T2K Naval War in the Pacific

[Raellus]

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

[RN7]

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)

[dylan]

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.

[Raellus]

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.

[shrike6]

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.

[RN7]

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.

[Olefin]

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

[Raellus]

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.

[JHart]

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.

[Olefin]

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

[Olefin]

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

[Raellus]

https://warisboring.com/could-north-korea-sink-an-american-aircraft-carrier/

[mpipes]

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

Filipino forces could provide some naval logistic support.

[shrike6]

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?

[Matt Wiser]

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.

[shrike6]

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.

[Olefin]

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

[Olefin]

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

[shrike6]

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.

[Raellus]

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.

[Olefin]

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?

[RN7]

Any T2K material that I produce follows the v1.0 timeline.

The best timeline in my opinion.

[Olefin]

The best timeline in my opinion.

and the choir said AMEN!!!!!!

[pmulcahy11b]

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.

[shrike6]

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.

[Olefin]

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.

[Matt Wiser]

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.

[shrike6]

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 (http://www.pmulcahy.com/PDFs/good_luck_youre_on_your_own_issue_1.pdf). Your Naval forces start on page 25.

[Olefin]

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.

[Olefin]

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 (http://www.pmulcahy.com/PDFs/good_luck_youre_on_your_own_issue_1.pdf). 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

[Matt Wiser]

The squadrons are at 50-75% strength, due to picking up 'Orphans" from carriers sunk or crippled during the war. The big issue is Jet fuel-or the shortage of it, along with getting fuel for the ships at Chinhae so that if the recall comes, they can go home.

[RN7]

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.

Matt I found this on a CD with old Twilight 2000 stuff I had in storage. Is this what you are looking for?


Subject: The Battleships
Posted by: Matt Wiser
Date: 11/23/2002 01:37

There was a request for info on the fate of the Iowa-class battleships: I’ll also throw in the two Des Moines-class heavy cruisers.

Iowa: Active in Atlantic. Provided fire support for NATO ground forces in Norway and at Kola. Sunk by Oscar-class SSGN 11/26/97 E of Iceland.
Nonnuclear SS-N-19 Shipwreck SSMs used.

New Jersey: Active in Atlantic. Sunk Soviet light cruiser Sverdlov off Grenada (referred to in Gateway to the Spanish Main). Supported NATO forces in Norway, Kola, Baltic. Mined off Bremerhaven, Germany 2/17/98 and beached as constructive total loss. Hulk stripped and destroyed during Operation OMEGA.

Missouri: Active in Pacific. Supported US forces in Korea. Torpedoed by Victor-III class SSN and made port in Pusan, Korea. Destroyed in port when Pusan nuked 10/24/97.

Wisconsin: Active in Pacific. Supported US forces in Korea and bombarded Petrapavlosk-Kamchatka. Wiped out Soviet convoy headed for Alaska. Torpedoed in bow by Victor-II class SSN and sent to Pearl Harbor for repairs. Diverted to Hilo while at sea when Honolulu nuked. Still at Hilo, capable of going to sea (only 1 torpedo hit), but immobile for lack of fuel.

Des Moines: Reactivated from Mothballs 1/97. Sent to Pacific 7/97 and assigned to 7THFLT in Japan.
Active throughout Korean Campaign. In port at Chinhae, ROK and immobile for lack of fuel.

Salem: Reactivated from Mothballs 1/97. Sent to Persian Gulf and assigned to 5THFLT 7/97. Still active in Gulf as of 1 Jan 2001. She is the Flagship of 5THFLT. Supported defense of Bushehr and landings at Chah Bahar.


Subject: RE: the carriers (LONG)
Posted by: Matt Wiser
Date: 11/19/2002 14:03

Interesting question: here’s my take on this:

1) LANTFLT’s carriers were no doubt involved in stopping SOVNORTHFLT from breaking the GIUK gap in Dec of ’96, and supported the Norweigan and Kola campaigns (where they got pretty well beat up). I’d say there would be ONE big carrier still operating-My choice for this: USS Eisenhower (CVN-69) and CVW-7, with her (depleted) battle group.
Home ported at Little Creek, VA (outside Norfolk). Two of her escorts are nuclear powered: USS South Carolina (CGN-37) and USS Mississippi(CGN-40). Two Aegis ships: USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) and USS Stout (DDG-55). One Destroyer: USS Scott (DDG-995) Two Frigates: USS Carr (FFG-52) and USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58)

CVW-7 shore-based at NAS Oceana, VA when not embarked:
VF-142 (F-14D)
VF-143 (F-14D)
VFA-131 (F/A-18C)
VFA-136 (F/A-18C)
VA-34 (A-6F/KA-6D)
VAW-121 (E-2C)
VAQ-139 (EA-6B)
VS-37 (S-3B)
HS-5 (SH-60F/HH-60H)

Two other carriers, USS America (CV-66) is immobolized at Tromoso, Norway unable to go to sea due to damage from BACKFIRE-launched AS-4 missiles. CVW-1 flies out of Bodo AB. USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) is at Portsmouth, England with CVW-8. She is still capable of going to sea, but needs reactor fuel. The British are attempting to procure the fuel so that the ship can return home. LANTFLT has two Amphibious carriers: USS Wasp (LHD-1) and USS Nassau (LHA-4) also at Little Creek.

