RPG Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-08-2018, 07:02 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,521
Default T2K Naval War in the Pacific

I'm attempting to describe the T2K naval war in the Pacific and I could use a little assistance. There's very little mention of the theatre in canon. If you know of any references, please let me know.

Here's what I could use help with. I'm having a hard time reconstructing the composition of the U.S. Pacific Fleet during the later years of the Cold War. I'd like to add verisimilitude to my account by including specific ship names and such.

Here's a very rough outline.



Timeline T2K Naval War in the Pacific

1995: Waiting Soviet SSNs sink Chinese SSBNs as the latter sallies forth following declaration of war. PRC nuclear second-strike capability badly depleted

Eschewing decades of strategic naval doctrine, powerful Soviet Pacific Fleet (SPF) battle group conducts audacious raid on Shanghai, showering port facilities with cruise missiles. Most of PLN surface fleet destroyed defending. SPF gains valuable operational experience.

SPF task force completes transfer of troops, SAMs/AAA and SPF surface elements to Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam.

Late 1996: Advised of strong possibility of war between USSR and USA, main force SPF returns to relative security of its bases (its primary mission is defense of such).

Dec. 19th, 2006. DPRK invades ROK. KPA Navy assists in landing commandos & launches raids and engages elements of ROKNAV before returning to port. Light ROKNAV losses; moderate KPA Navy losses.

Winter, 1997-1998: U.S. 7th Fleet arrives. Launches air raids against KPA navy facilities. Light USN/ROKNAV losses; KPA navy destroyed (except for a few lurking submarines, most of which are hunted down & destroyed with little to show for their sacrifice).

Provoked by KPA ballistic missile strikes on port facilities (aimed at disrupting flow of supplies and reinforcements to US forces, Korea), Japan declares war on North Korea; launches airstrikes on KPA missile launch sites near Wonson; sends JDF 1st Airborne Brigade to Korea (technically attached to UN forces, Korea).

Soviet submarines attack elements of 7th Fleet near Korea. Light USN losses. Intense ASW operations in Japanese Sea, Korean Strait, Yellow Sea, East China Sea. Moderate Soviet submarine losses.

Spring, 1996: 7th Fleet CVGB/CSG launches raid on Cam Ranh Bay. Light USN surface/sub force losses; heavy air group losses. Heavy Soviet air and naval losses.

Summer, 1997: 7th Fleet CSG, Expeditionary Strike Group (amphibs), and Battleship Battle Group support landing of 4th MarDiv and 6th ROK Marine Brigade "Black Dragon" south of Nampo, DPRK/Taedong River estuary. New Jersey and Iowa gunfire support proves invaluable in destroying KPA coastal artillery and anti-aircraft defenses. Light USN losses. Landing is successful, unhinging KPA's main line of resistance along the DMZ.

Late Summer, 1997: Soviet Yalu Front attacks U.S. 8th Army near Yalu River*

Battle of the Kuriles- Soviet Pacific Fleet makes feint at Kuriles, drawing out Japanese Fleet & U.S. CBG. Soviet naval aviation (mostly land-based Backfire bombers), submarines, and surface force inflict heavy losses on Allied force; Heavy Soviet air losses; moderate Soviet surface force losses.

Autumn, 1997: U.S.N. launches raids on Vladivostok. Heavy Soviet naval and air losses; heavy USN carrier air group losses; moderate USN surface losses.

*2/19/98: Sealift bearing 6th MarDiv badly depleted by Soviet commerce raiders;

Spring, 1998: Battle of Kamchatka- USN launches raids on Kamchatka SPF bases; Soviet Pacific Fleet sorties (supported by land-based air); general fleet engagement- heavy losses on both sides.

Summer, 1998: SPF essentially no longer exists; scattered Soviet commerce raiders continue to terrorize shipping in the Pacific. US Pacific Fleet badly depleted. Most surviving surface vessels employed in convoy escort/ASW operations.

Fuel runs out- most vessels, most navies, tied up in port...

*Specifically mentioned in canon.

---

Constructive feedback is welcome
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-08-2018, 10:50 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,134
Default

Good work Raellus. A few points.

Some of the US Navy 7th Fleet was already forward deployed in Japan. 6,300 US Navy personnel in Japan in 1990's with 1 carrier and 8 escorts at Yokosuka, and 3 SSN's and 3 amphibs at Sasebo. Also Carrier Air Wing 5 is at Atsugi. There are also 15,000 USAF (5th Air Force) in Japan with 120 combat aircraft, and 22,000 Marines in Okinawa including the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing.

