- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
Reagan 'cleared US ship for Falklands'
29 June 2012
Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is said to have informally requested possible US support for the invasion in case British carriers HMS Hermes or HMS Invincible were rendered unusable.
John Lehman, who served as US Secretary of the Navy from 1981-1987, told the US Naval Institute that America's then-President Ronald Reagan said to "'Give Maggie everything she needs to get on with it" following the request.
Lehman said he met with the then-Secretary of Defence Caspar Weinberger to develop the plans, but that talks did not extend beyond the Department of Defence (DoD)
"We would leave the State Department, except for Haig [then Secretary of State Al Haig], out of it," said Lehman.
"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."
Admiral James Lyson, who commanded the US Second Fleet at the time, said: "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.
"We also identified 'contract advisors' who would be on board to help the British with some of the systems."
HAVE YOUR SAY
29 June 2012
Do we really want to base our expeditionary capability on who ever happens to be in the White House?
Reagan was Reagan, Obhama is Obhama.
The UK could and should have a proper blue water navy with two CAT and trap carriers and associated escorts. That means probably at least 20 frigates and destroyers. If this means cutting the RAF strike capability so that the Royal Navy has the airborne strike capability and a blue water navy, so be it.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
29 June 2012
Wrong and right. A Blue water navy with carriers, escorts, SSN's, amphibious group/RFA AND the RAF. They are both power projection assets, and we can easily pay for both if the political will is there.
How much to the EU? How much on foriegn aid? How much lost to benefits scroungers, health tourists, red tape?
RAF down to 8 combat squadrons from over 20 a decade ago, leave the RAF alone!
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford
29 June 2012
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford
Bang on as always, we need all three armed services to be correctly equipped and supported. I remember RAF Germany being bigger (more Combat Squadrons) than the RAF seems to have now, 8 Tornado, 2 Harrier, 2 Phantom, 1 Puma and 1 Chinook Sqn.
Martin I agree with you to a point, in that the Royal Navy really needs attention, they have 19 Escorts now, that is not nearly enough for a Maritime Nation, we could do with at least another 6 or 7.
Rob - Telford
29 June 2012
The long range RAF missions (refuelling over the Atlantic) in 1982 were incredible, they certainly deserve top marks for readiness and performance. It's not surprising that Reagan offered Thatcher support - it worked both ways (Star Wars, Grenada, etc).
With a current UK government - like the previous one of the opposite colour - intent on cancelling, shrinking, and delaying ALL defence capability, we're getting very close to an early 1930s position on funding Defence of the Realm funding whilst potential malefactors are getting to the stage of intercontinetal, world-threatening power projection.
Don't get too focused on the Falklands alone (though extremely important and often overlooked). Iran, China, Russia, even Spain (over Gibraltar) are able and willing to threaten Britain's island-nation trade and well-being.
AlMiles - Bristol, UK
09 July 2012
Rob - Telford.
Those were the days! 4 GR1 squadrons each at Bruggen and Laarbruch, 2 Phantom Squadrons at Wildenrath, with the Harriers and Support Helis forward based at Gutersloh, ready to go into the woods.
Bruggen and Gutersloh still around, for now.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford
15 July 2012
The super carriers are the very best option to project our influence in the world and protect our foreign and domestic policy without a doubt. It is a far cheaper option to have a carrier strike force than to have a similar strike force from the RAF. Overall we would save 3/4 billion a year if we deploy our carrier force and a lot more if we had the long range variant of aircraft. It is unbelievable that to save a couple of billion in the short term we would jepordise the carrier capabilty for the next 50 years? The fact that we couldnt deploy a carrier force to Libya and relied on the RAF flying from Italy costs us a billion pounds extra which is 10 times as much as we sold the Harriers to the USA for. Nuts.
Freddy Johnson - Pennan Scotland
27 August 2012
Ref Freddy Johnson,
Well done Freddy You have my vote, now all you have to do is get rid of Alex Salmon and you`re on you`re way. you absolutly spot on though.
Shaun Army - South Devon
11 September 2012
I agree with all of you guys saying the British should have a larger navy. For CENTURIES, you shtick was a massive navy, with a small but effective army. Right now, thats about the best thing the UK could do. you have no enemies capable of launching a amphibious invasion of you home islands, but have some far flung territories. carriers and escorts for them are important, and can be used for relief missions as well.
and while you've got to keep an army around, a reduced one wouldn't hurt you much. a navy can't be quickly raised and armed, however, and an army is quite as helpful in humanitarian type things.
Joe - USA
12 May 2013
Carriers are the way of the future. There is literally no other method of making a small but capable army a global power. Besides, with the JSF, you'd have a massively capable weapons platform...
Edward - Munich (normally somewhere in Caifornia) (from London)