RPG Forums

RPG Forums (http://forum.juhlin.com/index.php)
-   Twilight 2000 Forum (http://forum.juhlin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Aircraft carriers in and after the Twilight War (http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=3108)

Mohoender 09-09-2011 11:59 PM

Aircraft carriers in and after the Twilight War
 
Carriers have been discussed several times of course but how many of them would have been truly available remains open to question. Here is my take based on v1.0. First, the USA

CVL28 "Cabot": after serving until 1989 with the Spanish Navy as the Dedalo, the ship was returned to the US to become a museum ship. When the private organization which had taken over the ship proved unable to pay its creditors, it was taken over by the navy. Given it's relative good shape and growing international tensions, it is again modernized by the US Navy, put back into commission carrying a small group of AV8B and sent to the Carribean to serve with the reestablished but painfully weak 4th Fleet.

CV16 "Lexington" The official training carrier of the US Navy, the tensions had forced to postpone its replacement and the ship is still operating by 1995. He is then, again, fitted with a number of weapon systems (in fact phalanx AD systems) and remains the dedicated trainer carrier of the US Navy. It's only after the Barent's Sea disaster that it is fully commissioned to the Atlantic. Unable to operate the most modern aircrafts, its group is operating refurbished A4 Skyhawk operated by USMC pilots and a number of S3 Viking. It performs escort missions and participate in the large chase of still very active soviet submarines taking place.

CVB41 "Midway"
CVB43 "Coral Sea"
CV59 "Forrestal"
CV60 "Saratoga"
CV61 "Ranger"
CV62 "Independence"
CV63 "Kitty Hawk"
CV64 "Constellation"
CVN65 "Enterprise"
CV66 "America"
CV67 "JFK"
CVN68 "Nimitz"
CVN69 "Dwight D. Eisenhower"
CVN70 "Carl Winson"
CVN71 "Theodore Roosevelt"
CVN72 "Abraham Lincoln"
CVN73 "Georges Washington"
CVN74 "John C. Stennis"

CVN75 "Harry S. Trumman" While work on this ship had been started in 1993, it accelerated significantly by 1994 and the ship was commissioned prior to the operation in the Barent's Sea. It is, then, lost within the Barent's Sea when, security malfunctions result in the crew being unable to save her.
CVN76 "Ronald Reagan" Although never commissioned work on this Ship had started in 1994 and it was launched in late 1996. It was almost ready for commission when the exchange took place and now lay where it was, slowly rusting as nobody has the means to take it over.

Mohoender 09-10-2011 12:30 AM

Second USSR

I don't consider Moskva and Leningrad to be carriers but I would count 8 aircraft carriers for the Soviet Union by 1995 if it had not collapsed at all. Work on an additional one could have been started but, as someone pointed out, these were never intended for offensive purpose. While their defensive capability is respectable, their offensive power is much weaker than that of US carriers.

2 Ulyanovsk-class Nuclear Carriers carrying 27 Su-33, 10 Mig-29K (added only after the war started), 10 Su-25, 4 Yak-44 and 15-20 kamov
Ulyanovsk
Kremlin


2 Kuznetsov-class Carriers carrying 12 Su-33, 10 Mig-29K, 10 Su-25, 4 Yak-44 and 15-20 Kamov (air group augmented to its war level)
Kuznetsov
Varyag


4 Kiev-class Carriers carrying 20 Yak-141 and 12 Kamov (Air component deployed as initially planned. Moreover, Yak-141 have replaced Yak-38 by 1995, seriously boosting these ships capabilities) with the exception of Baku which has been modernized under project 11430 and now carries 24 Mig-29K, 2 Yak-44 and 5-6 Kamov.
Kiev
Baku
Minsk
Novorossiysk

Mohoender 09-10-2011 12:54 AM

Third and last, the Others

UK still only has its 3 Invincible-class aircraft carrier but with an augmented airgroup which is now composed of 18 Harrier and 10 helicopters.
Invincible
Illustrious
Ark Royal


Given the global situation of 1995, steel cuts had started by 1997 to produce two major aircraft carriers but it didn't go any further.

