RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-16-2018, 04:19 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 725
Default The US Navy in version 2.2

I simply have trouble imagining that EVERY modern vessel of the US Navy is at the bottom of an ocean (or sea). I began thinking about how much of the Navy would survive and I decided about 20% seems right. I also wanted to consider how a weakened Russia could possibly challenge NATO on the high seas. MY ANSWER (and this is just MY OPINION here folks) was to allow the "drawdown" that actually happened to the US Navy after the fall of the old Soviet Union. The list below is taken from the US Navy archives in 1999 and represents the total ACTIVE DUTY strength during that year. But first, some thoughts based on the "real world drawdown." These thoughts come from a number of different people and try to explain why the Navy retired/sold the ships that they did.

The Carriers: ALL of the Super Carriers (8 CVN and 4 CV) are still in service in 1999. All of the smaller carriers were "mothballed" for cost reasons (the Wasp class helo carriers are listed with the Amphibious Assault ships). The CVs were used in the Med and the Gulf (where sailing distances were shorter) and as training ships. I would roll 1D10 for a roll of 1 for a Carrier to have survived. 2 Ships would be the imposed limit on surviving Carriers. Gas-powered CVs would be nearly impossible to fuel based on the sheer quantity needed (I've heard 20 9000-gallon tanker trucks to fuel a single carrier).

The Battleships: As these were all "mothballed" during the 90's, I would see the Navy having trouble getting enough qualified personnel to man them before the Exchange occurs. They are TOUGH though, so I don't think that they would be easily sunk unless they were subjected to aerial bombardment during an amphibious landing. I would roll a 1D20 for each of the 4 with a roll of 4 or less indicating activation for the first ship, 3 or less for the second ship, 2 or less for the third ship and 1 on D20 for the fourth ship to survive through the Exchange. Fuel for these behemoths would be hard to come by.

The Nuclear Cruisers: With crews of 600+ many of whom were highly paid specialists and with HALF the nuclear cruiser fleet coming up to either a refuel or a midlife upgrade (most cruisers were built in the 50's and 60's), the decision was made to retire them because they cost a LOT to operate. They were ALL placed into the reserve fleet by the end of 1996. For those of you who have followed my posts, you know I don't have the US involved in ANY conflict until AFTER the November 1996 elections. I would roll a 1 on 1D20 to get these ships out of Mothballs BEFORE the Exchange (many were stored near nuclear targets). I'd roll for each one.

The Conventional Cruisers: The Navy also retired ALL of here Vietnam-Era cruisers by 1999 (there were several in the reserve fleet) but had EVERY one of the 27 Ticos still in service. 5 of these Ticos are "Flight I" variants with the twin MK26 Dual-Arm Launchers. These ships are almost 50ft shorter than the "Flight II" Ticos and are used for training in 1999. There is a 1 in 6 chance the "Flight I" Ticos survive the Exchange. The "Flight II" Ticos are the longer MK41 VLS Launcher equipped version (128 Launch tubes per ship). ALL 22 of these ships are STILL IN SERVICE TODAY (the 5 "Flight I's being used as "parts ships" to keep the "flight II's running), this is the importance of these ships to the US Navy. A "Flight II" Survives the Exchange on a roll of 1 on 1D10. The maximum number of Ticos that can survive the Exchange is 5.

The Destroyers: The US Navy had 52 Destroyers of THREE different classes still in service in 1998-1999.

The last Charles F. Addams Destroyer was still sailing as a testing ship. This ship is STILL moored with the Mothballed Fleet in the Philadelphia Naval Yard. I can see this ship being used to support landings as it has TWO 5" guns, Two MK13 Single Arm Launchers, NO Helo, and is the cheapest to operate and lowest tech destroyer still in use. It was also MUCH more reliable than either the "Spru-Cans" or the "Admirals" were. The "Burkes" were too sophisticated and costly to risk in supporting landings. I give a roll of 1 on 1D10 for the CF Addam's to survive the Exchange.

The Kidd Class: These were ALL sold to Taiwan by 1998, but I keep them around. They were experiencing "reliability issues" in real life, so the Navy sold them. The Kidds were some of the most powerful destroyers in service in 1997. They had ASW, AA, two 5" guns AND helicopter hangers (missing on "Flight I" Burkes), but they were NEVER upgraded with regards to their weapons or sensors due to power and hull weight restrictions. I would allow a roll of 1 on 1D10 for each of the 4 Kidds. I would limit survival of the Kidds to ONE ship as they were on the front lines off of China.

