The way I remember it, it was Secretary Al Haig's suggestion.
Posted on 06/27/2012 10:20:18 AM PDT by Saint X
While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the U.K. during the 1982 Falklands War, President Ronald Reagan’s administration had developed plans to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers in the war, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26.
Lehman and then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger agreed to support U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the loan of the amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima , he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.usni.org ...
There would have been a lot of US sailors aboard. No getting around that. I wonder if they could have improvised a ski-jump on the foredeck?
The way I remember it, it was Secretary Al Haig's suggestion.
Why would they need one on a longer decked carrier?
Oh, yeah, down in the Maldives.
Reagan 'probably' gave Thatcher a lot of the SIGINT and SATINT for England to keep the Falklands.
FIVE aircraft?! Good Grief, I bet the USS Langley had a bigger compliment.
Reagan 'probably' gave Thatcher a lot of the SIGINT and SATINT for England to keep the Falklands.
I served aboard the USS Iwo Jima (1965-67.) It was an LPH, which could only launch helicopters. I guess the Brits could have used it with their Harrier jets. Not really an aircraft carrier in the traditional sense.
We loaded the Royal Navy to the gills with our supply ships as they transitted south. A nearly continual underway replenishment of weapons from war reserves.
Today, Obama would nuke the British fleet (if there was one).
I was on USS New Orleans (LPH-11) around that time, we would also have harriers occaisionally.
The USS Langley carried 36 aircraft.
In the 1970s, the US tested the Iwo Jima class for V/STOL and concluded that the ships could serve as platforms for harriers. It wasn’t ideal, but would get the job done if needed.
No, they would have had US aircraft with US pilots in them.
BTW, did you know that there were US airborne tankers air refueling British aircraft during the war?
If there is a new conflict, President Romney (I am getting to like the sound of that) should loan them a carrier, like the old USS Kitty Hawk, and some planes too. Maybe a cruiser or two as well.
The Brits were operating Harriers off of container ships stacked to make deck.
That was sort of the point for my asking the question about the ski-jump/ramp. US naval aviators don't have the benefit of it, but the Brits use it with their Sea Harriers. More than likely they would have had a VMFA detachment & just painted roundels on the jets. The pilot/aviators would be called "exchange pilots". No need for a shake & bake version of the AVG/Flying Tigers.
But without a hangar deck in the winter seas of the South Atlantic, the container ships were a poor option. I've heard that these Harriers were 'spares' or alternatively meant to fly ashore once an airstrip was secured.
You may recall that the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by air launched anti-ship missiles -- probably Exocets.
I think it changes the angle at which the thust-vectoring nozzles get set allowing for more forward air-speed to be carried on the take-off roll. Less fuel consumed; greater warload.
During my time, there were no Harriers. I was on the first Iwo Jima (LPH-2), which was retired and replaced by an LHD bearing the same name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.