The Royal Navy loses a carrier in the Falklands; the US Navy hands over a replacement?

[James G]

During the Falklands War, the Royal Navy had its two operational aircraft carriers with the Task Force down in the South Atlantic: HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible. There was a - not very high - submarine threat to them but the main danger was an air attack with Exocets.

Revelations made in 2012 were that if one of them were lost, the US Navy would transfer the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iwo_Jima_(LPH-2) ) to the Royal Navy. This was a vessel designed for amphibious aviation assault and was capable of Harrier operations. Retired personnel and contractors were meant to operate the ship alongside Royal Navy sailors so the plan went.
Here's some info on it: Wikipedia A July 2012 article by USNI News of the United States Naval Institute revealed that the Reagan Administration offered the use of Iwo Jima as a replacement in case either of the two British carriers, Hermes and Invincible, had been damaged or destroyed during the 1982 Falklands War. This top-secret contingency plan was revealed to the staff of the Naval Institute by John Lehman, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy at the time of the Falklands War, from a speech provided to the Naval Institute that Lehman made in Portsmouth, UK on 26 June 2012. Lehman stated that the loan of Iwo Jima was made in response to a request from the Royal Navy, and it had the endorsement of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. The actual planning for Iwo Jima loan-out was done by the staff of the U.S. Second Fleet under the direction of Vice Admiral James Lyons, who confirmed Lehman's revelations with the Naval Institute staff. Contingency planning envisioned American military contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of Iwo Jima's systems, assisting the British in manning the U.S. helicopter carrier during the loan-out. Naval analyst Eric Wertheim compared this arrangement to the Flying Tigers. Significantly, except for U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig, the U.S. Department of State was not included in the loan-out negotiations
US Naval Institute news.usni.org/2012/06/27/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0 

So... let us say that a British carrier is hit. The Americans then move to transfer this ship. I see problems, so many problems!
There would likely have been a few RN personnel who've been aboard one of the seven members of the Iwo Jima class before on exchange duties, yet the ship would still be a relative unknown to the Royal Navy in how to operate it. Where does the RN get these sailors from to crew the ship too?
It is a US Navy vessel with American systems, weapons and communications. All more unknowns for the new crew.
The Iwo Jima is Harrier-capable but those would be US Marines AV-8A Harriers: not Sea Harriers that the British have. No ski-jump is fitted to the Iwo Jima like the Hermes and Invincible have.
What about those Americans which would need to be aboard? What legal status would they have fighting in the Falklands? I recall reading once that in April 1982, when the Royal Navy set off for war, a US Marines aviator on exchange with a Harrier unit was left behind in Britain because he couldn't legally go.

Neither the article extract nor the link state what I have heard before about what role the Iwo Jima was envisioned for. The suggestion in both was that somehow the ship would join the fight in the Falklands upon the loss of a RN carrier. But how long would that take? The Southern Hemisphere winter was coming up fast! I have been told before that the Iwo Jima was instead intended not for Falklands service if needed, but for afterwards.
Those RN carriers weren't meant to be used in a projected WW3 role as traditional carriers - like they did in the Falklands - but instead as anti-submarine platforms with a few Harriers to protect them as they used their helicopters. Losing one, with or without victory in the Falklands afterwards, would mean that the RN would be absent a platform to conduct a much needed peacetime/ready-for-war role. Two more Invincible-class carriers were being built but there would be a gap that the Iwo Jima would fill in the meantime.


Anyway... thoughts on all of this?

[lordroel]

Jul 16, 2020 17:32:04 GMT James G said:

During the Falklands War, the Royal Navy had its two operational aircraft carriers with the Task Force down in the South Atlantic: HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible. There was a - not very high - submarine threat to them but the main danger was an air attack with Exocets.