The Spruance Class: In 1999 the "Spru-Cans" were the MOST numerous Destroyers still in operation. These ships were the most versatile Destroyers the Navy had. As such, they were deployed individually more often than any other class. The 4 "Flight I" Spruances still had their 8-Round ASROC Launchers (with 24 reloads), 2 X 4-Round Harpoon Launchers (between the front and rear stacks) and either an 8-round Sea Sparrow Launcher on the fantail or the 21-round RAM Launcher (1 on 1D6) in place of it. The "Flight I Spru-Cans" were used for training and survive the Exchange on a roll of 1 on 1D10.
The "Flight II" Spruances had the 60-Round (first generation) MK41 VLS Launcher in place of their ASROC Launcher. They also replace the 8-Round Sea Sparrow Launcher with the 21-Round RAM Launcher on a roll of 1 on 1D6. They may also have 2 X 4 Tomahawk Launchers on either side of the superstructure BUT this requires the DELETION of the fantail AA Launcher due to hull weight restrictions. The 24 "Flight II" Spruances were used individually or as detachment leaders, because they had a good mix of firepower with the 60-Round VLS Launchers, a hanger for helos (for ASW) and multiple guns. Their only weakness was poor reliability due to age and a large number of deployments under their belts. They survive on a roll of 1 on 1D10. The total number of Spruances that survive CANNOT exceed 6 hulls.

The Arleigh Burke Class: There were 21 "Flight I" Burkes constructed by 1999. These Burkes had the first generation MK41 Launchers (a 30-round launcher in front and a 60-round launcher in the rear) and NO helicopter hanger (although they have a landing pad and RAST gear). These ships were assigned primarily to Carrier Task forces and often paired with Perry class Frigates to make up for a lack of ASW helicopter facilities. The Burkes survive on a roll of 1 on 1D10 with the total surviving NOT TO EXCEED 6 hulls.

The Frigates: The only Frigates the US Navy still had on active duty in 1999 were the Oliver Hazzard Perry Class. The 37 still active "Perrys" were both TOUGH and cheap to operate (the Coast Guard and Naval Reserve operated these as well). At this time, they still had their MK13 Single Arm Launchers (with 36 Standard AA missiles and 4 Harpoon missiles) but had added two waist-deck mounted MK38 25mm cannon (the unstabilized variant) behind the triple torpedo tubes. I could see the Navy adding Hellfire II launchers to the OHP but they are limited by their available surplus power AND hull-weight restrictions. The Perrys only have about 30 tons of extra weight capacity after adding the MK38s and extra munitions for their Helos. Perrys were often paired with Burkes to make up for the Burkes lack of helicopter facilities. They were also deployed singly in lower threat areas. The Perrys survive on a 1 or 2 on 1D10 with a maximum of 7 hulls surviving.

The Cyclone Class Patrol Cruisers: The 14 PCs (originally intended to support Navy Seals) Still had 13 ships on the registry with one ship transferred to the Phillippine Navy. I see these ships headed to the Gulf just like they are today. The Cyclones can transit the Littorals and even rivers so I see them taking several casualties. The chance of survival is 1 on 1D6 with a maximum of 4 hulls surviving.

Minewarfare Ships: The 18 ships still in service in 1999 would be prime targets and are also lightly armed. I see survival on a 1 on 1D10 with a maximum of 4 hulls surviving.

Amphibious assault Ships: This includes several classes such as the Wasp Class, the Raleigh Class, The Tarawas, and so forth. The total number of Amphibious Assault ships in 1999 is 41 vessels. I see these surviving on a 1 on 1D10 with 8 vessels TOTAL surviving.

Auxilliary Ships: The 57 Auxilliarys include Tankers, Ammo Supply ships, Bulk Haulers, and "Transfer Docks" for assaults. These ships survive on a roll of 1 on 1D10 with a maximum of 12 hulls surviving.

Command and Control Ships: The 4 C&C Ships were such high-value targets that I see them surviving only on a roll of 1 on 1D20.

The SSBMs: The "boomers" were another high-value target but we know at least ONE survived. I rate the 18 SSBMs as surviving on a roll of 1 on 1D10 with a minimum of ONE hull and a maximum of 3 hulls surviving the Twilight War.

The Subs: The US Navy had 57 nuclear subs in service in 1999. There were 2 Sea Wolf subs in service and the rest appear to be LA Class SSNs. I would roll a 1 on 1D10 to survive with a total of 10 hulls for the LA class. I would roll a 1 on 1D6 for the two Sea Wolf hulls to survive.

Those were the real-world hulls in service in 1999. Please Feel free to add or modify my list accordingly. The list also DOES NOT include the Reserve or Mothball Fleets.

Last edited by swaghauler; 05-16-2018 at 05:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-17-2018, 12:41 PM
jimbo4795's Avatar
jimbo4795 jimbo4795 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 14
Default

Great Post. Great ideas. I could easily see the BB's moored at Norfolk and Pearl with just enough manning to keep 1 boiler running to power the generators and keep the main guns manned for harbor defense.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:08 PM
mpipes mpipes is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 152
Default

That is roughly what I came up with as far as operational ships, with about an equal number surviving but not operational for one reason or another.

I have almost all the Ohios surviving however. I don't think the Soviets could really track them in 1996-1998 time frame, and you could have paired each Ohio with an escorting Sturgeon to keep the survival chances high. 62 Los Angeles were in commission by the start of the war.