By the year 2000, France operates 4 aircraft carriers and has, by far, the most powerful surviving carrier complement.
2 Clemenceau-class Aircraft Carriers both carrying 40 aircraft and helicopters. On Clemenceau the aircraft complements is composed of 8 Rafale M, 15 Super Etendard, 4 Etendard IVP, 8 Alizé and 4-5 helicopters but on Foch it remains 8 Crusaders (an additional 9 remain in reserve for eventual replacements until more Rafale M can be produce; since Foch operates in the Mediterranean, priority for Rafale deliveries is currently given to the Armée de l'Air), 15 Super Etendard, 4 Etendard IVP, 8 Alizé and 4-5 helicopters.
Foch
Clemenceau

2 Charles de Gaulle-class Nuclear Carriers both carying 18 Rafale M, 12 Super Etendard, 4 Etendard IVP (E2C had never been delivered) and 5-6 helicopters
Richelieu
Charles de Gaulle


Italy
Garibaldi

Spain
Principe de Asturias
Dedalo
Obviously, this is not the original Dedalo but the carrier that should have become Chakri Naruebet. Work on the ship had started in 1994, it was launched in 1996 and ready by the early 1997. Insteed of being delivered to the Thai Navy, the ship is taken over by the Spanish navy which, then, receives a few additional harriers from the USA.

India
Viraat
Vikrant


Brazil
"Minas Gerais" Fully operational by 1997 but solely performing anti-submarine duties and lacking any jet aircrafts.

Argentina
"Veinticinco de Mayo" confined to port since 1986 and unable to go to sea.

dragoon500ly 09-10-2011 06:29 AM

Looks like you caught all of the serviceable decks, good work!

Only issue that I see is the air group for the USS Lexington, the Essex/Hancock-classes flight deck is too small to support the S-3. Most likely the ASW group whould have been SH-2, SH-3 or SH-60 helos only. I would also see the Lady Lex's training mission to be of more importance than bringing a marginal flight deck up to combat speed. Of course, after the nukes start being tossed around, that would rapidly change.

Mohoender 09-10-2011 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly (Post 38917)
Looks like you caught all of the serviceable decks, good work!

Only issue that I see is the air group for the USS Lexington, the Essex/Hancock-classes flight deck is too small to support the S-3. Most likely the ASW group whould have been SH-2, SH-3 or SH-60 helos only. I would also see the Lady Lex's training mission to be of more importance than bringing a marginal flight deck up to combat speed. Of course, after the nukes start being tossed around, that would rapidly change.

I wouldn't have expected that, thanks for the info. Then, I would tend to replace them with refitted S2 Tracker. Might not be ideal in term of realism but I always loved the Tracker and Canada might have been willing to sale his fleet back to US. Or may be they are serviced by Canadian crews.

dragoon500ly 09-11-2011 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohoender (Post 38926)
I wouldn't have expected that, thanks for the info. Then, I would tend to replace them with refitted S2 Tracker. Might not be ideal in term of realism but I always loved the Tracker and Canada might have been willing to sale his fleet back to US. Or may be they are serviced by Canadian crews.

I don't know about the Tracker reentering US service. This is from the 14th edition of The Ships and Aircraft of the US Navy.

"The last US Navy S-2 series Tracker ASE aircraft was discarded in March 1986. The last US Navy Tracker was an ES-2D configured as a range support aircraft. The last ASW variant was an S-2G retired from VS-37 in August 1976."

According to the 13th edition, that ES-2D was one of four surviving aircraft. So there would not be a lot of type-qualified pilots or ground crew remaining by the time the war kicks off.

The only issue I see with the Canadians returning their Trackers is, just what will they replace the aircraft with? Production of the Aurora would not be enough to cover the gap left by removing these aircraft.

Legbreaker 09-11-2011 05:38 AM

Thats a very good point about aircraft (and applies to all other tech too). Although the US might want the return of all the items they've handed over/sold to other countries, those recipient countries wouldn't have accepted/bought them if they themselves didn't have a use for them.
In other words, they're not coming back...