Revelations made in 2012 were that if one of them were lost, the US Navy would transfer the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iwo_Jima_(LPH-2) ) to the Royal Navy. This was a vessel designed for amphibious aviation assault and was capable of Harrier operations. Retired personnel and contractors were meant to operate the ship alongside Royal Navy sailors so the plan went.
Here's some info on it: Wikipedia A July 2012 article by USNI News of the United States Naval Institute revealed that the Reagan Administration offered the use of Iwo Jima as a replacement in case either of the two British carriers, Hermes and Invincible, had been damaged or destroyed during the 1982 Falklands War. This top-secret contingency plan was revealed to the staff of the Naval Institute by John Lehman, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy at the time of the Falklands War, from a speech provided to the Naval Institute that Lehman made in Portsmouth, UK on 26 June 2012. Lehman stated that the loan of Iwo Jima was made in response to a request from the Royal Navy, and it had the endorsement of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. The actual planning for Iwo Jima loan-out was done by the staff of the U.S. Second Fleet under the direction of Vice Admiral James Lyons, who confirmed Lehman's revelations with the Naval Institute staff. Contingency planning envisioned American military contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of Iwo Jima's systems, assisting the British in manning the U.S. helicopter carrier during the loan-out. Naval analyst Eric Wertheim compared this arrangement to the Flying Tigers. Significantly, except for U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig, the U.S. Department of State was not included in the loan-out negotiations
US Naval Institute news.usni.org/2012/06/27/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0 

So... let us say that a British carrier is hit. The Americans then move to transfer this ship. I see problems, so many problems!
There would likely have been a few RN personnel who've been aboard one of the seven members of the Iwo Jima class before on exchange duties, yet the ship would still be a relative unknown to the Royal Navy in how to operate it. Where does the RN get these sailors from to crew the ship too?
It is a US Navy vessel with American systems, weapons and communications. All more unknowns for the new crew.
The Iwo Jima is Harrier-capable but those would be US Marines AV-8A Harriers: not Sea Harriers that the British have. No ski-jump is fitted to the Iwo Jima like the Hermes and Invincible have.
What about those Americans which would need to be aboard? What legal status would they have fighting in the Falklands? I recall reading once that in April 1982, when the Royal Navy set off for war, a US Marines aviator on exchange with a Harrier unit was left behind in Britain because he couldn't legally go.

Neither the article extract nor the link state what I have heard before about what role the Iwo Jima was envisioned for. The suggestion in both was that somehow the ship would join the fight in the Falklands upon the loss of a RN carrier. But how long would that take? The Southern Hemisphere winter was coming up fast! I have been told before that the Iwo Jima was instead intended not for Falklands service if needed, but for afterwards.
Those RN carriers weren't meant to be used in a projected WW3 role as traditional carriers - like they did in the Falklands - but instead as anti-submarine platforms with a few Harriers to protect them as they used their helicopters. Losing one, with or without victory in the Falklands afterwards, would mean that the RN would be absent a platform to conduct a much needed peacetime/ready-for-war role. Two more Invincible-class carriers were being built but there would be a gap that the Iwo Jima would fill in the meantime.


Anyway... thoughts on all of this?

Loosing a Royal Navy carrier, that will be huge casualties, not good for a certain lady in London, there will be voices i think to end the war.

[stevep]

Jul 16, 2020 17:39:56 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 16, 2020 17:32:04 GMT James G said:

During the Falklands War, the Royal Navy had its two operational aircraft carriers with the Task Force down in the South Atlantic: HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible. There was a - not very high - submarine threat to them but the main danger was an air attack with Exocets.

Revelations made in 2012 were that if one of them were lost, the US Navy would transfer the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iwo_Jima_(LPH-2) ) to the Royal Navy. This was a vessel designed for amphibious aviation assault and was capable of Harrier operations. Retired personnel and contractors were meant to operate the ship alongside Royal Navy sailors so the plan went.
Here's some info on it: Wikipedia A July 2012 article by USNI News of the United States Naval Institute revealed that the Reagan Administration offered the use of Iwo Jima as a replacement in case either of the two British carriers, Hermes and Invincible, had been damaged or destroyed during the 1982 Falklands War. This top-secret contingency plan was revealed to the staff of the Naval Institute by John Lehman, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy at the time of the Falklands War, from a speech provided to the Naval Institute that Lehman made in Portsmouth, UK on 26 June 2012. Lehman stated that the loan of Iwo Jima was made in response to a request from the Royal Navy, and it had the endorsement of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. The actual planning for Iwo Jima loan-out was done by the staff of the U.S. Second Fleet under the direction of Vice Admiral James Lyons, who confirmed Lehman's revelations with the Naval Institute staff. Contingency planning envisioned American military contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of Iwo Jima's systems, assisting the British in manning the U.S. helicopter carrier during the loan-out. Naval analyst Eric Wertheim compared this arrangement to the Flying Tigers. Significantly, except for U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig, the U.S. Department of State was not included in the loan-out negotiations
US Naval Institute news.usni.org/2012/06/27/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0 