A good number of Sturgeons were still commissioned in 1994, when I think the brakes would have been applied to reducing the force and steps begun to expand as much as possible. Only a handful had been de-commissioned by 1994 (7-8). Surprisingly, all of the Skate class and most Permits were still kicking around and had not been scrapped (was shocked to discover that!). None of the updated Poseidon boomers had been scrapped either, and I think there were even 4 or 5 that had not been updated with Trident Is still available.

I still wonder how effective the Soviet surface force would have been. From what I understand, only a handful of surface units really concerned the navy and many thought they would break down in any long term war. It was that large submarine fleet that seemed to worry the Navy the most.

Last edited by mpipes; 05-17-2018 at 11:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-18-2018, 04:11 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,974
Default

The interesting thing about a V2.2 version is it predicates that the NATO drawdown happened - but if the same thing happened on the Russian side then frankly the US Navy should be in very good shape - the Russian navy was in very bad shape by 1996 - and even if they tried to put a lot of money into putting it back into fighting shape it was not the navy that would have been encountered in a V1 war
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-19-2018, 06:21 PM
Enfield Enfield is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 41
Default

One issue with the NATO fleets is, of course, fuel and maintenance. They require infrastructure for support, including drydocks, machine shops, and there is the matter of armaments. Even if not using the most modern vessels, the main armaments are missiles. So I have a few questions:

1. How many useful ports would still be in operation?

2. How many vessels would it be possible to keep maintained and fully functional?

3. Would MEUs still support the USMC in the Persian Gulf and between Korea-Japan?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-19-2018, 08:14 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
The interesting thing about a V2.2 version is it predicates that the NATO drawdown happened - but if the same thing happened on the Russian side then frankly the US Navy should be in very good shape - the Russian navy was in very bad shape by 1996 - and even if they tried to put a lot of money into putting it back into fighting shape it was not the navy that would have been encountered in a V1 war
I was surprised to see that "president Clinton" (I so want to refer to him as "slick willy" right now) reduced the Navy's strength to around 55% of its Cold War strength. In addition, he also reversed ALL of the Division 86 Protocols (these were the protocols that added heavy combat brigades, light brigades and increases the size of artillery units from 6 gun batteries to 8 gun ones in the US Army).

This is important because it rationalizes why a weakened Russia could oppose NATO. The US got its "Peace Dividend" through Force Reduction. When you combine this with the NUMEROUS "peace-keeping operations" we were involved in (in my alternate history, they ALL happened), it is easy to see WHY the US was spread "paper thin" around the Globe. When the Twilight War goes hot, the US has troops in:

Asia (East Timor, and Korea)
Western Europe (Poland, Germany)
Eastern Europe (Kosovo)
Africa (Rwanda, Nijer, Kenya, Cameroon)
South America (mostly revolutionary or DEA related in Peru, Guatemala, Colombia, Mexico)
The Arabian Peninsula (Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait)

They are simply spread too thin after absorbing the Force Cuts of the Peace Dividend.

Russia:

I have the "Rogue State" of Russia (after the Coup of course) searching for revenue. In real life, the US lent Russia money AND bought up huge quantities of her nuclear materials to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. As a result, Russia "behaved herself" throughout the 90's.

Once that US "intervention" is removed, there is NOTHING to stop Russia from selling the only things of value they have in great quantity... WEAPONS.
Russia sells T55Ms with the Volna fire control, T62s, and even MODERN T72s (with powered traverse and reactive armor) to IRAQ. They sell technology (including nuclear tech) to North Korea and Iran. They sell small arms and RPGs to South American drug lords and AL-QAEDA. They give AFVs to the Serbs, Libya, and The Congo. They sell tech to India and EVEN China before the Twilight War. By doing this, the Russians are able to build more modern weapons such as the T90, upgraded T80s, and newer weapons systems. Even the Navy benefitted from this. Russia only suffers a 30% to 40% degradation to her Naval force structure. She lost bigger units like her carriers (to pay the upkeep on her other capital ships) but kept the ships she could use as "surface raiders" as well as most of her subs. She also kept her small surface combatants like the Paulk Class ASW corvettes and the Tarantul Class corvettes.
Combine this with Russia playing "cat and mouse" with NATO (raiding commercial shipping but running from enemy combatants), explains why there aren't enough ships to take care of all the mission tasking.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-19-2018, 08:50 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes View Post
That is roughly what I came up with as far as operational ships, with about an equal number surviving but not operational for one reason or another.

I have almost all the Ohios surviving however. I don't think the Soviets could really track them in 1996-1998 time frame, and you could have paired each Ohio with an escorting Sturgeon to keep the survival chances high. 62 Los Angeles were in commission by the start of the war.

A good number of Sturgeons were still commissioned in 1994, when I think the brakes would have been applied to reducing the force and steps begun to expand as much as possible. Only a handful had been de-commissioned by 1994 (7-8). Surprisingly, all of the Skate class and most Permits were still kicking around and had not been scrapped (was shocked to discover that!). None of the updated Poseidon boomers had been scrapped either, and I think there were even 4 or 5 that had not been updated with Trident Is still available.

