What lessons can the Russian Navy learn from the Falklands War


They say generals are always preparing for the last war. Whether this is good or bad is a debatable issue, what is much more important is what conclusions they drew from victories or defeats. 40 years ago, the Falklands War between Great Britain and Argentina took place in the southern hemisphere, in which the British won with great difficulty "over the Indians". What experience of the opposing sides can be useful to us if Russia suddenly needs to conduct a similar naval operation in another part of the world?


We will not specifically deal with a detailed analysis of the Falklands War, its causes, course and results, since this topic is complex, multifaceted and many works have already been devoted to it. Let's try to isolate only the most important, in our opinion, that could determine the vector of further development of the Russian Navy. This war once again showed that without a strong navy, no power can be considered great. So what criteria should he meet then?

Faced with the real prospect of losing the Falklands, Great Britain decided to prove to the whole world that she was still "mistress of the seas." London sent over 40 warships of various classes to the coast of South America, including two light aircraft carriers Hermes and Invincible, as well as about 40 VTOL aircraft Sea Harrier and Harrier GR.3, 8 landing ships, over 40 auxiliary ships, more than 9 thousand people of landing forces. They quickly established a naval blockade around the disputed islands within a 200 nautical mile radius, destroying everything that crossed it. The poor former colony of Argentina opposed the British, armed with old aircraft and a few air-launched anti-ship missiles. Despite their courage, the general level of training and experience of the Argentine pilots was also clearly far inferior to the Royal Air Force.

And despite all this, the "Indians" were able to beat the British hard, who were saved from imminent defeat only by a combination of several factors! London in this war, which lasted only 74 days, lost 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, 1 landing ship, a container ship used to deliver aircraft, 1 landing boat, 10 aircraft and 24 helicopters. How did this become possible?

According to statistics, a third of all British ships that went to South America received strikes from Argentine aircraft. 4 air bombs fell on the Plymouth frigate, the Glasgow destroyer received a direct hit from a 1000-pound bomb, which for some reason did not explode. The Antrim frigate received exactly the same weighty "gift". The Broadsword frigate was hit by a 500-pound bomb that fell into the water and ricocheted aboard. Two Argentine air bombs fell on the Argonaut frigate and did not explode. 1000-pound bombs hit the landing ships Sir Lancelot, Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram.

The real "British miracle" was that 80% of the ammunition that the Argentine Air Force used did not work properly. If not for the "rotten" bombs, a third of the ships of Her Majesty's Navy would have died or become incapacitated, which would mean defeat in the war. At the same time, even the vaunted "Exocets" showed themselves not from the best side.

The British destroyer Sheffield was killed by an unexploded anti-ship missile, largely due to the negligence of her officers and design flaws in the ship. The Sheffield caught fire like our Agile corvette, and was completely burned out so that it had to be flooded. Subsequently, it turned out that his commander ordered all radars and other electronic devices to be turned off, the crew was bored with inactivity, and the duty officer peacefully drank coffee. As a result of a rocket hit, which did not explode, and the ensuing terrible fire, 20 people were killed and 28 more were injured.

The foregoing allows us to draw an intermediate conclusion that aviation against the fleet still “steers”. Even old aircraft with primitive aerial bombs can be a real danger to ships. If the Argentine Air Force had modern fighters, attack aircraft and bombers with long-range anti-ship missiles capable of providing a simultaneous dense salvo, the British fleet would have remained there near the Falkland Islands in the form of underwater reefs. No sea-based air defense system is capable of reliably covering warships from constant air attacks for 74 days.

So why did not Argentina win this war, but Great Britain?

Because the British brought their own aircraft with them. They brought in two bad aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible, with bad Harriers, but in the hands of good RAF pilots, they were able to provide anti-aircraft cover for the fleet. VTOL attack aircraft, which have a relatively small radius and combat load, are generally not adapted for maneuverable air battles, had to fight with Argentine fighters, and they shot down more than two dozen of them. The British Harriers, for all their shortcomings, have become one of the main characters and a symbol of the Falklands War and a weapon of victory.

This allows us to draw a second, even more important conclusion: without our own aircraft, there is nothing to do against enemy aircraft. No naval air defense is capable of reliably protecting against massive air attacks, so the most important thing is to stop them with your aviation forces, preventing the opponent from developing and using the advantage in the air. Even a bad plane in capable hands is better than none at all.