Mohoender 09-11-2011 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 38947)
Thats a very good point about aircraft (and applies to all other tech too). Although the US might want the return of all the items they've handed over/sold to other countries, those recipient countries wouldn't have accepted/bought them if they themselves didn't have a use for them.
In other words, they're not coming back...

Who ever said they are coming back? US still had plenty of A4 Skyhawk especially from USMC and I'm sure that a fair number could still be refurbished from storage. A few more could have been bought back as for exemple those from Kuwait. Last, I don't know if any were already operated by civilians or agencies such as NASA but these would simply be taken back.

When it comes to S2 Tracker, several were also available, France would probably have sold its complement back to US if required despite neutrality and more important, I stated that they were probably manned by Canadian crews. I never said they had been sent back to US. I might be wrong but having Canadian pilots operating from a US carrier providing escort to NATO supply ships over the Atlantic prior to the nukes doesn't sound that impossible or irrealistic (In fact, some crews might even be Australian, New Zealandese or Turkish). Of course, Australian, Canadian or Turks can all be from traitorous countries full of cowards refusing to collaborate fully with their allies.:D Just teasing this is left to French and Italians.:p

Still, most of the carrier complement would probably be made of helicopters. Harrier could be used as well but I think they would be put to a better use elsewhere.

By the way, finding pilots for these aircrafts would be the easiest of things and will not need much than a few hours of complementary training. I'm sure that by 1996, you simply had to shoot in a trash can to get about 10 retired USMC/Navy pilots who would have been more than happy and ready to serve again.:) I'm of course equally convinced that canadian pilots who had been doing fishery protection duties/under retirement would be as reluctant to such an assignment.:D

95th Rifleman 09-11-2011 06:37 AM

Realisticly, how long would the lifespan of a carrier be in a full-blown shooting war? They are the number one naval target, both east and west have a whole fleet of subs desighned with the single purpose of hunting and killing these things.

Mohoender 09-11-2011 07:14 AM

Good point Rifleman but to achieve what you imply you need to have the means and power to destroy them. In Twilight, USSR has lost this capability over the Atlantic by late 1996. If not for the major strategic mistake of NATO in June 1997, NATO's fleet to the Atlantic would have survived.

Then, survivability of an older carrier performing escort missions and focussing on anti-sub warfare is quite good while it can only be opposed by submarines. Moreover, the main target is no longer the carrier but the ships it escorts.

Amusing enough, I just checked the Wiki on anti-submarine aircraft carriers and here is what it states:

"Essex class during their careers ships fitted and assigned the CVS designation were ASW carriers with Fixed wing and helicopter anti-submarine aircraft and AEW aircraft, although for a short time some also carried an A-4 Skyhawk squadron for daytime combat air patrol(retired/scrapped) Fixed Wing CATOBAR and Helicopters".

I sware I didn't know and simply used logic. It appears that I came up with what seems to be almost the exact USN complement on that matter.

By 1980, this role was assigned to Tarrawa and then Wasp but, with these ships already busy, wouldn't the US Navy be simply smart and use what was available as it had always done in its past? I agree that putting the other surviving Essex might be tricky but Lexington was still ready to go to Sea by 1991 (as was Dedalo by 1989). Even if not assigned to combat duties, they are re-armed to some extend and assigned to aircraft transport. Then, however, it stands a good chance to be sunk.

dragoon500ly 09-11-2011 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman (Post 38950)
Realisticly, how long would the lifespan of a carrier be in a full-blown shooting war? They are the number one naval target, both east and west have a whole fleet of subs desighned with the single purpose of hunting and killing these things.

No one knows for certain (thank GAWD!), but a modern carrier battle group is going to take a lot of effort and a lot of luck to take out of action. Take for example the Saratoga Battle Group in 1993.

