loads). And the harrier was precisely calculated for takeoff "by plane". Conclusion - the strip can be of any length and the harrier from the long strip does not exactly lose. By the way, KMK take off from a springboard is a bigger test for the chassis than a long run, and there were no problems with it.

                        too, about the fact that the bicycle scheme imposes additional restrictions is easy to find
                        Specifically, I did not argue with this.
                      21. maximghost
                        maximghost 5 June 2016 03: 37
                        +2
                        https://rutube.ru/video/b1600d137a5b2cb68bf0794f5734a20d/

                        The video did not insert for some reason.
                      22. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 5 June 2016 04: 02
                        0
                        this bird got into the engine, or "shavings in oil" at two ...
                    2. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 5 June 2016 03: 54
                      0
                      LGB-12 is twice as light. For VTOL "Harrier" even reduced NAR were made. Did the logistics fail with them?

                      Hermes stood very far from the islands.

                      On this container ship some sort of harrier arrived and judging by the photo in an amount greater than 6.
                      Even if everyone was in the same Sea Harrier he could also throw such bombs and they were part of his armament - 454kg were designed for relatively safe destruction of ships, as well as depth charges for submarines. No one would urgently call GR for this purpose from the RAF.

                      It depends on its V-wing and other factors. When flying with a flip to the back, it also wraps around not quite correctly.

                      The equipment on the Yaks automatically shot the pilot only when there was a sudden sudden roll / pitch due to equipment failures, or if it seemed to her ... Once the pilot, when taking off with a take-off run (without a springboard), did not transfer the nozzle to an intermediate position due to which he failed tail.

                      Forgotten brakes on the wheels or if they are completely jammed in Harrier, do they affect? "Always the same" and "although different" is not comme il faut!
                      Harrier is not designed to take off on an airplane, it’s more efficient to disperse it first, then reject the OBT to tear it away from the strip, and give a large controllable pitch angle to accelerate further. On deck, it automatically makes a springboard. Expecting him to take off purely on an airplane would degrade his other characteristics.
                      If it is overloaded in order to then try to take off with all this until the long strip of the airfield ends (jet cars with large steel wheels drive super-smooth salt lakes too and set records without taking off)so that the separation rate (it weighs more, so a greater separation rate is needed) exceeded the critical and went beyond "the range of speeds at which this can be done is narrow" then "due to relatively vulnerable outrigger undercarriage" "this very thing" will happen to him ...
                    3. The comment was deleted.
                2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 9 June 2016 02: 58
            0
            It was dangerous to "overload" the planes (if there was such an opportunity) when attacking the airfield and warehouses in Port Stanley from the Invincible, which was close to it, since the Argentine base was covered with good Roland air defense systems in large numbers, and the relief of leaving them was not favored, the only escape route to the hills was blocked by a gallery of anti-aircraft guns (those who finished off their Mirage).

            In the next, seventh part of the article, there is a photo of a slightly "smashed" GR attack aircraft flying from the San Carlos field airfield, which is advantageously located in the center of the islands, it shows how much "loaded" ammunition he had. Only two pylons are occupied under the NAR blocks, 2 more internal ones, as in the fighters under the PTB.

            This is the machine of the early squadron, about whom the wiki article writes that for the first time for RAF he used the KAB on the 13th in the battle for Longdon Hill, which however was on the night of 10-11th. Sea Harriers belonged to the Navy, came to the conflict zone before GR, there were more of them, they were used longer and more actively and suffered more losses from anti-aircraft fire, they could use such KAB on ships, therefore it is more logical to assume that they also used them on Argentine positions on the islands first too
          3. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 1 June 2016 21: 03
    0
    No. Not bullshit, I also read that at the Harrier the British managed to do the unthinkable
    feints impossible on any other plane. I definitely remember about the U-turn on the spot.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Plombirator
    Plombirator 31 May 2016 16: 15
    +2
    Excellent articles, informative, high-quality written in a good syllable. It reads with pleasure. Let your inspiration never leave you!)
  • timyr
    timyr 31 May 2016 18: 42
    +2
    The bombs there were American, though before that they had lain for 30 years in warehouses. You should be surprised that they still exploded. It is not known how they were stored, although given the Latin American mess we can guess how.
    1. Operator
      Operator 31 May 2016 19: 05
      -1
      Most likely, the problem (natural or artificial) was not in the bombs, but in the fuses and / or in the Argentine gunsmiths.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 31 May 2016 21: 52
    0
    Not Airmachi, but Aeromachi. "Italian" :)
    And the material is excellent!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      31 May 2016 22: 30
      +1
      Quote: Bersaglieri
      Not Airmachi, but Aeromachi. "Italian" :)

      Maybe, but Tatarkov’s is Eirmachi :)) But by the way, don’t call him :)))
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 31 May 2016 23: 55
        +2
        If you really get to the bottom of the little things, then even "Intrepid" periodically "Interpid" call names. laughing
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 June 2016 01: 13
          +2
          Thanks, did not notice :)))) I will correct!
          How is the classic?
          "How long can you explain that I am not a syphilitic, but a philatelist ?!"
    2. Operator
      Operator 31 May 2016 23: 15
      -1
      And yet, "Airmachi" is the author's translation of "rather" laughing
  • smokyrabbit
    smokyrabbit 1 June 2016 06: 37
    +2
    I am reading this series of articles with great interest, I would like to express my gratitude to the author and put a "+". But you need to leave at least 10 comments - 1st went. =)
  • merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 2 June 2016 14: 56
    0
    Dear namesake, I ask you for a big request. If you have anything about the Yom Kippur war of 1973, namely the actions of the Israeli Navy and the war of Galilee 1982, the Israeli Navy too, and be completely insolent about the action of the US river fleets in Vietnam. thank.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 June 2016 16: 10
      0
      If you are to me, then alas - I have nothing of the kind.
  • Raphael_83
    Raphael_83 2 June 2016 18: 22
    +1
    I closely follow the cycle and look forward to every next article. At first the name was misleading (damn clip thinking), but somewhere in the third part there were only feelings of respect and gratitude for such a detailed "debriefing". To my shame, amazed at the courage and decisiveness of the Argentines, who flew and achieved results on outright junk, always wondered how the Metropolis could allow such "failures" during the operation, completely losing sight of the strategic aspect (remoteness, supply, lack of coordination of actions of the nuclear submarine and the surface group , etc.).
    From SW. hi

    PS
    What can I say. So far, there are such enthusiastic people and competent old-timers (extremely respected by me, but appearing in discussions less and less) to help full-time authors, the site and community will live.