Without its carrier-based aviation, any naval operations against an enemy of the level of conditional Argentina will turn into a gamble, obviously doomed to a fiasco.
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 3 February 2022 14: 45
    -2
    Why should the Russian Federation fight "Argentina"?
    How did the Soviet fleet live without aircraft carriers?
    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 3 February 2022 15: 06
      -1
      Why should the Russian Federation fight "Argentina"?

      Sometimes it's necessary. But rather, to protect this "Argentina" from your idols.

      How did the Soviet fleet live without aircraft carriers?

      Cool. Do the names of the projects "Condor" and "Krechet" mean nothing? ATAVKR Ulyanovsk?
      No, haven't you?
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 3 February 2022 18: 55
        -3
        Quote: Marzhetsky
        Sometimes it's necessary. But rather, to protect this "Argentina" from your idols.

        Even if the Russian Federation has an aircraft carrier, no one will protect anyone from your idols.

        Quote: Marzhetsky
        Cool. Do the names of the projects "Condor" and "Krechet" mean nothing?

        Fear God, what kind of aircraft carriers are these? Why is the Yak-38 better than the Harriers?

        Quote: Marzhetsky
        ATAVKR Ulyanovsk?
        No, haven't you?

        And how was it built? Yes, this ATAVKR was a solid nail in the coffin of the USSR.
        1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 4 February 2022 07: 49
          -1
          Even if the Russian Federation has an aircraft carrier, no one will protect anyone from your idols.

          I have no idols in the West. Under the liberals, of course, they will not be in power. We will be with normal power.

          Fear God, what kind of aircraft carriers are these? Why is the Yak-38 better than the Harriers?

          TAVKR are aircraft carriers in their essence, despite the presence of strike weapons.
          Almost everyone. http://alternathistory.com/sravnenie-kharriera-s-yak-38/


          And how was it built? Yes, this ATAVKR was a solid nail in the coffin of the USSR.

          Not completed because of people like you. And it was definitely not because of Ulyanovsk that the USSR collapsed. You liberals can't help but lie even on trifles.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 4 February 2022 17: 45
            0
            Quote: Marzhetsky
            I have no idols in the West. Under the liberals, of course, they will not be in power. We will be with normal power.

            So why do you have through the article, West, West, USA, USA.
            With any sane authorities will not. Of course, there will be a plug in every barrel. But the example of the USSR should cool the ardor.

            Quote: Marzhetsky
            TAVKR are aircraft carriers in their essence, despite the presence of strike weapons.
            Almost everyone. http://alternathistory.com/sravnenie-kharriera-s-yak-38/

            Are you talking about Krechet? You just talked about the inferiority of aircraft with GDP and, accordingly, their carriers in this article.

            Quote: Marzhetsky
            Not completed because of people like you. And it was definitely not because of Ulyanovsk that the USSR collapsed. You liberals can't help but lie even on trifles.

            What is the lie? No need for lala, the USSR was destroyed by your leftists-impertsy. What are you thinking, what kind of liberals are in the USSR? No need to blame a sick head on a healthy one.
            It is clear not only Ulyanovsk, but in general military spending is 15% of GDP. Do you want to repeat? I am sure the construction of an aircraft carrier fleet devoured no small part of these costs.

            The USSR overstrained itself, including on aircraft carriers, and even the modern Russian Federation cannot afford them.
            1. Kedrovich Offline Kedrovich
              Kedrovich (Alexa980) 14 February 2022 20: 21
              0
              The USSR overstrained itself not on aircraft carriers, but on the support of freeloaders from among the former republics. 13 out of 15 were subsidized. So much dough was poured into the Baltic states, gnaws and ukria, but there was no return. Here they broke.
              1. Man with a gun Offline Man with a gun
                Man with a gun (Man with a gun) 8 March 2022 03: 57
                +1
                Exactly, you are 100 percent right!