Chinese PLAN was woefully outclassed by Soviets at this time and would have been chewed to pieces by Soviet submarines and aircraft. However the Soviet surface fleet was also very vulnerable to US Navy carrier aircraft and land based aircraft. Most Soviet naval action in the Pacific against US Navy would have been through submarines and Tu-22M Backfire bombers. Soviet Air Force would likely be main opponent of US aircraft in air.

Soviet Pacific Fleet:
Bases: Vladivostok, Petropavlovsk, Magadan, Sovyetskya Gavan, Cam Ranh Bay (Vietnam)
Submarines: 98 (24 SSBN, 18 SSGN, 22 SSN, 3 SSG, 27 SS)
Surface Fleet: 2 carriers, 14 cruisers, 7 destroyers, 40 frigates
Other Ships: 65 patrol craft, 102 minesweepers, 21 amphibs, 230 support and miscellaneous vessels
Naval Air: 240 combat aircraft and 99 helicopters
80 bombers (60 Tu-22M, 20 Tu-16)
50 combat aircraft (50 Yak-26) afloat
45 combat aircraft (10 Su-24, 35 Su-17) ashore
65 ASW aircraft (15 Tu-142, 17 IL-38, 33 Be-12)
61 ASW helicopter (23 Ka-25, 38 Ka-27) afloat
28 ASW helicopter (28 Mi-14) ashore
37 MR/EW aircraft (2 An-12, 20 Tu-16, 15 Tu-95)
10 MR helicopter (10 Ka-25)
5 MCM helicopter (5 Mi-14)
10 assault helicopter (10 Ka-27)
5 communication aircraft (5 Tu-142)
10 tanker aircraft (10 Tu-16)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-09-2018, 09:38 PM
dylan dylan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13
Default

Chinese didn't have multiple SSBNs in this time period sorry.

They had a single 092 XIA class SSBN that was never fully operational and never conducted deterrent patrol. It entered a shipyard for overhaul in 1995, and didn't reappear for over five years.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-10-2018, 11:58 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,521
Default

Thanks, Dylan. I was under the impression that the PLN had a small number of SSBNs c.1995, but I was wrong. I will amend my account.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-10-2018, 12:42 PM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 50
Default

If you wanted to spice things up a little bit for the ChiCom-Soviet phase of the war. You could always say the Chinese built a carrier task force around the ex-HMAS Melbourne.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-10-2018, 12:44 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dylan View Post
Chinese didn't have multiple SSBNs in this time period sorry.

They had a single Type 092 XIA class SSBN that was never fully operational and never conducted deterrent patrol. It entered a shipyard for overhaul in 1995, and didn't reappear for over five years.
China might have built two 092 Xia Class SSBN. The first was built in 1981 but was not fully operational until 1988. It is considered very noisy and limited in capabilities compared with Western and Russian submarines. A second boat may have been built in 1982 but there is little information about it, and it might have been lost in an accident in 1985. The Type 092 is considered to be a test design for the later and improved Type 095 that entered service in 2007.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:36 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,974
Default

If there is one place that the canon could use a major overhaul its the Pacific War - i.e. the fact that according to Satellite Down the USN had basically no active ships by early 2001 operating on the West Coast is one of the most unbelievable aspects of the whole canon

along with how the battle with the USS Virginia and her destroyer escorts against the five Soviet DD's went down - including the fact that Virginia is in a desperate battle but still has operational Harpoons and one Tomahawk on board in 2001- meaning she is fighting for her life and outnumbered but didnt fire them during the battle? So she let five Soviet ships get close enough for a gun battle and didnt expend all her missiles first?

and per the canon she has an operational missile launcher left - so this isnt a situation where the Soviets got lucky and took out her missile launchers and the magazines held missiles she couldnt fire

let alone the Soviet fleet's only allies in the Pacific are the North Koreans and Vietnamese and somehow they took out the USN, the Chinese, the South Korean Navy, etc.. to the point they could still send six destroyers to the Mexican coast for the battle against the Virginia and there was nothing left to reinforce Virginia or still operational after it?

Or the real humdinger - that the Soviets somehow established air and naval supremacy long enough to transport multiple divisions including mech infantry divisions not only to Alaska but landing on the western coast of Canada?