I still wonder how effective the Soviet surface force would have been. From what I understand, only a handful of surface units really concerned the navy and many thought they would break down in any long term war. It was that large submarine fleet that seemed to worry the Navy the most.
I didn't even consider Reserve Fleet or Mothballs units. For those who don't know, the Reserve Fleet are units pretty much kept at sailing readiness but NOT officially crewed or armed. The Mothballs are laid up (and would require MONTHS to be "combat ready") in one of FOUR major places:

The Philidelphia Naval Yard
The James River VA
Suisan Bay CA
Brownsville TX

You should YouTube these places as they are REALLY COOL.

I did want to address one more thing I did find out. The reason the count is 55 LA Class subs is because one sub had an "engineering casualty" that sidelined it for 18 months, and 6 of the "flight I" subs (which can be identified by the diving planes positioned on their conning towers instead of on their bows) were undergoing their "midlife upgrades." Those upgrades involved digital fire controls, newer sonars that were flooded to give better acoustics, and newer reactor cores that produced more power. This upgrade takes between 24 and 36 months to do. The 3rd Seawolf was also completed but didn't enter service until 2000. This would probably be "expedited" as war loomed on the horizon. ALL of the other subs, the USS California, and the USS South Carolina were ALSO in the Reserves at this point. The Virginias were not active but not decommissioned yet. The Long Beach WAS decommissioned and both the Bainbridge and the Truxton were decommissioning. The 15 Perrys that are missing were with either the Coast Guard or the Active Reserves BUT they had lost their MK13 "One Armed Bandits" (the term Navy crews used for the MK13 Launcher).

I would like to point out two good book resources I have that have made my life MUCH easier researching these ships. The first is Modern Naval Combat (1988 ISBN 0-517-61350-6). The second book is The Encyclopedia of World Sea Power (1988, ISBN 0-517-65342-7) which is more a reference than a proper book (with explanations in it). It also lists and describes the various weapons these ships used. I also recommend The Federation of American Scientists (FAS). Their World Equipment Guide is almost as good as Paul's site. ALMOST...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-19-2018, 10:04 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enfield View Post
One issue with the NATO fleets is, of course, fuel and maintenance. They require infrastructure for support, including drydocks, machine shops, and there is the matter of armaments. Even if not using the most modern vessels, the main armaments are missiles. So I have a few questions:

1. How many useful ports would still be in operation?

2. How many vessels would it be possible to keep maintained and fully functional?

3. Would MEUs still support the USMC in the Persian Gulf and between Korea-Japan?
I question how many missiles would be left. One of my co-workers served in the Navy in the 1980's. According to him, in those days, a ship would come in from deployment and all its missiles would be offloaded, serviced, and placed on an outbound ship. There simply weren't enough missiles to equip all the ships at once. This supposedly ended in the Early 90's. I did a little research and this is what I found out through The Navy Fact Files, Wikipedia, FAS, and ALL my reference works (Janes was a big help here). I have no idea how accurate these numbers are. Most of them are the product of a Wiki search (and those are questionable). Today I'll post the Navy's SAMs.

Ship-Launched SAMs:

The US Navy used the following ship-launched SAMs in 1997 (when I have my War getting "HOT");

RIM 66E Standard: This was the main replacement for the Tartar and is commonly employed by the MK13 "One-Armed Bandit" and the "Standard Launcher" (still found on the USS California and USS South Carolina). It can also be fired from the MK26 Twin Armed Launcher and the MK41 VLS Launcher. The RIM-66E has a range of 74km is semi-actively guided to the target (requires target illumination by the firing ship) and CANNOT hit surface skimming missiles. 3,000 missiles were made for service with the US Navy.

RIM 66H Standard (ER): This is an extended-range version of the basic Standard with low-level attack capability and only needing active guidance in the "terminal phase" of the attack. This allows an AEGIS-equipped ship to control multiple missiles at once, even against multiple targets. This missile is MUCH LONGER than the RIM-66E and WILL NOT FIT in the rotary "ring magazine" of the MK13/Standard Launcher (which can only handle 5m long missiles). The range of this missile is 167km and the Navy had 2000 in inventory at the turn of the Century. The Standard ER also demonstrated a capability to hit ships too.

RIM 162 Evolved Sea Sparrow: This was a ground-launched, enhanced ranged variant of the old active radar-homing Sparrow missile (replaced by the AMRAAM on Navy aircraft). It must be actively guided to the target and has moderately good performance against sea-skimming missiles. The issue with it is that the launcher/ship MUST guide the missile to the target. This limits the number of targets that can be engaged. This missile can be fired from the MK29 8-round Launcher, as a quad-packed (4 missiles per cell) subassembly in the MK41 VLS or as a "stand-alone" 2-round Launcher in the MK48 VLS. The range of the Evolved Sea Sparrow is 50km and the Navy had 2,000 in stock by 2000ad.