So... let us say that a British carrier is hit. The Americans then move to transfer this ship. I see problems, so many problems!
There would likely have been a few RN personnel who've been aboard one of the seven members of the Iwo Jima class before on exchange duties, yet the ship would still be a relative unknown to the Royal Navy in how to operate it. Where does the RN get these sailors from to crew the ship too?
It is a US Navy vessel with American systems, weapons and communications. All more unknowns for the new crew.
The Iwo Jima is Harrier-capable but those would be US Marines AV-8A Harriers: not Sea Harriers that the British have. No ski-jump is fitted to the Iwo Jima like the Hermes and Invincible have.
What about those Americans which would need to be aboard? What legal status would they have fighting in the Falklands? I recall reading once that in April 1982, when the Royal Navy set off for war, a US Marines aviator on exchange with a Harrier unit was left behind in Britain because he couldn't legally go.

Neither the article extract nor the link state what I have heard before about what role the Iwo Jima was envisioned for. The suggestion in both was that somehow the ship would join the fight in the Falklands upon the loss of a RN carrier. But how long would that take? The Southern Hemisphere winter was coming up fast! I have been told before that the Iwo Jima was instead intended not for Falklands service if needed, but for afterwards.
Those RN carriers weren't meant to be used in a projected WW3 role as traditional carriers - like they did in the Falklands - but instead as anti-submarine platforms with a few Harriers to protect them as they used their helicopters. Losing one, with or without victory in the Falklands afterwards, would mean that the RN would be absent a platform to conduct a much needed peacetime/ready-for-war role. Two more Invincible-class carriers were being built but there would be a gap that the Iwo Jima would fill in the meantime.


Anyway... thoughts on all of this?

Loosing a Royal Navy carrier, that will be huge casualties, not good for a certain lady in London, there will be voices i think to end the war.

  lordroel,James G,

  There would be anger and some would be against the Tories for the military cuts they had been imposing but most would be against the Argentinians.  After all they started the war and occupied a British possession occupied by people who wished to stay British.  Now their crippled/sunk a RN carrier.  There will be a backlash later, depending on how it goes but the main fury would be directed against the foreign enemy. 

  It of course depends on what stage in the war the attack occurs.  If early on then the British forces and especially the RN will have their work cut out as their lost ~50% of their air cover.  If later after the landings have been made and forces, including a/c are ashore then its a heavy blow but less influential in the overall conflict.

  The one good side, assuming we still manage to liberate the people of the Falklands, is that the Falklands effect will be less dramatic and there's a possibility at least that she fails to get a parliamentary majority in 1984.  Which would be complex but could possibly mean a lot of the later damage to Britain could be avoided.

  As James says it sounds more like the proposal would be for Britain to receive such a ship for later duties after the Falklands conflict was over.  Basically as he says for ASW role in a WWIII.  That would make far more sense in terms of what it could be used for and the time it would take to physically deploy it and make the RN staff familiar with it.  As well as the fact if it was deployed in a NATO role there is likely to be at least a number of USN men deployed on its pretty much indefinitely.

  Had to check up in the details but looking at Invincible-class_aircraft_carrier it provided some of the facts.  Only the 1st, HMS Invincible was actually in service and was due to be sold to Australia due to Thatcher's plans for military cuts.  The 2nd, HMS Illustrious was rushed into service and actually took over from Invincible in August 1982, which was still operating in the S Atlantic at the time.  As such a loan might not be of long duration, especially if it was the older HMS Hermes hit or the ship was damaged rather than sunk and relatively quickly repaired.  After all the shortcoming shown in Tory plans meant that all three Invincible CVs were maintained in service with the RN.