And I dont see the USN having the whole Pacific Fleet sitting in Honolulu when it got nuked or a huge proportion of it either to where the Soviets could get what you would need to successfully transport those troops to the US and Canada
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:45 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
Or the real humdinger - that the Soviets somehow established air and naval supremacy long enough to transport multiple divisions including mech infantry divisions not only to Alaska but landing on the western coast of Canada?
I'd forgotten to account for that in my outline. Thanks for reminding me.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-10-2018, 10:37 PM
JHart JHart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 70
Default

I wonder what Taiwan would do. I would think they would stay out of the fight between China and the USSR while it is still conventional, with the possibility of providing material to the mainland to curry some postwar goodwill. It gets harder if Taiwan thinks the USSR is in it to win it and it is not just a large border skirmish. Taiwan might get away with "volunteers" helping China with logistics, aircraft pilot training or even "volunteer" pilots, and aggressive naval patrols that harass Soviet warships and not suffer any conventional retaliation. Taiwan would avoid getting nuked in the initial Soviet strike against China because they Soviets wouldn't want to tick off the US, but once NATO gets involved in Europe, I'm sure Taiwan would suffer retaliation for any help it offered to China.
__________________
If you run out of fuel, become a pillbox.
If you run out of ammo, become a bunker.
If you run out of time, become a hero.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-11-2018, 07:21 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,974
Default

I dont see the Soviets nuking Taiwan - all they dont need is to add more enemies in the Pacific - and frankly Taiwan may be too busy taking advantage of what happened to Communist China - i.e. attempt to get a foothold back on the mainland or possibly somewhere like Hainan - probably their best shot at actually getting back in power over at least all the offshore islands and possibly a foothold on the mainland

could even see Taiwan once it went nuclear telling the Soviets what they intended to do - and them seeing it as a way to even further destabilize China and let them bring even more forces to bear elsewhere - i.e. weakening China more and hopefully making them waste even more of what little strength they have left fighting off an attempt by Taiwan to seize their territory
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-11-2018, 07:43 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,974
Default

FYI dont forget the Canadian Pacific forces as well - in 1989 they had the following - and it you are looking at V1 those numbers may well have increased due to new construction

Second Canadian Destroyer Squadron:

Iroquois class: HMCS Huron (DDG 281)

Restigouche class: HMCS Restigouche (DDE 257), HMCS Terra Nova (DDE 259), HMCS Gatineau (DDE 236)

Fourth Canadian Destroyer Squadron

Mackenzie class: HMCS Mackenzie (DDE 261), HMCS Saskatchewan (DDE 262), HMCS Yukon (DDE 263), HMCS Qu'Appelle (DDE 264)

They also had four boom defense boats and six patrol boats that would probably still be operational (if they were still afloat) even with fuel shortages - perfect ships for a post 2000 navy
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:34 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,521
Default Food for Thought

https://warisboring.com/could-north-...craft-carrier/
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-11-2018, 06:57 PM
mpipes mpipes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 152
Default

Don't forget Australia and New Zealand. They had substantial light naval forces.

Filipino forces could provide some naval logistic support.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-11-2018, 09:21 PM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes View Post
Don't forget Australia and New Zealand. They had substantial light naval forces.
Wouldn't the bulk of Australia's Navy be committed to the Papua New Guinea Conflict with Indonesia? Or is that not part of the history they are putting together?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-11-2018, 10:08 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 836
Default

Back on the old forum, I had posted some Naval stuff-and that included the Constellation carrier group at Guam along with several other ships at Chinhae, ROK, including the cruiser Des Moines (Salem's sister). There were also several attack subs and boomers active, and the battleship Wisconsin moored at Hilo, HI. Nmitz carrier group at NAS Alameda and a few other assets (mostly USCG) in the Bay Area.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-11-2018, 11:08 PM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser View Post
Back on the old forum, I had posted some Naval stuff-and that included the Constellation carrier group at Guam along with several other ships at Chinhae, ROK, including the cruiser Des Moines (Salem's sister). There were also several attack subs and boomers active, and the battleship Wisconsin moored at Hilo, HI. Nmitz carrier group at NAS Alameda and a few other assets (mostly USCG) in the Bay Area.
I vaguely recall that. I don't know whether its in the gigabytes of data I need to sort through, or whether I lost that along the way some place. I'll see if if I can't dig it up if I still have it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-12-2018, 08:13 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shrike6 View Post
Wouldn't the bulk of Australia's Navy be committed to the Papua New Guinea Conflict with Indonesia? Or is that not part of the history they are putting together?
Comes down to if you are using V1 or V2 history

V1 has no mention of Australia and Indonesia at war and also no mention of Japan getting hit by the USSR - if anything the V1 Soviet vehicle guide implies an intact Japan that is spreading thru what is left of the USSR in an attempt to start trade with what is left -which is hardly what a nuked country would be doing