This consists of CV-60 Saratoga escorted by the guided missile cruisers CG-19 Dale, CG-34 Biddle, CF-51 Thomas S. Gates and CG-58 Philippine Sea, the primary ASW escorts are the destroyers DD-968 Arthur W. Radford, DD-980 Moosbrugger, DD-974 Comte de Grasse, DD-997 Hayler with the "figs" FFG-24 Jack Williams, FFG-26 Gallery, FFG-29 Stephen W. Groves, and FFG-32 John L. Hall. In support are the subs SSN-676 Billfish and SSN-705 City of Corpus Christi.

The Saratoga has Carrier Air Wing 17 embarked, this consists of VF-74 and VF-103 (9 F-14B ea), VFA-81, and VFA-83 (10 F/A-18C each), VA-35 (10 A-6E), VAQ-132 (4 EA-6B), VAW-125 (4 E-2C), VS-30 (6 S-3B and HS-15 (6 SH-60F and 2 HH-60H).

So what does this bring to the table?
Saratoga is armed 3 Mk29 NATO Sea Sparrow SAM launchers (72 msls) and 3 Mk15 Phalanx.

Dale is a "Leahy"-class 'double-ended' (two twin msl launchers) cruiser and adds 80 SM2ER Sams and 8 Harpoon SSMs.

Biddle is a "Belknap" class 'single-ended' (single twin msl launcher) cruiser and adds 60 SM2ER SAMs and 8 Harpoon to the battle group's defense and a
SH-2F ASW helicopter.

The Thoms S. Gates and Philipine Sea are both "Bunker Hill" class AEEGIS cruisers with 2 60-cell vertical missile launchers, this means that they can be armed with any combination of SM2MR Block III SAMs, Tomahawks or VL ASROC a typical loadout would be 90 SM2MRs, 18 Tomahawks and 14 VL ASROCs. In addition 8 Harpoon SSMs are also carried as well as 2 SH-60 ASW helicopters

Radford, Moosbrugger, Comte de Grasse and Hayler are all "Improved Spruance"-class destroyers refitted with a modified 61-cell vertical missile launcher. They add 24 NATO Sea Sparrow missiles, 57 Tomahawk and 8 Harpoon SSMs and 4 VL ASROC and 2 SH-60 ASW helicopters apiece.

Jack Williams, Gallery, Stephen W. Groves, and John L. Hall are all "Oliver Hazard Perry"-class guided missile frigates. Each one brings in 36 SM1MR SAMs, 4 Harpoon SSMs and 2 SH-60 ASW helicopters.

City of Corpus Christi is armed with 12 Tomahawk and 6 Harpoon SSMs and 20 Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes.

Billfish is armed with 4 Harpoon SSM and 20 Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes.

As you can see, the 'Lady Sara' and her escorts are in a good position to create a lot of damage to any Soviet air strike and have formidable ASW defenses as well. The Soviets (needless to say) can be expected to make a maximum strength effort to damage or sink her.

dragoon500ly 09-11-2011 08:03 AM

Since A-4s were brought up, here is what the USN/USMC actually had in service as the Twilight War approached.

The Navy had 4 Fleet Composite Squadrons:
VC-1 with TA-4J; VC-5 with A-4E and TA-4J; VC-8 with TA-4J and VC-10 with TA-4J. A fleet composite squadron was assigned the duties of dissimilar air combat maneuvering; noncombat aerial photography; aerial target services; radar calibration and transport. A variety of additional aircraft are operated by the VC squadrons. VC-1 and VC-10 were the only ones assigned combat missions being tasked with air defense of the Hawaiian Islands and Guantanamo Bay respectively. These four squadrons operate some 24 A-4s all told.

2 Fighter Squadrons:
VF-45 and VF-126 are equipped with the TA-4J. Both provide adversary training (Top Gun) at NAS Miramar and NAS Oceana respectively, (12ac each)

6 Training Squadrons:
VT-7, VT-21, VT-22, VT-24, VT-25 and VT-86 provide strike and advanced night flight operations training for Navy, Marine Corps and goreign pilots. They are equipped with TA-4J. These are the aircraft that USS Lexington supports in its training role (there are 16 ac in each sqn).

