Reagan Readied US Warship for '82 Falklands War

[Rick Deckard]

http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/n...alklands-war-0

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.

“We agreed that [Weinberger] would tell the President that we planned to handle all these requests routinely without going outside existing Navy channels,” Lehman said in a speech provided to the U.S. Naval Institute he made in Portsmouth, U.K. “We would ‘leave the State Department, except for [Secretary of State Al] Haig, out of it.’”

President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at the White House in 1981 The Reagan Library Archives

Reagan approved the request without hesitation and his instructions to Weinberger had been simple, “Give Maggie everything she needs to get on with it,” Lehman said in the speech.

At the time, the Royal Navy had deployed HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes to the Falklands. Each carrier fielded five vertical takeoff Sea Harriers armed with American Sidewinder missiles — all major components of the U.K.’s air war in the Falklands.
The contingency plan to provide a replacement carrier was developed at the Royal Navy’s request.
“As in most of the requests from the Brits at the time, it was an informal request on a ‘what if’ basis, Navy to Navy,” Lehman said.

Retired U.S. Navy Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, commander of the U.S. Second Fleet at the time of the conflict, helped develop the plan to supply the Royal Navy with Iwo Jima if the Hermes or Invincible were lost. Though primarily a helicopter carrier, at least one Iwo Jima-class ship was qualified to operate the American version of the Sea Harrier, according to the 1982 edition of Combat Fleets of the World.

“We decided that the USS Iwo Jima would be the ship that would be the easiest for the British to operate and would make for a smooth transfer,” Lyons told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26. “We also identified ‘contract advisors’ who would be on board to help the British with some of the systems.”

The contract advisors needed to help operate the USS Iwo Jima would have likely been retired sailors with knowledge of the ship’s systems, said current Combat Fleets editor, Eric Wertheim on June 26.

“The arrangement would have probably been a similar operation to The Flying Tigers, when the U.S. sent surplus aircraft to China and then recruited former pilots to fly the planes,” Wertheim said.
“Once the British took over the ship, the crew would have likely been supplemented by privately contracted Americans familiar with the systems.”

Iwo Jima would have functioned well as a replacement for the Invincible as both ships were close in size and function. “Even though the Hermes was a larger ship with more capabilities, Iwo Jima could have filled the gap,” Wertheim said.

Currently, tensions over the Falklands remain high since the U.K.’s 1982 victory. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received backlash from the British media in 2010 after she offered to mediate the dispute. Many British observers thought her offer indicated that the U.S. position of recognizing British sovereignty over the islands was fading.

[American God]

That actually makes more sense than the other story I've heard, that we were ready to lease them the Forrestal. The Iwo would be something they could actually get into combat soon enough to make a difference. Crewing the Forrestal would have required something like 80% or more Americans, and I don't think the logistics could be done soon enough to make an impact.

[Nikephoros]

I've been on the Iwo.

[NomadicSky]

There's no way the US could truly be neutral in this one I mean hell we all know Margaret Thatcher and Reagan were fucking.

[American God]

Originally Posted by NomadicSky

There's no way the US could truly be neutral in this one I mean hell we all know Margaret Thatcher and Reagan were fucking.

Please keep political content / snark out of this part of the Ark. Thank you.

[general_tiu]

Would they put the Harriers in that carrier, too?

[Nikephoros]

Originally Posted by general_tiu

Would they put the Harriers in that carrier, too?

Yes.

Retired U.S. Navy Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, commander of the U.S. Second Fleet at the time of the conflict, helped develop the plan to supply the Royal Navy with Iwo Jima if the Hermes or Invincible were lost. Though primarily a helicopter carrier, at least one Iwo Jima-class ship was qualified to operate the American version of the Sea Harrier, according to the 1982 edition of Combat Fleets of the World.

[American God]

One of the Iwos, forget which one, actually did operate harriers in the late 70s, as a test of the Sea Control Ship concept. The concept worked; but the Navy wanted nothing to do with small carriers once Elmo Zumwalt was safely retired, so it ended there.

[Nikephoros]

IIRC, all the flattop amphibs now in service can carry AV-8Bs.

Oh, BTW, I set foot on a different Wasp.

[American God]

The Iwos were actually smaller than the Wasps and Tarawas, which can accommodate the Harrier more readily.

Also figured out it was the Guam that tested out the SCS concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Guam_%28LPH-9%29

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by NomadicSky

There's no way the US could truly be neutral in this one I mean hell we all know Margaret Thatcher and Reagan were fucking.

Thanks a lot. That's a picture I DID NOT need in my head.

[Firestorm]

IIRC, all Harriers in US service are Marine-operated. Would they have taken part in this venture?

[American God]

Originally Posted by Firestorm

IIRC, all Harriers in US service are Marine-operated. Would they have taken part in this venture?

I think the Brits had plenty of Harriers back home. It was just flight decks they were short on. Taking additional time for crews to familiarize themselves with the (different) avionics in the US version would not make sense.

[MacCaulay]

Originally Posted by American God

I think the Brits had plenty of Harriers back home. It was just flight decks they were short on. Taking additional time for crews to familiarize themselves with the (different) avionics in the US version would not make sense.

Exactly. When the Argentines hit the Atlantic Conveyor with an Exocet and sank it, the big news was the Chinooks that they lost. But there were also some Harriers that went down with it as well, since they were just plain out of room on the flattops. They were stashing those things everywhere they could.