RIM 116 Rolling Airframe Missile: This is essentially a Sidewinder Missile with an improved FM-92 Stinger Missile's Seeker head fitted to it. It can sense BOTH IR radiation AND zero in on radar emissions. This optically-tracked system will follow a target until the missile "has a lock," at which point the operator (or computer in the SEARAM) can fire a missile. The missile will "self-track" and the operator (or SEARAM computer) can then lock another target. This system is often "ripple-fired." This involves shooting TWO missiles about 2 seconds apart so hit probability is increased. The range of the RAM is 9km and the US Navy either purchased them or converted older Sidewinders to RAMs. There are roughly 1,200 in service during the Twilight War. The RAM can be had in a stand-alone 11-round launcher paired with the Phalanx's radar and computer controller (the SEARAM), a 21-round launcher (MK-144), or a compact 8-round German-made launcher (MK2 SDS).

The Mk41 Vertical Launch System: The VLS came in two versions. The first version is a 30-round unit with 5 extra missiles in a "strike-down canister" that must be loaded manually by the crew. This launcher is divided into FIVE 6-round launch tube units. A 6-round unit has to have the same missile installed (and is programmed for the missile in question). It can launch one missile per second and can handle missiles up to 7.5 meters long.
The "strike-down container" was problematic due to the crew being unable to access the missiles in it in most sea states and an improved MK41 version holding FOUR 8-round launch units (for 32 missiles) and deleting the "strike-down container" emerged. This is the current MK41 unit in use today. The evolution continued with a quad-packed launch container for the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile. This means that an 8-round unit will hold 32 ESSM Missiles (greatly increasing a ship's firepower).

I'll post the ASROC, Harpoon and Tomahawk tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-20-2018, 12:20 AM
mpipes mpipes is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 152
Default

That's good info. The biggest hole in my research was exactly which ships were down for major overhauls. Where did you find that info?
Could not the Mk13 had been placed back in service? As I recall, they left the launchers in place and just withdrew the SM-1s.

I really think V2 and 2.2 get things wrong with the fallout from the Coup. I think that makes everyone start going "wait a minute....." with the headlong rush to de-mobilize at least slowing. Once a shooting war broke out in China, things would have gone into overdrive (IMO) to mobilize and the US would have started actually forming new division. By November 1996, all of NATO would have been executing their mobilization plans and getting weapons production geared up to wartime planning.

Russia I think pretty much gets its act together...save the Motherland and all...it worked in 1941 and I think would have worked in 1995. Not that are back at their peak by 1/1997, but they are not a basket case like they were historically either.

I also don't think Clinton would have been elected with Periot not making the run he did historically.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-20-2018, 05:55 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 725
Default The ASROC, Harpoon, and Tomahawk Missiles

Here is what I found out about the US Navy's Four other surface-launched missile systems.

RUR-5 ASROC Missile and the RUM139 ASROC Missile:

These missiles are designed to carry a 12" MK46 or MK50 torpedo to a submerged target. They give a "standoff attack capability" to ships without ASW helicopters onboard. Please note that the following ranges DO NOT INCLUDE the range of the torpedo that is launched.
The RUR-5 has a range of from 0.85km (min) to 16km (max) and 1000 such missiles were produced. They are commonly launched from either the 8-round MK16 "Matchbox" Deck-Mounted Launcher or the MK26 Twin-Armed Launcher (the MK13 is too short to support ASROC).
The RUM-139 is the vertically-launched version fitted to the MK41 VLS and has a range of from 1km (min) to 19km (max) range. It is TOO LONG to be fired from any launcher but the MK41 VLS. The US adopts this in 1998 and 1000 missiles were initially purchased.

The RGM-84 Harpoon Missile:

This is the US Navy's universally-deployed anti-ship missile. This missile was in tight supply until about 1990. It is deployed on EVERY SHIP in the US Navy. There are several variants but most were upgraded to the following models by the Twilight War.
The RGM-84E: This is the most advanced version of the basic model with better ECM and IR targeting/target recognition. It has a range of 93km and 3000 were produced (or upgraded to the E variant). This model can be fired from a dedicated 4-Round MK141 Box Launcher, the MK13, the MK26, and certain modified MK16 "Matchbox" ASROC Launchers.
The RGM-84H: Primarily deployed in its MK141 Launcher or in the MK41 VLS, this missile has MUCH improved performance and a range of 280km. About 1000 were available before the Exchange.

The BMG-109 Tomahawk Missile:

This is the standard land-attack missile of the US Navy. There was an anti-ship version but it had very poor performance and all of that version were "remanufactured" into TLAM-A (conventional) Tomahawks in the early 90's. The Tomahawks are used in three main variants with many upgrades to each one. The ranges and payload types vary by model. and ALL of these models are launched from either a 4-Round MK-143 Armored Box Launcher or the MK41 VLS Launcher.
BMG-109 TLAM-A (and remanned B model ASMs): The basic warhead variant without midcourse correction capability or televisual links. It is the longest ranged version with the most basic conventional warhead (1000lbs) or a 200KT nuclear warhead (TLAM-N). Its range is 2590km and around 1000 were made.
BMG-109 TLAM-C: This is an advanced unitary warhead (1000lbs) version with telemetry and advanced mid-course correction. The range of this variant is 1700km and more than 1000 are in service during the Twilight War.
BMG-109 TLAM-D: This is a "cluster bomb" variant of the Tomahawk. It has all of the advanced guidance features but contains 24 canisters of bomblets instead of a unitary warhead. The missile contains 22 canisters of 7 bomblets each (154 total) and 2 more canisters of 6 each (12 total) in order to conform to the missile's shape. That's 166 submunitions in the TLAM-D. The range of this model is 1300km and slightly more than 1000 were made.