                1. Kedrovich Offline Kedrovich
                  Kedrovich (Alexa980) 9 March 2022 04: 59
                  0
                  With Ukraine there is even more fun. They considered everything produced to be even more added value than that produced in the RSFSR. Therefore, as a result, on this table, the balance is not so large in the balance. In reality, it's even worse. At least at the level of Estonia. All the same, almost 50 million Hochlorths lived. That even a bunch of industries did not lead to a positive GDP.
  2. Bakht Online Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 3 February 2022 14: 53
    +2
    One aircraft carrier is not enough. Moreover, on a distant theater of operations

    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 3 February 2022 15: 04
      -3
      Your quote only confirms the thesis that British light anti-submarine aircraft carriers were bad and Harrier attack aircraft were not designed for the tasks that they were forced to perform. However, they did. Without them, the British would have nothing to catch there at all.
      For this, in a good way, a couple of Nimitzes were needed with horizontal takeoff and landing fighters and AWACS aircraft in order to keep the Argentine aircraft out of the way.
      1. Bakht Online Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 3 February 2022 15: 16
        +1
        It seems that the Harriers were not engaged in air defense formations. Air defense was provided by Project 42 destroyers and Project 22 frigates. They have different radar radius and different weapon systems. Therefore, they were used in conjunction.
        I understand the desire to have many ships and different ones. Both big and small. What tasks will the ships of the Russian Navy solve in the far zone? So far, the immediate theaters are the near zone for the deployment of underwater strategists. It is more reliable to cover the Baltic and the Black Sea with coastal complexes. What remains is the Eastern Mediterranean. There, the basis is Tartus and Khmeimim.
        About keeping Argentine aircraft out. The British brought ships into the straits between the islands. That's where the Skyhawks frolic.
        1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 3 February 2022 15: 24
          -3
          It seems that the Harriers were not engaged in air defense formations. Air defense was provided by Project 42 destroyers and Project 22 frigates. They have different radar radius and different weapon systems. Therefore, they were used in conjunction.

          Also how they did it. I had to. Due to the weakness of the ship's air defense, including.
          Read, quite a lot has been written about this on VO.

          I understand the desire to have many ships and different ones. Both big and small. What tasks will the ships of the Russian Navy solve in the far zone?

          Venezuela may well become our "Argentina" in the future. When you need to support friendly mode. Here is the DMZ for you.
          1. Bakht Online Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 3 February 2022 15: 36
            +1
            I have already said that I use the memoirs of the commander of the English squadron. I think this is a more reliable source.
            He doesn't complain about the absence of the Harriers. He was in dire need of an AWACS aircraft. He didn't have them. But there is a small remark that the Americans seemed to be transmitting data to the British. It's just that the time it took to pass the information didn't match the pace of the battle. The etandars were in the affected area for less than a minute.
            1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
              Marzhecki (Sergei) 3 February 2022 16: 11
              -1
              I have already said that I use the memoirs of the commander of the English squadron. I think this is a more reliable source.

              Memoirs are a narrative source that should be trusted with caution.

              He doesn't complain about the absence of the Harriers.

              Because they were smile We tried to catch the Argentines at the entrance, but it turned out better at the exit. Do you think they shot down more than 20 Argentine planes without a single loss?
              The Admiral didn't write about it? Weird.

              He was in dire need of an AWACS aircraft. He didn't have them.

              No one has them, except for the amers. Well, we could have. Yak-44. But no.
              1. Bakht Online Bakht
                Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 3 February 2022 17: 06
                +1
                I looked at the publication on topvar. VTOL aircraft did not show their effectiveness.
                Briefly it looks like this

                1 output - The Argentines were unable to realize the superiority in the number of combat aircraft, in fact, the British collided in the air with approximately equal forces.
                2 output: Despite the comparable balance of forces in the air, the task of air defense of naval formations was completely failed by the British carrier-based aviation.
                3 output: Fighter aviation on its own (without external target designation) is not capable of either achieving air supremacy or providing any reliable air defense of sea or land formations.
                4 output (which is, perhaps, an expanded version of conclusion 3): The main reason for the inefficiency of the British carrier-based aviation in their air operations was the separate use of strike and fighter aircraft without reconnaissance aircraft, AWACS, RTR, EW aircraft
                5 output: The main reason for the "off-system" use of "Harriers" was the concept of aircraft carriers - VTOL carriers, on which AWACS, RTR and EW aircraft simply could not be based due to the lack of ejection takeoff.
                5 output: The advantages inherent (or attributed) to VTOL aircraft did not affect the course of hostilities.
                6 output: The main factor that determined the success of the Sea Harriers in air combat was their use of the AIM-9L Sidewinder all-aspect missiles.
                7 output: The shortcomings of the Sea Harriers, characteristic of them as VTOL aircraft, significantly reduced their effectiveness.
                8 output: Despite all of the above, it should be recognized that the Sea Harriers were the best air defense system of all that were at the disposal of the British.

                https://topwar.ru/96709-harriery-v-boyu-folklendskiy-konflikt-1982-g-chast-8.html
                PS Item 5 is repeated twice. This is not my fault. So in the text
                1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
                  Marzhecki (Sergei) 4 February 2022 07: 44
                  -2
                  And I say that VTOL aircraft of that time are bad aircraft. But they were enough to provide air defense for the KUG. 23 aircraft shot down Harriers with zero losses. Without them, the Britons did not shine at all.

