The factor of the participation of "Harriers" and aircraft carriers in that conflict was somewhere in the twentieth place after destroyers and frigates, a hundred helicopters, numerous landing forces and excellent training of British crews.
The damaged destroyer "Glasgow" continuously described the circulation for a couple of hours. The artificially created roll prevented water penetration while the emergency team tried to close the hole in the waterline area. This is how victories are forged!
And what about the Harriers? Below is a short report on their exploits and their real contribution to the overall victory. Running a little ahead, I will note that the Falklands War was a clear proof of the opposite. The modern fleet has a real chance of winning without air cover. And he would have had even more if the British took air defense more seriously. You may laugh, but it really is. What the Harriers were doing could not be called air support or cover. One big and useless expense item.
The second point of view is related to the analysis of the combat use of "Harriers" with the issuance of profound conclusions about the need to build a "balanced fleet". With classic aircraft carriers, catapults and the notorious AWACS aircraft. Wow! This is power.
Only, gentlemen, do not look for meaning where there is none. We all know that being rich and healthy is certainly better than being poor and sick. The British knew about this, and they only had enough money for replicas of warships. And, according to the author's personal conviction, if we are to consider this topic, then the question should be posed differently. Could the funds have been spent in a more rational way instead of keeping the rusty Hermes and building useless Invincibles?
The rest of the Falklands War was the same replica of modern warfare. With the use of passenger airliners for naval reconnaissance, sporting rifle shooting at jet attack aircraft and only six Argentine anti-ship missiles for the entire theater of war. Although that theater was more like a circus.
The Argi and the British not only fired at each other with the same submachine gun (FN FAL), but even used the same ships. For example, the combat core of the Argentine Navy included the same “Sheffield” - Type 42 destroyers built in Britain a couple of years before the conflict.
Now, in the era of "Google maps", it will seem strange, but the marines of Her Majesty gathered in the campaign did not have topographic maps of those islands that no one needed. Intelligence agencies had to collect information by hand, interviewing everyone who, by chance, had ever entered the Falklands.
Rusty frigate Plymouth and first generation nuclear submarine Conquerror with 1929 Mk. VIII torpedoes (I'm not kidding). Perfectly complement each other
What happened to the Plymouth in the war zone? Shots from the machine gun of the Argentine attack aircraft
Destroyer Type 42 (sister ship of the famous "Sheffield") against the background of the modern destroyer Type 45
And here you are dreaming about aircraft carriers and AWACS.
The British also had the most serious intentions and the Queen Elizabeth CVA-01 project. Two classic 300-meter monsters with a mixed air group, incl. deck "Phantoms" and AWACS aircraft. With a crew of 3200 people.
6,400 more than all of the destroyers, aircraft carriers, and submarines of the Falkland Squadron. And the Queen Elizabeth itself with full air wing would cost more than the fleets of England and Argentina put together.
For those who have not yet realized all the curiosity of the process: for the sake of maintaining a pair of CVA-01 British admirals would have to abandon all other ships. A fleet of a pair of aircraft carriers. And all around were empty berths.
In reality, they didn't even master the construction of an escort for their CVA. Of the planned series of Type 82 destroyers, only one was completed - the Bristol.
Another funny situation is related to the old aircraft carrier "Ark Royal" (R09), which was "hacked to death by the damned Labor". How useful he would have been in the Falklands War!
Or maybe it didn't come in handy.
By the time of the write-off, the age of the "Arc Royal" was: from the moment of commissioning - 24 years, from the moment of laying down - 36 years. An old bucket built to obsolete WWII (1943) standards. The decommissioning of the "Arc Royal" was preceded by two significant events: a) a fire on its hangar deck; b) termination of the process of "cannibalization" of HMS Eagle (R05), whose parts were used to keep his fellow on the move. Alas, by 1978 there was nothing to shoot.
Do not be deceived by the capabilities of the air group of the last of the British "classic" aircraft carriers. At what range could the "Ganit 3AEW" AWACS aircraft with a WWII radar be able to escort low-flying aircraft and cruise missiles against the background of water? And would the two Ganit operators be strong enough to carefully monitor the situation and target modern fighters?
As for the "Phantoms", there were only 12 of them on board, at best (if they replaced all aircraft of other types) - about 20-25 machines. According to open sources, the labor intensity of the Phantom maintenance was 35 man-hours per hour of flight. There are 24 hours a day. Attention, the question: how many fighters could be constantly in the air, providing the air defense of the British squadron?
Big money spoils people, and small money just disfigures
Realizing that dreams of "classic" 300-meter aircraft carriers are unrealizable and empty, the British Admiralty was imbued with the idea of "light" aircraft carriers with VTOL aircraft. A ready-made model of such a vertical was already in service”- Hauker Siddley Harrier. It only remained to adapt the "Lunya" to sea basing and teach them to perform fighter missions.