  Comparing the Invincible and Iwo Jima designs as well as the latter having no ski jump its total length, hence possibly its flight deck is shorter at 180m compared to 210m so Harriers would have serious problems operating off the US design.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Jul 17, 2020 10:56:15 GMT stevep said:

  Comparing the Invincible and Iwo Jima designs as well as the latter having no ski jump its total length, hence possibly its flight deck is shorter at 180m compared to 210m so Harriers would have serious problems operating off the US design.

  Steve

So fewer Harriers can be deployed from the Iwo Jima compared to Invincible.

Found a nice picture of Iwo Jima, made in 1975 it shows on here deck, on Bell UH-1N Twin Huey, three Bell AH-1J SeaCobra, eight Boeing-Vertol CH-46 Sea Knights and two Sikorsky RH-53Ds.

[stevep]

Jul 17, 2020 11:04:28 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 17, 2020 10:56:15 GMT stevep said:

  Comparing the Invincible and Iwo Jima designs as well as the latter having no ski jump its total length, hence possibly its flight deck is shorter at 180m compared to 210m so Harriers would have serious problems operating off the US design.

  Steve

So fewer Harriers can be deployed from the Iwo Jima compared to Invincible.

Found a nice picture of Iwo Jima, made in 1975 it shows on here deck, on Bell UH-1N Twin Huey, three Bell AH-1J SeaCobra, eight Boeing-Vertol CH-46 Sea Knights and two Sikorsky RH-53Ds.

  Possibly fewer but probably more important, with a shorter take off length and without a ski-jump the Harriers could also carry less fuel/munitions/etc.

[lordroel]

Jul 17, 2020 11:06:26 GMT stevep said:

Jul 17, 2020 11:04:28 GMT lordroel said:

So fewer Harriers can be deployed from the Iwo Jima compared to Invincible.

Found a nice picture of Iwo Jima, made in 1975 it shows on here deck, on Bell UH-1N Twin Huey, three Bell AH-1J SeaCobra, eight Boeing-Vertol CH-46 Sea Knights and two Sikorsky RH-53Ds.

  Possibly fewer but probably more important, with a shorter take off length and without a ski-jump the Harriers could also carry less fuel/munitions/etc.

Would Iwo Jima be solely used as a carrier, she can deploy 2,000 troops, also

Combat Fleets ’82: Falklands Carriers

Found this, so Iwo Jima could carry, what, some 12 harriers if she only has them and no helicpoters onboard.

It seems that in 1971, Guam, sistership to Iwo Jima was chosen as a test vessel for Admiral Elmo Zumwalt's Sea Control Ship concept. This ship was to operate a few VSTOL fighters and some ASW helicopters in order to free up supercarriers from convoy duty during a conflict with the Soviet Union. in 1972, Guam began extensive testing and in 1974 deployed in the Atlantic as a sea control ship with Marine Corps AV-8A Harrier VSTOL fighters and Sea King ASW helicopters. Guam completed the SCS tests and reassumed her role as an Amphibious Assault Ship in 1974. In October 1974 her aircraft complement, operated by the US Marine Corps, comprised six AV-8A, eight CH-46F Sea Knights, five CH-53D Sea Stallions and two Bell UH-1N Iroquis utility helicopters.

Photo: The U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship USS Guam (LPH-9) underway in 1972-1974 in her role as an interim Sea Control Ship. Note the three Hawker Siddeley AV-8A Harriers and the single Sikorsky SH-3H Sea King on deck.

[1bigrich]

Jul 16, 2020 17:32:04 GMT James G said:

There would likely have been a few RN personnel who've been aboard one of the seven members of the Iwo Jima class before on exchange duties, yet the ship would still be a relative unknown to the Royal Navy in how to operate it. Where does the RN get these sailors from to crew the ship too?
It is a US Navy vessel with American systems, weapons and communications. All more unknowns for the new crew.

James,
I would think this would be where the contractors and retired USN personnel would come in. They would be familiar with those systems, freeing up RN personnel for for other duties.