The Penguin Mk2 Mod 7 Missile:

While the US Navy primarily used this missile from helos and aircraft, I can see a few box launchers showing up on smaller surface combatants. When fired from a deck-mounted box launcher this missile has a range of 20km (MK I), 27km (MK II), and 34km (MK III) with around 1000 in service (including aircraft-launched versions).

Other Options:

As we have seen from the War On Terror, the Navy would probably experiment with several other missile types. They are using the Griffin laser-guided missile on the Cyclone Class PCs, as well as their smaller patrol boats (like the River Command Boat and the MK6 Patrol Boat). They also bought 100,000 Hellfire IIs and are trying to adapt the Hellfire Longbow to a VLS launcher. The rumor among Navy vets is that the Navy has a Longbow variant with a 10km range (with a booster attachment) and all-weather capability. The Navy has also fielded Stinger Missiles on the Cyclone Class PCs in a novel 8-round compact launcher. I could see ALL of these showing up during the Twilight War.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-20-2018, 06:21 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes View Post
That's good info. The biggest hole in my research was exactly which ships were down for major overhauls. Where did you find that info?
Could not the Mk13 had been placed back in service? As I recall, they left the launchers in place and just withdrew the SM-1s.

I really think V2 and 2.2 get things wrong with the fallout from the Coup. I think that makes everyone start going "wait a minute....." with the headlong rush to de-mobilize at least slowing. Once a shooting war broke out in China, things would have gone into overdrive (IMO) to mobilize and the US would have started actually forming new division. By November 1996, all of NATO would have been executing their mobilization plans and getting weapons production geared up to wartime planning.

Russia I think pretty much gets its act together...save the Motherland and all...it worked in 1941 and I think would have worked in 1995. Not that are back at their peak by 1/1997, but they are not a basket case like they were historically either.

I also don't think Clinton would have been elected with Periot not making the run he did historically.
This info comes from a man named Dick who served on the LA Class subs in the 1980's. He hooked me up with several former Navy guys who helped guide these posts (I'm Army Artillery but I love sailing). My friend Tim was also Navy. I confirmed what I was told by searching the Navy Fact Files, FAS, The Military Factory and looking up the various ships BY NAME and checking their Operational History (which lists deployments). Be warned! You can really tumble down "The Rabbit Hole" doing research like this. I cannot even remember all the links in those websites.

I agree about Russia but the whole Clinton Peace Dividend works for explaining WHY Russia could stand against NATO. I also operate under the premise that NATO thought the increasing conflict with Russian-backed rebels in Poland (the "spark" which "ignites" the Twilight War in my Alternate History) was just another "brushfire war" like Kosovo, East Timor, and Africa. They don't realize WWIII is occurring UNTIL they are fully involved in it. This makes the Twilight War in my timeline a "come as you are" war. No time to prep or plan, it just "happens" because EVERYONE (even Russia) was too blind to see it happening. I use this approach to justify the "dusting off" of older stored equipment because if everyone had time to prepare, then the US would be cranking out new AFVs, Planes, and Missiles. Because they aren't ready, they have to "make do" with whatever they have "stashed away."

Those MK13s were probably NOT available anymore because they would have been used to keep the still serving MK13s operational. The Navy hadn't made MK13s since the early 80's and cannibalization is a COMMON Navy practice. Look at how the Coast Guard scavenged parts from the last Perry Class Frigates when the Navy mothballed them. I think TW2K13 said it best... "a detailed strip is the scavenging equivalent to a plague of locusts. Nothing is left."

I'd like to plug a really good museum in the Buffalo NY area for Naval Ship fans. I hope this link works.

www.buffalonavalpark.org

Ok, the link works. I'm off to game... the team will be here in 30 minutes.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-21-2018, 05:49 AM
.45cultist .45cultist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
This info comes from a man named Dick who served on the LA Class subs in the 1980's. He hooked me up with several former Navy guys who helped guide these posts (I'm Army Artillery but I love sailing). My friend Tim was also Navy. I confirmed what I was told by searching the Navy Fact Files, FAS, The Military Factory and looking up the various ships BY NAME and checking their Operational History (which lists deployments). Be warned! You can really tumble down "The Rabbit Hole" doing research like this. I cannot even remember all the links in those websites.