2 Air Test and Evaluation Squadrons:
VX-4 with TA-4J and VX-5 with A-4M/T and TA-4J. These squadrons test and evaluate aerial weapon systems. VX-4 is stationed at NAS Point Mugu and VX-5 is stationed at NAS China Lake. The VX squadrons operate a variety of aircraft (it is estimated that some 10 A-4s are operated by these 2 sqns)

The 4th Marine Aircraft Wing (Marine reserves) operate all of the remaining USMC A-4 squadrons, these are VMA-124, VMA-131, VMA-133, VMA-134, VMA-142 and VMA-322 (12ac each).

These 226 A-4/TA-4 are all that is left of the total production run of 2,960
A-4s in US service.

raketenjagdpanzer 09-11-2011 09:39 AM

What about Thailand's carrier? Either rusting away or now a key element in regional alliance with Australia, Japan, Korea, etc.

Mohoender 09-11-2011 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer (Post 38955)
What about Thailand's carrier? Either rusting away or now a key element in regional alliance with Australia, Japan, Korea, etc.

Pressed into Spanish service and operating in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean. I named it Dedalo but its name can be whatever you want. It never reaches the Pacific

dragoon500ly 09-11-2011 02:42 PM

1993, Morskaya Aviatsiya
 
Soviet Maritime Aviation in 1993 had fallen in strength from its Cold War days.

It had in service:

1,136 fixed wing, including:

117 Reconnaissance: 50 Tu-95 Bear D, 55 Tu-16 Badger A/C/D/E/F, and 12 Su-24 Fencer E

94 Electronic Warfare: 77 Tu-16 Badger H/J, 14 Il-20 Coot A, 5 An-12 Cub

295 bombers: 150 Tu-22M Backfire B/C, 145 Tu-16 Badger A/C/G

380 attack fighters: 170 Su-17/20 Fitter A/C/D, 50 MiG-23 Flogger B, 5
MiG-29 FulcrumD, 5 Su-27K Flanker, 50 Su-25 Frogfoot and 100 Su-24 Fencer E

50 Aerial Tankers: 50 Tu-16 Badger A

200 ASW/Maritime Patrol: 65 Tu-95 Bear F, 45 Il-38 May and 90 Be-12 Mail

425 helicopters including:

275 ASW Helos: 75 Ka-25 Hormone A, 100 Ka-27PL Helix A and 100 Mi-14PL Haze A

25 target designation: 25 Ka-25 Hormone B

25 mine countermeasures: 25 Mi-14PL Haze-A

100 miscellaneous including Hook, Hip-C, Helix B/D, Haze B, Hormone C

and finally there are some 480 fixed wing and helicopters (training, transport, experimental, etc.) available.

All of the Tu-22 Blinders have been removed from service and the large numbers of Tu-16 Badger variants are being removed from service due to their age.

Mohoender 09-11-2011 02:56 PM

Dragoon, you are absolutely right but we are talking Twilight and in Twilight it would have been strengthen insteed.

dragoon500ly 09-11-2011 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohoender (Post 38951)
"Essex class during their careers ships fitted and assigned the CVS designation were ASW carriers with Fixed wing and helicopter anti-submarine aircraft and AEW aircraft, although for a short time some also carried an A-4 Skyhawk squadron for daytime combat air patrol(retired/scrapped) Fixed Wing CATOBAR and Helicopters".

I sware I didn't know and simply used logic. It appears that I came up with what seems to be almost the exact USN complement on that matter.

By 1980, this role was assigned to Tarrawa and then Wasp but, with these ships already busy, wouldn't the US Navy be simply smart and use what was available as it had always done in its past? I agree that putting the other surviving Essex might be tricky but Lexington was still ready to go to Sea by 1991 (as was Dedalo by 1989). Even if not assigned to combat duties, they are re-armed to some extend and assigned to aircraft transport. Then, however, it stands a good chance to be sunk.

The CVS carried a squadron of A-4 (12 ac), one of S-2 Tracker (12ac) and one of SH-3 ASW helos (8 ac).