Given the density of the RN task force off the Falklands, I would think that even if a carrier is lost, most of the crew would be rescued. I think that damage preventing flight ops would be far more likely. Hermes was larger carrier and had more Harriers aboard, so would be the greater loss, but I think both carriers were needed for final victory. I would say in the interim between the carrier damage/loss and the arrival of a replacement (Illustrious or Iwo Jima, whichever), if the landings have taken place I think any excess Harriers crowding the surviving carrier would be based ashore.

If the landing have not yet been executed, I think any excess Harriers would be crowded into the carriers, and the ASW helicopters moved to other ships to make room. Fearless and Intrepid, as well as the Sir Tristram class and some auxiliaries might be deck-parking Sea Kings...

The Iwo Jima is Harrier-capable but those would be US Marines AV-8A Harriers: not Sea Harriers that the British have. No ski-jump is fitted to the Iwo Jima like the Hermes and Invincible have.

I would think rolling take-offs would be an option. Iwo Jima is nearly 600 ft. long, so Harriers would not have a problem.



Whether they could carry the same payload as with a ski-jump, I do now know.

If Iwo Jima does deploy to the South Atlantic with the conflict still going on, she might join the fleet as a helicopter carrier, while the surviving RN carrier could be used as the Harrier carrier, splitting the fixed wing and rotary wing duties by class. That would run the 'all eggs in one basket' risk, though, if either ship were damaged or lost.

What about those Americans which would need to be aboard? What legal status would they have fighting in the Falklands? I recall reading once that in April 1982, when the Royal Navy set off for war, a US Marines aviator on exchange with a Harrier unit was left behind in Britain because he couldn't legally go.

I can see why that Marine would be left behind, as active-duty and in service with a non-belligerent.

However, contractors and 'retired' personnel would be categorized as 'volunteers', just as American citizens who flew for the RAF before the US entered World War 2. The Flying Tigers analogy is apt.

Neither the article extract nor the link state what I have heard before about what role the Iwo Jima was envisioned for. The suggestion in both was that somehow the ship would join the fight in the Falklands upon the loss of a RN carrier. But how long would that take? The Southern Hemisphere winter was coming up fast! I have been told before that the Iwo Jima was instead intended not for Falklands service if needed, but for afterwards.


Those RN carriers weren't meant to be used in a projected WW3 role as traditional carriers - like they did in the Falklands - but instead as anti-submarine platforms with a few Harriers to protect them as they used their helicopters. Losing one, with or without victory in the Falklands afterwards, would mean that the RN would be absent a platform to conduct a much needed peacetime/ready-for-war role. Two more Invincible-class carriers were being built but there would be a gap that the Iwo Jima would fill in the meantime.

That may well be. Iwo Jima could well have been intended as an aviation-asset 'place-holder' pending the completion of Illustrious and Ark Royal.

Anyway... thoughts on all of this?

I think the US clearly intended to stand by an old ally. Further, the political alliance between Thatcher and Reagan meant if the RN suffered a severe loss like a carrier, the US would be doing something.

As an aside, I do like the fantasy scenario where the US loans the RN Coral Sea or Lexington with ex-USN 'volunteers', but that's another thread...

Regards,

[1bigrich]

Jul 17, 2020 11:18:09 GMT lordroel said:

Would Iwo Jima be solely used as a carrier, she can deploy 2,000 troops, also

Combat Fleets ’82: Falklands Carriers

Found this, so Iwo Jima could carry, what, some 12 harriers if she only has them and no helicpoters onboard.

It seems that in 1971, Guam, sistership to Iwo Jima was chosen as a test vessel for Admiral Elmo Zumwalt's Sea Control Ship concept. This ship was to operate a few VSTOL fighters and some ASW helicopters in order to free up supercarriers from convoy duty during a conflict with the Soviet Union. in 1972, Guam began extensive testing and in 1974 deployed in the Atlantic as a sea control ship with Marine Corps AV-8A Harrier VSTOL fighters and Sea King ASW helicopters. Guam completed the SCS tests and reassumed her role as an Amphibious Assault Ship in 1974. In October 1974 her aircraft complement, operated by the US Marine Corps, comprised six AV-8A, eight CH-46F Sea Knights, five CH-53D Sea Stallions and two Bell UH-1N Iroquis utility helicopters.