V2 on the other hand has the Australia Indonesia conflict and Japan getting nuked

The fact that his history mentions the air strikes on Vietnam (which in V2 has a US division stationed there and no Soviet ones) means we are looking at a V1 sourcebook - thus that leaves the Australian Navy free to engage the Soviets if they were involved in the war
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-12-2018, 08:14 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shrike6 View Post
I vaguely recall that. I don't know whether its in the gigabytes of data I need to sort through, or whether I lost that along the way some place. I'll see if if I can't dig it up if I still have it.
I think you also had that information in the single issue of the fanzine - you might want to look there
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-12-2018, 11:03 AM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
I think you also had that information in the single issue of the fanzine - you might want to look there
I'm not the fanzine guy. Didn't even know there was one. If its in there good deal cause Matt does good work.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-12-2018, 12:54 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
V1 has no mention of Australia and Indonesia at war and also no mention of Japan getting hit by the USSR - if anything the V1 Soviet vehicle guide implies an intact Japan that is spreading thru what is left of the USSR in an attempt to start trade with what is left -which is hardly what a nuked country would be doing
Any T2K material that I produce follows the v1.0 timeline.

The SVG reference to Japan is an interesting one. The SVG is styled as a history of the Twilight War, but it doesn't specify at what point in that universe's future it was written. Was it written in 2002? If so, then Japan probably wasn't nuked. If it was written in 2010, perhaps it was, but has recovered more quickly than the former U.S.S.R.

My T2KU presumes that Japan was indeed nuked by the Soviets.

As for Australia and Indonesia, since v1.0 doesn't mention a war between the two, the writer pretty much has carte blanche, no? I kind of like the idea of a war for New Guinea as it creates some interesting world-building possibilities.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-12-2018, 01:21 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,974
Default

The way V1 is written I dont think Japan was nuked or as you said only took a few like France did - you might want to ask Mark on that or Frank Chadwick both of whom are on facebook as to what he wants there

after all its one thing if every major city gets nuked - its another if only their major refineries and maybe a couple of US bases in Japan or in Okinawa get hit - still bad but its not country ending per se

V2 they definitely got nuked and nuked hard

And you are right about the vagueness of how that book was written - it says that the part that still considers itself part of the Soviet Union says it is still at war - but the question is where is "the University" that was putting the book together and when?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-12-2018, 02:36 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Any T2K material that I produce follows the v1.0 timeline.
The best timeline in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-12-2018, 03:33 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
The best timeline in my opinion.
and the choir said AMEN!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-12-2018, 06:28 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Any T2K material that I produce follows the v1.0 timeline.
I like the v1 timeline, but it doesn't work for me anymore. Yet, I don't like the V2 and V2.2 timelines either. I sort of like the T2K13 timeline, but I think it needs a lot of work.

The best thing may be to create a new timeline.

And in any case, I absolutely prefer the v2.2 rules, and many times the modifications people have made to them (or if they can be translated to 2.2). This, despite the many shortcomings of that rules set, is the best T2K rule set.
__________________
All that stuff we know -- what if we're wrong? --Science Channel

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com

Last edited by pmulcahy11b; 01-12-2018 at 06:30 PM. Reason: sometimes you leave out just one letter...and lose the whole meaning.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-12-2018, 09:14 PM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Any T2K material that I produce follows the v1.0 timeline.
Out of the canon timelines v1.0 is the best. It probably helps that it has the most modules written for it. I also have some problems with the v1.0 and like a few ideas with v2.x timelines as well as well as a bunch of ideas of my own. Personally I use a modified timeline to fix the perceived errors I see. Never got a copy of T2K13 so I can't speak to it but I do like the v2.2 rules. With that being said everybody has to find the flavor of T2K timeline they like and run with it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-12-2018, 09:22 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,974
Default

From the fanzine

USS Missouri (BB-63)
Active Pacific: Active off Korea and in containment of SOVPACFLT 1996-
97. In port at Chinhae, ROK due to lack of fuel.

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)
Active Pacific: Active off Korea and Aleutians.

Destroyed reinforcement convoy headed for Alaska 6/18/97. Damaged by
conventional torpedo (one hit) in bow from Victor-II SSN 11/22/97
and headed for Pearl Harbor, HI for repairs. Diverted to Hilo after nuclear strike on Honolulu. In port Hilo for lack of fuel, but still seaworthy.