Insofar as rearming Lexington...You would most likely be looking at 2-3 Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS, perhaps 2 25mm Bushmaster cannons, 4-8 .50 calibers. The 25mm Sea Vulcan CIWS was entering its final testing and its possible that one or two might have been fitted (there is a variant that held 2-4 Stinger missiles) and that would be it for gun armament. For missile armament, pretty much the only possibility would be the EX-24 Rolling Airframe Missile mount (24 RIM-116A missiles). Its a "bolt-on" mount and there would be no reloads so it would be a one shot wonder....but!

I talked with a naval member of my group and while he wasn't certain there may have been a possibility of Hornet and Bennington being recommisioned and serving as ASW escorts with SH-2/SH-60. One thing that he was adamant about, both ships lacked a lot of critical spares and would most likely been operating with one or two turbines shut down.

He also described Bon Homme Richard as being held together by paint and rust and that he would station himself next to the nearest life boat if there was any chance of combat...Oriskany was described as being in almost as poor a hull condition.

I also checked with him about the flight deck and what aircraft could be operated. Hornet/Bennington were still fitted with two Korean War vintage hydraulic catapults that could launch ac of up to 30,000lbs weight. Bon Homme Richard/Oriskany were fitted with two 1st generation steam catapults and would have been able to launch ac of about 38-40,000lbs weight.


The F/A-18 Hornet in the fighter role would weigh 37,000lbs, in the strike role, weight would go up to 48,300lbs

The F-14 Tomcat would range from 58,600lbs to 70,500lbs

The F-4S Phantom had a launch weight of 56,000lbs

A-7 Corsair had a max takeoff weight of 42,000lbs

A-6E Intruders had a launch weight of 60,400lbs

A-4 Skyhawk had a launch weight of 25,500lbs

S-3B Viking has a launch weight of 52,400lbs

E-2C Hawkeye has a launch weight of 51,600lbs

EA-6B Prowler has a launch weight of 54,500lbs

As you can see, aside from the A-4, the F/A-18 would be the only one capable of being launched. But there is a further problem with the Essex carriers, their flight deck elevators are not large enough to support modern ac. and their angle decks would place an excessive amount of strain on the ac's landing gear due to their short run.

Mohoender 09-11-2011 03:45 PM

Thanks dragoon, very good info.

Legbreaker 09-11-2011 06:12 PM

Re sinking carriers, it's worth noting a single Australian Oberon class submarine "sank" a US carrier during an exercise in the late 80's early 90's (can't recall the exact year) somewhere around the Timor Sea (I think) singlehandedly. All it takes is patience and stealth followed by a single spread of torpedoes.

NO ship is invulnerable or out of reach to a determined and skilled attacker. All that can be hoped for is risk minimisation.

Legbreaker 09-11-2011 06:39 PM

Further to my last post, I think this quote from Wiki is worth thinking about.
Quote:

During several multinational exercises and wargames, the Collins class has demonstrated its effectiveness in the hunter-killer role by successfully attacking both surface warships and other submarines. In late May 2000, Waller became the first Australian submarine to operate as a fully integrated component of a USN carrier battle group during wargames. Waller's role was to search for and engage opposing submarines hunting the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, a role in which she performed better than expected. A few days later, as part of the multinational exercise RIMPAC 2000, Waller was assigned to act as an 'enemy' submarine, and was reported to have successfully engaged two USN nuclear submarines before almost coming into attacking range of Abraham Lincoln. Waller performed similarly during the Operation Tandem Thrust wargames in 2001, when she 'sank' two USN amphibious assault ships in waters just over 70 metres (230 ft) deep, although the submarine was 'destroyed' herself later in the exercise. Waller's second feat was repeated by Sheean during RIMPAC 02, when the boat was able to penetrate the air and surface anti-submarine screens of an eight-ship amphibious task force, then successfully carry out simulated attacks on both the amphibious assault ship USS Tarawa and the dock landing ship USS Rushmore.