Photo: The U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship USS Guam (LPH-9) underway in 1972-1974 in her role as an interim Sea Control Ship. Note the three Hawker Siddeley AV-8A Harriers and the single Sikorsky SH-3H Sea King on deck.

I was going to mention the Guam and her use as a 'proof-of-concept' for the Sea Control Ship.  

If vertical or rolling take-off would not allow as much fuel/ordnance as ski-jump take-off, Iwo Jima might be used for Combat Air Patrol over the fleet, while the RN carrier's planes conduct long-ranged strike missions or distant air patrol. 

I would also note that the RAN looked into acquiring an Iwo Jima class as a replacement for Melbourne 

See this post

www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=11812&p=654127&hilit=Jima#p654127

by NewGolconda over on NavWeaps/Warships1.

Regards,

[lordroel]

Jul 18, 2020 14:30:46 GMT 1bigrich said:

Jul 16, 2020 17:32:04 GMT James G said:

There would likely have been a few RN personnel who've been aboard one of the seven members of the Iwo Jima class before on exchange duties, yet the ship would still be a relative unknown to the Royal Navy in how to operate it. Where does the RN get these sailors from to crew the ship too?
It is a US Navy vessel with American systems, weapons and communications. All more unknowns for the new crew.

James,
I would think this would be where the contractors and retired USN personnel would come in. They would be familiar with those systems, freeing up RN personnel for for other duties.

Given the density of the RN task force off the Falklands, I would think that even if a carrier is lost, most of the crew would be rescued. I think that damage preventing flight ops would be far more likely. Hermes was larger carrier and had more Harriers aboard, so would be the greater loss, but I think both carriers were needed for final victory. I would say in the interim between the carrier damage/loss and the arrival of a replacement (Illustrious or Iwo Jima, whichever), if the landings have taken place I think any excess Harriers crowding the surviving carrier would be based ashore.

If the landing have not yet been executed, I think any excess Harriers would be crowded into the carriers, and the ASW helicopters moved to other ships to make room. Fearless and Intrepid, as well as the Sir Tristram class and some auxiliaries might be deck-parking Sea Kings...

The Iwo Jima is Harrier-capable but those would be US Marines AV-8A Harriers: not Sea Harriers that the British have. No ski-jump is fitted to the Iwo Jima like the Hermes and Invincible have.

I would think rolling take-offs would be an option. Iwo Jima is nearly 600 ft. long, so Harriers would not have a problem.



Whether they could carry the same payload as with a ski-jump, I do now know.

If Iwo Jima does deploy to the South Atlantic with the conflict still going on, she might join the fleet as a helicopter carrier, while the surviving RN carrier could be used as the Harrier carrier, splitting the fixed wing and rotary wing duties by class. That would run the 'all eggs in one basket' risk, though, if either ship were damaged or lost.

What about those Americans which would need to be aboard? What legal status would they have fighting in the Falklands? I recall reading once that in April 1982, when the Royal Navy set off for war, a US Marines aviator on exchange with a Harrier unit was left behind in Britain because he couldn't legally go.

I can see why that Marine would be left behind, as active-duty and in service with a non-belligerent.

However, contractors and 'retired' personnel would be categorized as 'volunteers', just as American citizens who flew for the RAF before the US entered World War 2. The Flying Tigers analogy is apt.

Neither the article extract nor the link state what I have heard before about what role the Iwo Jima was envisioned for. The suggestion in both was that somehow the ship would join the fight in the Falklands upon the loss of a RN carrier. But how long would that take? The Southern Hemisphere winter was coming up fast! I have been told before that the Iwo Jima was instead intended not for Falklands service if needed, but for afterwards.


Those RN carriers weren't meant to be used in a projected WW3 role as traditional carriers - like they did in the Falklands - but instead as anti-submarine platforms with a few Harriers to protect them as they used their helicopters. Losing one, with or without victory in the Falklands afterwards, would mean that the RN would be absent a platform to conduct a much needed peacetime/ready-for-war role. Two more Invincible-class carriers were being built but there would be a gap that the Iwo Jima would fill in the meantime.

That may well be. Iwo Jima could well have been intended as an aviation-asset 'place-holder' pending the completion of Illustrious and Ark Royal.

Anyway... thoughts on all of this?