I agree about Russia but the whole Clinton Peace Dividend works for explaining WHY Russia could stand against NATO. I also operate under the premise that NATO thought the increasing conflict with Russian-backed rebels in Poland (the "spark" which "ignites" the Twilight War in my Alternate History) was just another "brushfire war" like Kosovo, East Timor, and Africa. They don't realize WWIII is occurring UNTIL they are fully involved in it. This makes the Twilight War in my timeline a "come as you are" war. No time to prep or plan, it just "happens" because EVERYONE (even Russia) was too blind to see it happening. I use this approach to justify the "dusting off" of older stored equipment because if everyone had time to prepare, then the US would be cranking out new AFVs, Planes, and Missiles. Because they aren't ready, they have to "make do" with whatever they have "stashed away."

Those MK13s were probably NOT available anymore because they would have been used to keep the still serving MK13s operational. The Navy hadn't made MK13s since the early 80's and cannibalization is a COMMON Navy practice. Look at how the Coast Guard scavenged parts from the last Perry Class Frigates when the Navy mothballed them. I think TW2K13 said it best... "a detailed strip is the scavenging equivalent to a plague of locusts. Nothing is left."

I'd like to plug a really good museum in the Buffalo NY area for Naval Ship fans. I hope this link works.

www.buffalonavalpark.org

Ok, the link works. I'm off to game... the team will be here in 30 minutes.
Swaghauler, could your timeline work as a current alternate history roughly from "some time tomorrow" to 202? ?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-21-2018, 03:57 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by .45cultist View Post
Swaghauler, could your timeline work as a current alternate history roughly from "some time tomorrow" to 202? ?
In truth, I don't think we need it. Look at current events today. We are in conflicts in Syria, Nijer, Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, Iraq, Yemen, South Korea, and are now working on a conflict with Iran. The "axis powers" of WWIII are fast aligning as I type this.
1. Russia
2. Assad's Syria
3. Lebanon
4. Iran
5. Iranian-backed Yemen
6. North Korea
7. China

The "Non-Aligned Combatants" are also a concern because they will sap us of "resources" in a major conflict. Those include:
1. Issis (both in Syria and in Libya)
2. Boko Haram (in Libya, Algeria, Nijer, Nigeria, Mali, and the Congo)
3. Al Queda (in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Kenya, and Uganda).
4. Hamas (Iranian aligned but not a properly "organized" opponent).
5. We may even find Turkey on this list if we support the Kurds.

Add to all of those the fact that the Obama Era "Sequester Cuts" reduced military spending by 20% after we made MAJOR expenditures of VERY EXPENSIVE ordinance and logged THOUSANDS OF HOURS on very expensive airframes, and we are already halfway down the road to a new version of Twilight 2025(?) IN THE REAL WORLD. This bothers me greatly.

To add to the issue, we are currently "understrength" in personnel AND our newest equipment (the LCS class ships, the Gerald R Ford) are having "teething pains" and our allies are spending much less of their GDP on defense and you have a potential "Perfect Storm" that the US and Britain may not be able to stop if the rest of NATO (in WESTERN EUROPE) doesn't step up to help (the EASTERN EUROPEAN NATO partners have shown they will do what they can).

I see the storm coming but I don't know how WE (the US) can stop it before a war breaks out. Pacification hasn't worked (or Russia and N. Korea would be in check now). And yes, I'm worried about 6 to 10 years from now.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-21-2018, 06:59 PM
.45cultist .45cultist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
In truth, I don't think we need it. Look at current events today. We are in conflicts in Syria, Nijer, Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, Iraq, Yemen, South Korea, and are now working on a conflict with Iran. The "axis powers" of WWIII are fast aligning as I type this.
1. Russia
2. Assad's Syria
3. Lebanon
4. Iran
5. Iranian-backed Yemen
6. North Korea
7. China

The "Non-Aligned Combatants" are also a concern because they will sap us of "resources" in a major conflict. Those include:
1. Issis (both in Syria and in Libya)
2. Boko Haram (in Libya, Algeria, Nijer, Nigeria, Mali, and the Congo)
3. Al Queda (in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Kenya, and Uganda).
4. Hamas (Iranian aligned but not a properly "organized" opponent).
5. We may even find Turkey on this list if we support the Kurds.

Add to all of those the fact that the Obama Era "Sequester Cuts" reduced military spending by 20% after we made MAJOR expenditures of VERY EXPENSIVE ordinance and logged THOUSANDS OF HOURS on very expensive airframes, and we are already halfway down the road to a new version of Twilight 2025(?) IN THE REAL WORLD. This bothers me greatly.

To add to the issue, we are currently "understrength" in personnel AND our newest equipment (the LCS class ships, the Gerald R Ford) are having "teething pains" and our allies are spending much less of their GDP on defense and you have a potential "Perfect Storm" that the US and Britain may not be able to stop if the rest of NATO (in WESTERN EUROPE) doesn't step up to help (the EASTERN EUROPEAN NATO partners have shown they will do what they can).