USS Des Moines (CA-134)
Active Pacific: Involved in Korean Campaign since 5/1/97. In port Chinhae, ROK due to lack of fuel.

USS Boxer (LHD-6) VMA-322 with AV-8B embarked.

Ship was en route to Persian Gulf when nuclear exchange hit CONUS.
In Port at Hilo, HI. Occasionally sails in Hawaiian waters supporting PACCOM's reconstruction efforts.

USS Forrest Sherman (DD-931) reactivated Jan 97.
Assigned Pacific and based at Pearl Harbor.
At sea when Honolulu nuked and now based at Hilo. She escorts Boxer on
her infrequent cruises. Only other ship active at Hilo on a routine basis
is the Coast Guard Cutter USCG Chase (WHEC-718).

USS Semmes (DDG-18):Chinhae, ROK.
One of only two 7th FLT ships in Korea active on a regular basis. Frequent Patrols in Yellow Sea supporting SEAL operations in North Korea and in China.

Other active ship in Korea is USS Vincennes (CG-49) with HSL-47
det 1 (SH-60B).


Guam: USS Essex (LHD-2) at NS Guam.

She "shows the flag" in the Marianas: VMA-124 with AV-8B
embarked for, but never arrived, in Korea. She had also embarked
Marine replacements for Korea, but put into Guam after nuclear exchange reached CONUS. Marines formed into the 41st MEU (Provisional). Her escort is USS Turner Joy (DD-951); reactivated Jan 97 and assigned Pacific.

Escorted Essex on her transPac and remains based at Guam. Provides fire support for Marines and Army's 1-294 Infantry Battalion (GU NG). Additional Marines that never made it to Korea are on Saipan and Tinian organized into the 42nd MEU (Prov) on Saipan and 43rd MEU (Prov) on Tinian.

NS Guam

USS Columbus (SSN-762).

No shortage of Mk-48 torpedoes, but Harpoon SSMs and Tomahawks are
in limited supply. Frequent patrols to China, North Korean, and Soviet Far
East waters, with occasional patrols to SE Asia.

Hilo, HI

USS La Jolla (SSN-701)
USS Houston (SSN-713)
USS Helena (SSN-725)
USS Topeka (SSN-754)

Torpedoes are still reasonably available; but Harpoons and Tomahawks are in short supply. Patrols to Alaska, Soviet Far East, China, and adjacent waters.

Sub Base Bangor, WA

USS Parche: Milgov is still very secretive regarding her missions. A platoon from SEAL Team 1 is assigned to the boat.

The boomers belong to Submarine Squadron 17.

USS Florida (SSBN-728)
USS Alabama (SSBN-731)
USS Alaska (SSBN-732)
USS Nevada (SSBN-733)

All four boats executed SIOP when ordered on Thanksgiving Day, 1997. None expended their whole load of missiles; Nevada only expended two, as an example. Missile tubes were reloaded and the boats continue patrols, with Florida and Alaska launching in 1998 (four and two respectively), and Nevada
launching in 1999 (two). Torpedoes are still available at Bangor.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-12-2018, 10:53 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 836
Default

Olefin, thanks for posting that. If anyone can find the material on the carriers-and I am looking through my notes for that information, that would be greatly appreciated.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:28 AM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser View Post
Olefin, thanks for posting that. If anyone can find the material on the carriers-and I am looking through my notes for that information, that would be greatly appreciated.
Taking a quick glance at his post, I think Olefin omitted a few things. I see the Connie in there. Here's the link for the fanzine. Your Naval forces start on page 25.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-13-2018, 05:05 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,974
Default

You are right - I only put up the stuff about the Pacific and omitted the carriers because Mark from what I saw didnt have what they had for planes that were still operational - wanted to concentrate more on the surface ships and subs.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-13-2018, 05:07 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shrike6 View Post
Taking a quick glance at his post, I think Olefin omitted a few things. I see the Connie in there. Here's the link for the fanzine. Your Naval forces start on page 25.
FYI for instance you are right - here's the Connie which is at Guam but while it has the various squadrons it doesnt say how many aircraft are still operational if any

USS Constellation (CV-64)
w/ CVW-2 (tailcode NE)
VF-1: F-14D
VF-2: F-14D
VFA-137: F/A-18C
VFA-151: F/A-18C
VA-145: A-6F
VA-155: A-6F
VS-38: S-3B
VAQ-131: EA-6B
VAW-116: E-2C
VQ-5 det 6: ES-3B
HS-14: SH-60F/HH-60
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 06:05 AM.


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