Later that year, during two weeks of combat trials in August, Sheean demonstrated that the class was comparable in the underwater warfare role to the Los Angeles-class nuclear powered attack submarine USS Olympia. The two submarines traded roles during the exercise and were equally successful in the attacking role, despite Olympia being larger, more powerful, and armed with more advanced torpedoes. In 2003, a Collins-class boat carried out successful attacks on two USN nuclear submarines and an aircraft carrier during a multinational exercise. The repeated successes of the class in wargames and multinational exercises earned the Collins class praise from foreign military officers for being "a very capable and quiet submarine", and recognition of the boats as a clear example of the threat posed to navies by modern diesel submarines.
It may not be a Soviet sub, but it does demonstrate the ability of a diesel powered sub to quietly operate in and around a carrier task force without being detected soon enough to stop a successful attack.

Targan 09-11-2011 06:49 PM

When the Collins class boats are in the water and working well they're very effective. Its keeping the damn things in good working order that's the problem. To say they've had some teething problems is a huge understatement.

Legbreaker 09-11-2011 07:02 PM

Looking through the information on them, it seems this was mainly due to arguements over who was actually responsible for fixing any issues discovered from the design and construction. As an example, one of the companies involved in the early days is no longer trading and the company the finger was then pointed at refused the responsibility for rectification (and rightly so since it was never in their contract to begin with). Politics has also been a BIG player with both sides using the relatively small teething issues as a political football.
The Australian Navy also didn't realise that as they were the "parent navy" for the design, it would essentially be up to them to find and fix issues and that they wouldn't have a tested and proven design from day one.
Twenty years after the first vessel was laid down, we're almost at the point where they work properly all the time. Now our big problem is crewing them - we currently have enough trained and experienced crew for only about 3 subs (we have 6). This isn't as big a problem as it may seem to begin with as 3 (I think) of the 6 subs are currently in drydock being overhauled (normal maintenance schedule).

Mohoender 09-11-2011 10:29 PM

Not only talking of diesel submarine. In 1998, "Casabianca" (a Rubis-class nuclear powered submarine) managed to think both USS Eisenhower and her Ticonderoga-class escort cruiser using torpedoes and MM39 Exocet.

Exocets missile have damaged more NATO ships than any other missile to date (fictively and in reality).

dragoon500ly 09-12-2011 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohoender (Post 38960)
Dragoon, you are absolutely right but we are talking Twilight and in Twilight it would have been strengthen insteed.

No arguement here! Its what the Sovs would have kept in service that is the question. I'd expect the Blinder and Badgers to be retired in favor of more Backfires and the then-in-developemnt Blackjack. Certainly there would have been addition Frogfoots, Flankers and Fulcrums to fill out the carrier air groups.

The only real question is what they would have done with the various Bears? As old and wornout as the Badgers are, the Bears are in even worse shape. The new Be-42 Mermaid is one possibility, but the Soviets had nothing that could match the Bears 9,500km operational radius. And that means that they would have had issues with the Deep Atlantic recon/target designator missions that the Bears carried out.

dragoon500ly 09-12-2011 08:42 AM

As capable as the Kuznetsov and Kiev-class carriers are, IMHO, they really pretty much a dead end. In the power projection role, they simply do not match the capability of US carriers. Their air groups are geared to air and ASW defense. The addition of massive batteries of SSM/SAMs instead argue that their real role is to supress Allied aviation long enough to get within range of their SSM battery.

The real surprises in the Soviet fleet are not their carriers. Rather it is the development of the Kirov and Slava-class cruisers and the Sovremennyy-class destroyer. Now these designs, in an anti-carrier role, are downright SCARY!!!

Take the latest Kirov, the Admiral Nakhimor for example. A battery of 20 Shipwreck SSMs (reloadable!), as well as 96 SA-N-6, 40 SA-N-4 and no less than 256 SA-N-9 and 192 SA-N-11 SAMs! This is a ship that can take on a carrier air wing and survive long enough to get within range of the carrier!

The Slava cruisers are a threat to the carrier escorts. A battery of 16 Sandbox SSMs and protected by 64 SA-N-6 and 40 SA-N-4 SAMs and for close-in work a twin 130mm "automatic" mount and 10 533mm torpedo tubes. This is a ship designed to go toe-to-toe with any Bunker Hill-class cruiser.