I see the storm coming but I don't know how WE (the US) can stop it before a war breaks out. Pacification hasn't worked (or Russia and N. Korea would be in check now). And yes, I'm worried about 6 to 10 years from now.
Yep, current events prompted my question. The shoddy and overstretched western armies give the crew you named at least think they have a chance.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-21-2018, 07:46 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by .45cultist View Post
Yep, current events prompted my question. The shoddy and overstretched western armies give the crew you named at least think they have a chance.
And this doesn't even take into account that "President Clinton" also allowed the expiration of the requirement for key industries such as Steel Mills, and Tool & Die Shops to maintain their "surplus production." For those who don't know, after WWII, the US government set up a standard for key industries to maintain a "minimum surplus of manufacturing capacity." This number was initially 40% but was reduced as manufacturing became more efficient. When "President Clinton" took office, it was 20% of maximum capacity (so if you could make 100 "widgets" a day, you had to be able to make 120 with your "idled" capacity). He reduced this to zero and many idled blast furnaces and tool production IMMEDIATELY went to India and China. China also controls most of our strategic mining now. This was all done from the late 90's until right now (today). This means that if we can only make 100 Harpoons a month, that's ALL we are going get until we build another factory. Most US industry today has embraced the concept of "Lean Manufacturing" to reduce costs. This involves using a "skeleton crew" of workers to make things. As a consequence, most shops run at 95%+ output now. This means there can be no "great burst" of manufacturing to increase output for the short-term. We will DEFINITELY be fighting a "come as you are war" when it happens.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-21-2018, 08:32 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes View Post
I really think V2 and 2.2 get things wrong with the fallout from the Coup. I think that makes everyone start going "wait a minute....." with the headlong rush to de-mobilize at least slowing. Once a shooting war broke out in China, things would have gone into overdrive (IMO) to mobilize and the US would have started actually forming new division. By November 1996, all of NATO would have been executing their mobilization plans and getting weapons production geared up to wartime planning.

Russia I think pretty much gets its act together...save the Motherland and all...it worked in 1941 and I think would have worked in 1995. Not that are back at their peak by 1/1997, but they are not a basket case like they were historically either.
I would love to play "Devil's Advocate" and give some options for the CCN's being updated in V2.2 here. These come from plans the Navy put forth in the Early 90's that my friend Tim found and told me about.

The USS California and South Carolina:

The cruisers would get the Aegis upgrade that was initially proposed along with Link 12 Data Management Upgrades AND COMPLETE Digital Upgrades (they received the initial "Digital Tartar Upgrades in the 80's). These and weapons, environmental, and powerplant upgrades would allow the Navy to reduce her crew of 530 to 398. That's a HUGE saving in operational costs.

They would have replaced the MK16 "matchbox" ASROC Launcher (and her loading forecastle/torpedo room in front of it) and both MK13 "one-armed bandit"/Standard Launchers (which contained 80 missiles each) with SIX of the newly available SECOND GENERATION MK41 VLS (the 32-round variant) with two VLS launchers placed in each location. This would have given both ships 192 VLS cells in 24 8-cell groupings (1 missile type per group) and made them the most powerful cruisers afloat in the 90's (AND even today). Two MK32 (12") Triple Torpedo Tubes would be mounted forward of the ship's launches. The upgrade still included the 2 X 4 MK141 Harpoon Box Launchers behind the forward deckhouse, as well as the 2 X 4 MK143 ABL Tomahawk Launchers on either side of the rear deck (facing forward). The upgrade would DOUBLE the Phalanx/SEAWIZ 20mm from two to FOUR. I think you might see the two Phalanx/SEAWIZ alongside the upper deckhouse (behind the Harpoons) and one each forward of the deckhouse and above the after 5". The Navy might even upgrade those two to 11-round SEARAM Launchers to increase interception range.

I have no doubt that had those upgrades been done, the USS California and the USS South Carolina would be sailing today.

The Virginia Class Upgrade:

The Virginia Class ships needed more work. Their "fantail hangers" leaked badly and their ASW helo were deleted in their 1980's update. The general updates would decrease their crew requirement from 528 to 396. They would replace EACH of their two MK26 Launchers with TWO Second-Generation (32-round) MK41 VLS Launchers for 128 total VLS launch cells (the same as the Ticos). The update called for adding two more Phalanx/SEAWIZ systems fore and aft (just like the Californias). They would keep their Harpoons (2 X 4) and Tomahawks (2 X 4). It also called for rebuilding the fantail and reinforcing the helipad (with the hanger already deleted in the 80's update).

This is where I'd make one "creative change" to her rebuild. The RAST was revolutionary for helos and a new class of US Ship, the Cyclones, introduced the next new thing. A launch ramp for RIBs that allowed her to disembark or embark RIBs UNDERWAY. This was done for the SEALs but has found its way onto ALL the newer US ships. The hanger space on the fantail could have been modified to a RIB-retrieval dock and the Virginias could have made good use of this rescuing downed pilots or doing "anti-piracy" work. This would allow the relocation of the Tomahawks alongside the deckhouse and closer to the ship's center of gravity.

I think the four Virginia Class Cruisers would still be sailing if this update had occurred. In the US Navy's defense, The Carolina's would have cost about 3 Billion Dollars to do and the four Virginia's would have run around 6 Billion Dollars, as much as an Aircraft Carrier in the 1990's.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 AM.


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