I think the US clearly intended to stand by an old ally. Further, the political alliance between Thatcher and Reagan meant if the RN suffered a severe loss like a carrier, the US would be doing something.

As an aside, I do like the fantasy scenario where the US loans the RN Coral Sea or Lexington with ex-USN 'volunteers', but that's another thread...

Regards,

So what name would we give our carrier, something British with a bit of American link in it.

[1bigrich]

Jul 18, 2020 14:45:16 GMT lordroel said:

So what name would we give our carrier, something British with a bit of American link in it.

HA!  That's a good question!   Where would the RN go?  President?  Macedonian?   Guerriere?  Archer, after the first escort carrier the RN got from the US?

AIGF,

[lordroel]

Jul 18, 2020 14:59:04 GMT 1bigrich said:

Jul 18, 2020 14:45:16 GMT lordroel said:

So what name would we give our carrier, something British with a bit of American link in it.

HA!  That's a good question!   Where would the RN go?  President?  Macedonian?   Guerriere?  Archer, after the first escort carrier the RN got from the US?

AIGF,

HMS Reagan. 

[archibald]

Yup there was the "proto-SCS" experience involving Guam. Which tested Harriers onboard Iwo Jima for two years.
Should come in handful.

Incidentally, Iwo Jima could also be useful (that's the paradox) in its premier role as a LPH: when Atlantic Conveyor ate an Exocet and sunk with all its Chinooks onboard. Unlike Atlantic Convoyor, Iwo Jima build was the exact role of helicopter assault.

[1bigrich]

Aug 3, 2020 17:00:42 GMT archibald said:

Incidentally, Iwo Jima could also be useful (that's the paradox) in its premier role as a LPH: when Atlantic Conveyor ate an Exocet and sunk with all its Chinooks onboard. Unlike Atlantic Convoyor, Iwo Jima build was the exact role of helicopter assault.

archibald,

You've reminded me that die-cast maker Forces of Valor has done a model in 1/72 scale of The Survivor, the Number 18 Squadron Chinook that was airborne when Atlantic Conveyor was hit.

Available here do an internet search for Forces of Valor 821004C Boeing Chinook HC.Mk 1 Diecast Model.

Regards,

[lordroel]

Aug 5, 2020 15:49:21 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 3, 2020 17:00:42 GMT archibald said:

Incidentally, Iwo Jima could also be useful (that's the paradox) in its premier role as a LPH: when Atlantic Conveyor ate an Exocet and sunk with all its Chinooks onboard. Unlike Atlantic Convoyor, Iwo Jima build was the exact role of helicopter assault.

archibald,

You've reminded me that die-cast maker Forces of Valor has done a model in 1/72 scale of The Survivor, the Number 18 Squadron Chinook that was airborne when Atlantic Conveyor was hit.

Available here do an internet search for Forces of Valor 821004C Boeing Chinook HC.Mk 1 Diecast Model.

Regards,

So instead of replacing a carrier the US replaces Atlantic Conveyor with Iwo Jima, would that efecht the war differently than OTL. 

I assume the British will send first the Iwo Jima to the United Kingdom to get new helicopters and maybe also a extra battalion of troops. 

[stevep]

Aug 6, 2020 17:47:36 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 5, 2020 15:49:21 GMT 1bigrich said:

archibald,

You've reminded me that die-cast maker Forces of Valor has done a model in 1/72 scale of The Survivor, the Number 18 Squadron Chinook that was airborne when Atlantic Conveyor was hit.

Available here do an internet search for Forces of Valor 821004C Boeing Chinook HC.Mk 1 Diecast Model.

Regards,

So instead of replacing a carrier the US replaces Atlantic Conveyor with Iwo Jima, would that efecht the war differently than OTL. 

I assume the British will send first the Iwo Jima to the United Kingdom to get new helicopters and maybe also a extra battalion of troops. 

  lordroel,

  I think as discussed earlier IIRC the Iwo Jima would be used as a NATO based replacement.  To help in performing Britain's role in that organisation.  Given the approaching winter in the S Atlantic I can't see Britain having time to use the ship in a war for the Falklands.  We would have to still win with what was left or give up, at least unless the British government is willing to return the following year say.

  Steve