                  For an effective air defense grouping, you need NORMAL carrier-based aircraft, not VTOL aircraft, and an AWACS aircraft for reconnaissance and target designation, which requires a NORMAL strike aircraft carrier instead of light anti-submarine ones. That's the whole conclusion.

                  P.S. this publication on the topic on VO is not the only one, there are others.
                  1. Bakht Online Bakht
                    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 4 February 2022 09: 19
                    +1
                    There were no clashes in a purely fighter performance. The British lost several Harriers. Basically, the Harriers shot down Argentine aircraft in the "bomb alley". And guidance was carried out from frigates.
                    The British were very lucky that almost 80% of the Argentine bombs and missiles did not work.
                    Your conclusion has been known for a long time. There are no tasks that the Russian fleet would have to perform in the far zone. We often say that an American aircraft carrier in the Black Sea is an easy target. The same easy target is a Russian aircraft carrier off the coast of, say, Venezuela. His survival time is several hours.
                    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
                      Marzhecki (Sergei) 4 February 2022 11: 38
                      -2
                      There were no clashes in a purely fighter performance. The British lost several Harriers. Basically, the Harriers shot down Argentine aircraft in the "bomb alley". And guidance was carried out from frigates.

                      So what? What kind of fighter clash can be performed by an attack aircraft that is not adapted to it? The British did everything right with what they had, and achieved results.

                      about the losses of the Harriers. Quote:

                      During the entire war, 10 aircraft were lost: 6 Sea Harriers FRS.1 and 4 Harriers GR.3, and half - in accidents and catastrophes (4 and 1, respectively)and 4 pilots were killed. One Sea Harrier slid off the flight deck, one failed to gain altitude after takeoff, and two likely collided mid-air. The last incident happened on May 6th. Captain-l-t John Ayton Jones and l-t William Curtiss performed another patrol flight over the sea. The ship's radars monitoring the airspace did not show the presence of enemy aircraft, when suddenly a pair of Sea Harriers disappeared from the radar screens.
                      In air battles, the British did not lose a single aircraft. // For comparison: the Argentines lost, according to various sources, from 80 to 86 combat aircraft.

                      And guidance was carried out from frigates

                      Yeah. And your admiral complained about its quality.

                      We often say that an American aircraft carrier in the Black Sea is an easy target. The same easy target is a Russian aircraft carrier off the coast of, say, Venezuela. His survival time is several hours.

                      Yeah. And then we must remember that after that it is supposed to start a nuclear war. Which no one needs. Therefore, no one (US Navy) will destroy a Russian aircraft carrier near Venezuela, just like we are American in the Black Sea.

                      In this case, a naval operation against the country was considered.
                      the level of Venezuela or Argentina, not against the United States. So you're doing juggling.

                      Your conclusion has been known for a long time.

                      It is a pity that they are not in a hurry to use it.

                      There are no tasks that the Russian fleet would have to perform in the far zone.

                      This is definitely not for you to decide. hi
                      https://topcor.ru/23871-vblizi-britanskih-ostrovov-formiruetsja-gruppa-iz-pjati-udarnyh-korablej-vmf-rossii.html

                      Russia is concentrating its naval forces off the coast of Great Britain, where five attack ships of the Northern and Baltic fleets are currently located. According to sources, from February 5 to February 8, the Russian Federation plans to conduct combat exercises with shooting in these waters. A group of seven ships of the Russian Navy, located in the English Channel and west of the British Isles, includes: the Admiral Kasatonov frigate, the Vice-Admiral Kulakov large anti-submarine ship, the Marshal Ustinov missile cruiser and the Stoykiy and Stoiky corvettes Smart." The group is escorted by the tanker "Vyazma" and the auxiliary vessel SB-406.