Did the admirals understand that a subsonic "vertical" without medium-range missile systems and with a limited combat radius would always be inferior to "classic" fighters? Obviously they understood. But they could not even think that everything would be so sad.
During the Argentine attacks sunk:
- the destroyer Sheffield;
- the destroyer "Coventry";
- frigate "Ardent";
- frigate "Antilope";
- the landing ship "Sir Galahad" (on the way to the islands was hit by a 1000-lb. unexploded bomb; re-attacked and killed three days later in the bay of San Carlos);
- transport / helicopter carrier "Atlantic Conveyor";
- landing craft Foxtrot Four (from the UDC HMS Fearless).
Damaged:
- the destroyer "Glasgow" - a 454-kg unexploded bomb stuck in the engine room;
- the destroyer "Entrim" - unexploded bomb;
- frigate "Plymouth" - four (!) unexploded bombs;
- frigate "Argonaut" - two unexploded bombs, "Argonaut" was taken out of the DB zone in tow;
- frigate "Elekrity" - unexploded bomb;
- frigate "Arrow" - damaged by aircraft cannon fire;
- frigate "Brodsward" - pierced through by an unexploded bomb;
- frigate "Brilliant" - shot by "Daggers" from low-level flight;
- landing ship "Sir Lancelot" - 454 kg unexploded bomb;
- landing ship "Sir Tristram" - damaged by bombs, completely burned out, evacuated on a semi-submerged platform;
- landing ship "Sir Bedivere" - unexploded bomb;
- British Way naval tanker - unexploded bomb;
- transport "Stromness" - unexploded bomb.
You don't need to graduate from a military academy to understand that Woodward's squadron was on the verge of death. Whenever the Argentines flew out on a mission, the British did not illusoryly “rake” their opponent.
If the bomb detonators went off a little more often, the Falkland Islands would become Malvinas. With the reduction in the number of ships, the combat capability of the squadron was continuously decreasing, and the Argentine attacks would become more and more effective each time. Until they melt everyone like puppies.
What were the vaunted Sea Harriers doing at that time? The answer is known - patrolled off the southwest coast of the Falklands. It was there that Argentine “Daggers” went out to test their inertial systems after a 700-km flight over the ocean. There the British aces were waiting for them, shooting helpless stormtroopers. Traveled without radars, missiles and the ability to use afterburner, otherwise the "Dagger" on the way back will collapse with empty tanks into the ocean.
As for the "Skyhawks" with an in-flight refueling system, they immediately flew into the open ocean, where they unexpectedly attacked British ships from any rumba.
The supersonic Super Etandars felt invulnerable at all. Quickly calculating ships, launching Exocet missiles and disappearing again in an unknown direction. Fortunately for the British, Argentina had only six missiles per five missile carriers. And instead of military aviation - rubbish from all over the world: without radars, normal bombs and with the only operational KS-130 tanker aircraft. But even in front of such a weak enemy, the naval VTOL aircraft were completely ineffective.
Epilogue
This whole mess boils down to one single question.
If the idea with the "Invincible" and VTOL aircraft suffered a complete and obvious fiasco in practice, were there any other ways to increase the combat capability of the British squadron?
For example, to direct funds for the purchase of the sea-based air defense systems "Sea Sparrow". This was standard NATO practice - the complex was installed on all large (and not so) surface ships of pro-American states. The battle-proven AIM-7 Sparrow medium-range missiles in an eight-round launcher. In general, the system was far from perfect, but still could not be compared with the British Sea Cat.
Own British air defense system looked wretched and had the same weak performance characteristics. As it turned out later, none of the 80 subsonic missiles fired hit the target! Based on these statistics, 13 of the 15 frigates sent to the Falklands were completely defenseless from air attacks. Only two of them ("Diamond" and "Brodsworth", type 22) were equipped with a two-channel air defense system "Sea Wolf", close in capabilities to the American "Sea Sparrow". To drive the fleet in this state to the other end of the world was a pure gamble! Those who do not believe, let them take another look at the list of bombed ships.
The presence of more or less adequate air defense systems on the remaining 13 ships could reduce the losses of the British at times, for a long time discouraging the Argentine pilots from engaging in top-mast bombing.
And this is just the simplest and most obvious solution! Otherwise, what are these helicopter carriers and "verticals" for, if the whole fleet, excuse me, walks with a bare bottom ?!
It is curious that just a month after the end of the war, in July 1982, a British commission urgently left for the United States in order to acquire the latest know-how: Falanx anti-aircraft systems …
Nevertheless, we will refrain from far-reaching conclusions. The need for air support, the correct tactics and the appearance of ships with an extreme lack of funds … Life is broader than any rules and complexes. And Admiral Woodward hardly needs couch experts. He won that war without our advice.
Perhaps the only universal rule of this life: any resources need to be properly allocated. And the fewer these resources, the more deliberate their investment should be.
