Doubtful we would " loan" a carrier. You just don't hand over the keys and garage remote for something like a carrier. And we had made it clear that other than considerable logistical an intel support we were not committing any US fighting forces to the effort.BQ_90 said:
Here's another history what if! What if the Brits had laist their career, would the US have sent in carries or loan them one of our A oh carries that had helos and Harriers?
Yup. we shared satellite info and even ran a few SR71 runs over the Falklands and shared the results with the Brits. Also shipped them the latest version of the Sidewinder missile they had not yet upgraded to. All was kept on the hush hush as much as possible as we had a bad reputation in Latin America as those imperialist gringos. The British MOD recognized the US and the help we gave years later when some British politician popped off about how we had left them to their own devices during the Falklands war. Up until then, it was known we had helped the Brits, but the true extent of it wasn't publicly known until then.The Original AG 76 said:Doubtful we would " loan" a carrier. You just don't hand over the keys and garage remote for something like a carrier. And we had made it clear that other than considerable logistical an intel support we were not committing any US fighting forces to the effort.BQ_90 said:
Here's another history what if! What if the Brits had laist their career, would the US have sent in carries or loan them one of our A oh carries that had helos and Harriers?
Had the Hermes and the Invincible been lost the campaign would likely have failed. Argy ground forces were rather pathetic and poorly equipped but the Argy Air Force did have some modern frog planes and weapons and would have been able to control the air and prevented the Army and Royal Marines from taking back the islands.
Harriers didn't need carriers. They were also launched off of cargo ships.. SS Atlantic Conveyor, Now they were only used to transport additional planes to the AO, it did show that it was feasible.BQ_90 said:
Here's another history what if! What if the Brits had laist their career, would the US have sent in carries or loan them one of our A oh carries that had helos and Harriers?
yes but you still need the carriers or a ground station to support effective combat operations of the Harriers.Rabid Cougar said:Harriers didn't need carriers. They were also launched off of cargo ships.. SS Atlantic Conveyor, Now they were only used to transport additional planes to the AO, it did show that it was feasible.BQ_90 said:
Here's another history what if! What if the Brits had laist their career, would the US have sent in carries or loan them one of our A oh carries that had helos and Harriers?
There was a great show , I think it was a BBC special, on that Vulcan mission. They were basically being prepped for museums and had to be made flight ready. The Royal Air Force did have to scrounge some bone yards and museums for equipment. Fantastic story . Great little bombers. All retired now. I dont think that the RAF has any long range bombers anymore.BQ78 said:
The US gave Britain quite a bit of support on the QT, I watched the entire war on the BBC because I was over there as part of a B-52 crew picking up the NATO commitments of the Vulcans so they could go bomb the Falklands.
well not a nuke one, but how much different then was our Iwo Jima Class helo carriers to their carries that had Harriers?The Original AG 76 said:Doubtful we would " loan" a carrier. You just don't hand over the keys and garage remote for something like a carrier. And we had made it clear that other than considerable logistical an intel support we were not committing any US fighting forces to the effort.BQ_90 said:
Here's another history what if! What if the Brits had laist their career, would the US have sent in carries or loan them one of our A oh carries that had helos and Harriers?
Had the Hermes and the Invincible been lost the campaign would likely have failed. Argy ground forces were rather pathetic and poorly equipped but the Argy Air Force did have some modern frog planes and weapons and would have been able to control the air and prevented the Army and Royal Marines from taking back the islands.
IIRC the fuses didn't have time to arm as the Argentine Navy A4s were flying at about 50 ft above the water and releasing the bombs very close to the ships to make sure they hit. The Brits really respected the skill/huevos of those A4 pilots.74OA said:
I believe the Brits lost five ships in total, but it could have been much worse. Six other ships survived being hit by bombs that failed to explode, most notably HMS Plymouth which removed four unexploded bombs. Either the Argentinian targeteers didn't specify the correct bomb fuse settings for ship targets, or their ordnance techs set them incorrectly, but their very brave pilots definitely pressed home their attacks. Very fortunate for the Brits.
A related fact. The Argentine cruiser General Belgrano which the British sub Conqueror torpedoed and sank was the largest line warship sunk since WW II. Belgrano was the ex-USS Phoenix, which had survived Pearl Harbor, and had a close call in the Java Sea operations that destroyed the US Asiatic Fleet. She was a sister-ship of the more famous Helena.Quote:
First RN ship sunk in 37 years. First of four to be sunk in the War.
Ah......IDAGG said:IIRC the fuses didn't have time to arm as the Argentine Navy A4s were flying at about 50 ft above the water and releasing the bombs very close to the ships to make sure they hit. The Brits really respected the skill/huevos of those A4 pilots.74OA said:
I believe the Brits lost five ships in total, but it could have been much worse. Six other ships survived being hit by bombs that failed to explode, most notably HMS Plymouth which removed four unexploded bombs. Either the Argentinian targeteers didn't specify the correct bomb fuse settings for ship targets, or their ordnance techs set them incorrectly, but their very brave pilots definitely pressed home their attacks. Very fortunate for the Brits.