                      This combat mission near the British coast should require air cover or not? Or pure show-off?
                      1. Bakht Online Bakht
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 4 February 2022 12: 16
                        +2
                        Five strike ships.... "It's something special."
                        Yes, for God's sake, build an aircraft carrier. At the same time and the escort group. Plus a supply base. I am not against an aircraft carrier as a training ship. But building a full-fledged AUG will not work. By comparison, China plans far-field operations by 2050. Despite the fact that frigates are riveted at a speed of one in a year and a half.
          2. Old Skeptic Offline Old Skeptic
            Old Skeptic (Old Skeptic) 3 February 2022 19: 09
            +1
            Dear author. You are confusing warm with soft.
            From your article, it follows that Argentina did not have enough high-quality coastal aviation, and again you turned everything in favor of aircraft carriers.
            To cover an ally like Venezuela, you need to transfer coastal aviation there (this follows from your article).
            And you are again for aircraft carriers.
            Where is the logic?
            1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
              Marzhecki (Sergei) 4 February 2022 07: 43
              -2
              Dear author. You are confusing warm with soft.

              I don't confuse anything. To counter aviation, other aviation is needed, no ship-based missile defense system can cope. Here is the main conclusion.

              To cover an ally like Venezuela, you need to transfer coastal aviation there (this follows from your article).
              And you are again for aircraft carriers.

              I'm talking about a different situation, when a coup has already taken place in the country, the putschists have gained access to weapons, aviation, but the overthrown regime is holed up somewhere and asks Russia for military assistance. This is where the expeditionary strike group is needed. with aircraft carriers.
              The situation with the color revolution is quite working.
              1. Old Skeptic Offline Old Skeptic
                Old Skeptic (Old Skeptic) 4 February 2022 12: 11
                0
                In the event of a putsch on a previously union territory, ours will not interfere, I mean overseas territories.
            2. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
              Marzhecki (Sergei) 4 February 2022 08: 04
              -2
              From your article, it follows that Argentina did not have enough high-quality coastal aviation, and again you turned everything in favor of aircraft carriers.

              And actually, I considered a situation where such an operation should be carried out by the Russian Navy against conditional Argentina.

              And you are again for aircraft carriers.
              Where is the logic?

              So with the logic I have a complete order.
              1. Old Skeptic Offline Old Skeptic
                Old Skeptic (Old Skeptic) 4 February 2022 13: 45
                +1
                And actually, I considered a situation where such an operation should be carried out by the Russian Navy against conditional Argentina.

                Now tell me why we do this.
                No need for a putsch. The Czechoslovak method is more reliable, I am even more reliable not to allow a putsch.
  3. Miffer Offline Miffer
    Miffer (Sam Miffers) 3 February 2022 15: 38
    -7
    what if Russia suddenly needs to conduct a similar naval operation in another part of the world?

    Russia has no similar territories where it could play out such a scenario.
    Kuriles? - The Japanese grin and bark softly, but they will not dare to capture these stones in the sea.
    The Prime Minister of Britain in 1982 was "Iron Maggie" Thatcher, but I do not expect any feats of arms from the Russian guarantor, either on land or at sea.
    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 3 February 2022 16: 43
      -2
      Russia has no similar territories where it could play out such a scenario.
      Kuriles? - The Japanese grin and bark softly, but they will not dare to capture these stones in the sea.

      Since 1991, liberals have been telling us about the fact that Russia does not need an ocean fleet, but enough of a mosquito fleet.
      And in 2015 it turned out that we could well start fighting across the three seas in Syria (where we are still fighting), and UDC, it turns out, are needed, and even unnecessary aircraft carriers would not hurt. soldier

      PS: there is no ocean fleet, like the USSR, so we don’t go anywhere especially. What do you liberals want, right? wink
  4. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 3 February 2022 16: 03
    +1
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    Venezuela may well become our "Argentina" in the future. When you need to support friendly mode.

    Stupidity. We do not have such a large and strong Air Force and Navy to climb into Latin America.
    Senseless loss. There is no friendly mode from the word at all.
    There is nothing worth wasting valuable resources on.
    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 3 February 2022 16: 12
      -3
      Stupidity. We do not have such a large and strong Air Force and Navy to climb into Latin America.

      Now no. Years through 10-15 will be. Or do you not look that far?

      Senseless loss. There is no friendly mode from the word at all.
      There is nothing worth wasting valuable resources on.