And last, but by no means least are the Sovremennyy-class destroyers. Easily a match for any Spruance-class destroyer! They have a battery of 8 Sunburn SSMs and 40 SA-N-7 SAMS, two twin 130mm automatic mounts and 4 533mm torpedo tubes. Just picture the impact one of these would have if it was shadwoing a carrier battle group during "peacetime"...

And to give a better feel for their ability to "reach-out-and-touch-someone"...

The Shipwreck SSM can carry a nuclear or conventional warhead out to 300 nautical miles. The Sandbox SSMs can also carry a smaller nuclear or conventional warheads out to 300 nautical miles and the Sunburn SSMs carry a conventional warhead out to 50 nautical miles.

Given a decent shot at a carrier battle group, these may be what the Soviets are really counting on to nail a carrier.

Mohoender 09-12-2011 09:07 AM

Dragoon

I agree with everything you say and I think that the Soviet carriers would have been used to protect the main strike force: Kirov, Slava, Sovremmeniy and Oscar submarines.

About the Bears, they should be kept in service. Production line were reopened shortly before the fall of USSR and more new ones would have been fielded to replace the older ones. All current Bears had been built only 20 years ago. They are fairly recent aircrafts, in fact.

If the Twilight War had occured, these would have been among the newest soviet aircrafts.

rcaf_777 09-12-2011 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohoender (Post 38926)
I wouldn't have expected that, thanks for the info. Then, I would tend to replace them with refitted S2 Tracker. Might not be ideal in term of realism but I always loved the Tracker and Canada might have been willing to sale his fleet back to US. Or may be they are serviced by Canadian crews.


I have thinked the the Canadain trackers would flying out of there old base at Summerside PEI. they would good to fly ASW patrol in around the St Laurent basin

Olefin 05-09-2018 11:31 AM

been looking at the S-2 Tracker and how it could have been brought back for service on carriers during the Twilight War - I would think the best place they could have been obtained from actually would be California -Cal Fire (formerly CDF) operates 23 of the upgraded S-2FAT Turbo Trackers that have the torpedo bays replaced with water tanks - not sure how long it would take to retrofit them back - but that would be one place the Navy could get them to use on older carriers

Marsh Aviation in Mesa AZ had a bunch of them there as well that they were retrofitting as fire tankers - so could be flyable ones there too or even ones that hadnt been converted yet

Also the US must have had a few left in operational status - we sold three S-2G to Argentina in 1995

FYI we also sold 36 A-4M/OA-4M and TA-4F modernized to the A-4AR to them from 1997-2000 - not sure if they came from the last USN squadrons operating the aircraft or from the boneyard - but thats enough planes to form a couple of squadrons to equip something like Hornet or Oriskany if they pulled them out of long term storage (for the V-1 timeline where the Cold War doesnt end and thus the Navy keeps them around) - or for that matter the Lexington

cawest 05-11-2018 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 78067)
been looking at the S-2 Tracker and how it could have been brought back for service on carriers during the Twilight War - I would think the best place they could have been obtained from actually would be California -Cal Fire (formerly CDF) operates 23 of the upgraded S-2FAT Turbo Trackers that have the torpedo bays replaced with water tanks - not sure how long it would take to retrofit them back - but that would be one place the Navy could get them to use on older carriers

Marsh Aviation in Mesa AZ had a bunch of them there as well that they were retrofitting as fire tankers - so could be flyable ones there too or even ones that hadnt been converted yet

Also the US must have had a few left in operational status - we sold three S-2G to Argentina in 1995

FYI we also sold 36 A-4M/OA-4M and TA-4F modernized to the A-4AR to them from 1997-2000 - not sure if they came from the last USN squadrons operating the aircraft or from the boneyard - but thats enough planes to form a couple of squadrons to equip something like Hornet or Oriskany if they pulled them out of long term storage (for the V-1 timeline where the Cold War doesnt end and thus the Navy keeps them around) - or for that matter the Lexington

Mesa got the S-2s trucked up from Tucson. I have no idea what would be in Tucson in the 80s and 90s. I know that had a crap load of Grumman AF Guardians Bearcats and Tigercats.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.