      With an attitude like that, it won't. hi
  5. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 3 February 2022 16: 05
    0
    Just the news came out about the replenishment of the fleet of aircraft of the Russian Navy.

    And someday there will be aircraft carriers .... there are already unsinkable ones ...
    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 3 February 2022 16: 17
      -3
      Just the news came out about the replenishment of the fleet of aircraft of the Russian Navy.

      Excellent!

      And someday there will be aircraft carriers .... there are already unsinkable ones ...

      Let's hope smile
  6. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 3 February 2022 16: 21
    0
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    Now no. Years through 10-15 will be. Or do you not look that far?

    I don't look. Too far under the current conditions.
  7. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 3 February 2022 16: 25
    +2
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    With an attitude like that, it won't.

    Yes, and no need. Not fat yet.
    And we do not have 10-15 years for the calm cultivation of the fleet and air force.
    Maximum five years. If the ultimatum does not turn out to be a bluff, then we will win another 2-3 years. Hardly more.
    You have to make unpopular decisions, tough, even cruel. But no one will go for it. Maybe win.
  8. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 3 February 2022 16: 37
    -3
    Quote: Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
    Yes, and no need. Not fat yet.
    And we do not have 10-15 years for the calm cultivation of the fleet and air force.
    Maximum five years. If the ultimatum does not turn out to be a bluff, then we will win another 2-3 years. Hardly more.

    Then you have to fight without a fleet ...

    I don't look. Too far under the current conditions.

    Need to look. The fleet has been built for decades and you need to understand what kind and why.
    1. Binder Offline Binder
      Binder (Miron) 3 February 2022 18: 02
      -1
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      Then you have to fight without a fleet ...

      And so not to fight and solve things peacefully is not fate?
      1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 3 February 2022 18: 32
        -3
        Yes, Israel is, of course, the most peaceful country.
        And the former Ukraine is also a good example of a peaceful country.
        And the idea that Russia should resolve things peacefully is not new.
        At the same time, for some reason, the proponents do not want to compromise.
        Russia must yield in order to live peacefully. But they don't.
        1. Binder Offline Binder
          Binder (Miron) 3 February 2022 18: 36
          -8
          Quote: Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
          Yes, Israel is, of course, the most peaceful country.

          Since the declaration of independence in 1948. the Israelis waged exclusively defensive wars, defending their right to exist.
          1. isofat Offline isofat
            isofat (isofat) 3 February 2022 18: 48
            0
            Binder, you are familiar with the recent report Amnesty International UKwhere Israel is accused of apartheid?
      2. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 4 February 2022 07: 45
        -2
        Return the occupied Golan to Syria, destroy the illegally built nuclear arsenal and stop discriminating against the Palestinian people. Then you will discuss these topics.
    2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 4 February 2022 23: 59
      -1
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      Then you have to fight without a fleet ...

      Fight with whom?

      Quote: Marzhetsky
      And then we must remember that after that it is supposed to start a nuclear war. Which no one needs. Therefore, no one (US Navy) will destroy a Russian aircraft carrier near Venezuela, just like we are American in the Black Sea.
      1. isofat Offline isofat
        isofat (isofat) 5 February 2022 00: 20
        -3
        To fight with those who attack us, what's incomprehensible here? You have to chew everything.
  9. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 3 February 2022 16: 50
    -2
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    Then you have to fight without a fleet ...

    We won't win anything with conventional weapons. We won't even make a draw.
    If war starts, then one hope is for nuclear weapons.

    So far, we can have tactical successes with conventional weapons. For example in Ukraine.
    In five years, eight at best, we will be forced to use nuclear weapons.
    And we are unlikely to get off tactical.

    To start building a fleet is not just useless, but rather harmful.
  10. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 3 February 2022 18: 42
    +1
    Quote: Bindyuzhnik
    Since the declaration of independence in 1948. the Israelis waged exclusively defensive wars, defending their right to exist.

    And so not to fight and solve things peacefully is not fate?

    Especially your peacefulness confirms the seizure of the territory of Syria. Did you seize the Golan Heights for the sake of the right to exist? And earlier Egyptian territory. But you can, you have the right to exist, but we (Russia) do not.

    I have already predicted on this site, but I will repeat for you. Israel will be destroyed during the coming great war. Fully. Nuclear weapons. Because you allowed yourself too many rights. Take responsibility for this.
    1. isofat Offline isofat
      isofat (isofat) 3 February 2022 20: 18
      -1
      "Jewish people" is an international organization, do not bomb them with nuclear weapons. It is necessary to deal with those who finance them, use them and make decisions.

      I admit that the "Jews" themselves will still have to be protected, otherwise the neighbors offended by them will tear them apart. They are deceived and put in such conditions that they don’t really have a choice, I’m talking about bindyuzhniks.

      This does not apply to the Ukrainian branch of this organization.
  11. Indifferent Offline Indifferent
    Indifferent 4 February 2022 03: 05
    0
    In those days, I walked not far from this conflict. Our commander gave the radio to get closer, but Moscow did not allow us. If the West had not abandoned Argentina, supplying it with unsuitable weapons, then who would have won is a big question. Too many bombs and rockets "didn't work".
  12. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 4 February 2022 03: 28
    -3
    Quote: isofat
    "Jewish people" is an international organization, do not bomb them with nuclear weapons.

    Me on the Jewish people ... how to put it mildly? ... don't give a damn.
    My prediction is that in a future major war that does not directly involve Israel, the decision will be made to take advantage of the situation and launch multiple nuclear strikes on Iran.
    The answer will arrive from Russia. I won't say why, but Russia's reaction will be brutal.
    It will be impossible to live in Israel. Nowhere. Even Jerusalem will not be spared.
  13. dunce123 Offline dunce123
    dunce123 (Charlie) 5 February 2022 12: 15
    -1
    you don’t need to fight on enemy territory, as "great Stalin" taught
    and it is better to fight by proxy with the money of the warring parties, as the ENGLISH teach!
    remember Libya-Iraq-Yugoslavia-Somalia-Nigeria
  14. Kade_t Offline Kade_t
    Kade_t (Igor) 10 February 2022 15: 02
    +2
    I completely disagree, given the performance characteristics of our today's anti-ship missiles, especially Zircon, Dagger and Onyx, just one hit on an aircraft carrier is enough and it will be unable to carry out takeoff and landing operations, but it will probably remain on the move, but it will no longer be able to use aircraft 100%. And that's it, the cover of the order by aviation will end here, the aircraft carrier turns into a useless barge. And if you imagine that the war has begun, then missiles with SBC will fly into the AUG, then in general you can not remember about the experience of the Falklands. In a modern war, aviation can work quite effectively, only from ground airfields and that's it, aircraft carriers will be effective only against countries that do not have hypersonic missiles in service.
  15. Gosha Smirnov Offline Gosha Smirnov
    Gosha Smirnov (Smirnov) 11 February 2022 04: 59
    0

    ... the colony of Argentina, which is armed with old aircraft

    Mr. Marzhetsky, for your information, during the Falklands War of 1982, Argentina deployed its best aircraft from the available composition: 48 Skyhawk combat aircraft (26 A-4B, 12 A-4C and 10 A-4Q. In 1977, the United States imposed an embargo for the supply of salaries to aircraft, but behind the scenes and by roundabout ways, Israel assisted the Argentines in maintaining skyhawks in a combat-ready state), and the French "Super Etandar" at that time was generally one of the best attack aircraft in the world. It is absolutely difficult to call the Israeli version of the early 70- xx Mirage5 - Dagger .Yes, MirageIII to 82g. tired was the car, but not quite outdated.
    Even one British general admitted that it was the Argentine Air Force that was the most worthy in this war and an unexpected nuisance for the British.
  16. Andrew 18.11 Offline Andrew 18.11
    Andrew 18.11 (Andrei) 11 February 2022 23: 45
    +1
    Aircraft carriers are now like combat airships. It is impossible to miss them, and the damage will be colossal.
  17. scalero Offline scalero
    scalero (Slavic S) 23 February 2022 10: 58
    0
    What lessons can be learned from the war that was 40 years ago? What lessons of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 were used in the Great Patriotic War? What experience of the Great Patriotic War was used in Afghanistan 1979-1689? All the lessons learned long ago and successfully forgotten as irrelevant.
  18. Man with a gun Offline Man with a gun
    Man with a gun (Man with a gun) 8 March 2022 03: 50
    0
    Soviet air defense could cover from a massive air raid, with the help of missiles with nuclear warheads, one missile and the sky above the ship was clear.