2) Not much canon info on PACFLT, but I’ll give PACFLT USS Nimitz (CVN-68) with CVW-9. Based IRL at Evrett, WA-her T2K home is NAS Alameda, CA.
One PACFLT carrier is theortically availiable: USS Constellation (CV-64) with CVW-2. She is immobolized at Guam for lack of fuel. Aircraft are based at nearby Andersen AFB. Sorties are VERY infrequent due to fuel shortages. Two amphib carriers are also around: USS Bataan (LHD-5) at Sasebo, Japan, supporting the US Eighth Army in Korea; and USS Peleliu (LHA-5) at Hilo, HI. The latter ship sails in Hawaiian waters supporting Hawaiian Reconstruction. Sailings are infrequent due to fuel shortages.
The carrier immobolized at Muscat, Oman is USS Independence (CV-62) with both torpedo damage and ASM damage. If a yard with supertanker size drydock was availiable, it would take 18 months of repairs to get her seaworthy. A caretaker crew is aboard, but most have been reassigned to other 5thFLT ships in the Gulf.

2) Soviet Navy had four Kiev-class ASW carriers: 2 in NORTHFLT and two in PACFLT. All sunk 1996-97. The two Kusnetsov-class ships-Kusnetsov herself was sunk at the GIUK gap, while Varyag was sunk in a carrier-v-carrier battle with USS Nimitz and her battle group. Two other members of the class (unnamed and unlaunched) destroyed when Nikoliyev shipyard in Ukraine nuked.

3) Royal Navy’s three Invincible-class CVS: two sunk, Illustrious at GIUK, Invincible at Kola. HMS Ark Royal at Portsmouth immobilized for lack of fuel (she’s nonnuclear).

4) Indian carriers Vikrant and Virrat both casualties of the Indo-Pakistani conflict-Vikrant nuked in Bombay naval base, Virrat sunk by a (lucky) Pakistani submarine attack.

5) Spanish and Thai carriers: Rota NB in Spain was nuked to deny the nearby oil refinery to NATO. The carrier was not in port-escorting tanker convoy to Spain w/battle group, but is immobilized at Cadiz for lack of fuel. The Thai carrier is in a similar condition at her home port in Thailand.

6) The French: The Charles De Gaulle in the T2K timeline completed in 1995 and her sister Richileu in 1997. CDG is active in the Gulf per the RDF revised OB. Richileu active in the Med out of Toulon.


Matt Wiser
02-21-2004, 04:46 PM
OK Shrike, Here goes:

PACFLT: HQ Hilo, HI (relocated from Pearl Harbor)
US Third Fleet: HQ Hilo, HI

Home Port: NAS Alameda, CA
USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) with CVW-15 (tailcode NL)
VF-51: F-14D
VF-111: F-14D
VFA-27: F/A-18C
VFA-97: F/A-18C
VA-52: A-6F
VS-37: S-3B
VAQ-134: EA-6B
VAW-114: E-2C
VQ-5 det 5: ES-3B
HS-4: SH-60F/HH-60H
USS Antietam (CG-54) w/HSL-45 det 3 (SH-60B)
USS Chosin (CG-65) w/HSL-41 det 7 (SH-60B)
USS California (CGN-36)
USS Stethem (DDG-63)
USS Paul F. Foster (DD-964) w/ HSL-41 det 2 (SH-60B)
USS Estocin (FFG-15) w/HSL-84 det 2 (SH-2F)
USS Halyburton (FFG-40) w/ HSL-45 det 5 (SH-60B)

US 7th Fleet: HQ Naval Station Guam
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-60H
USS Anzio (CG-68) w/ HSL-45 det 2 (SH-60B)
USS Port Royal (CG-73) w/ HSL-49 det 1 (SH-60B)
USS Mississippi (CGN-40)
USS Ramage (DDG-61)
USS Carney (DDG-64)
USS Fletcher (DD-992) w/ HSL-49 det 8 (SH-60B)
USS Gary (FFG-51) w/HSL-45 det 6 (SH-60B)

Shore-based at NAS Lemoore, CA:
VF-124: F-14A/B/D
VFA-125: F/A-18A/B/C/D
VS-41: S-3B
HCS-5: HH-60H
VFC-13: A-4F/M
VP-65: P-3C
VP-91: P-3C
HS-10: SH-60F
HSL-41: SH-60B
HC-1: CH-53E
VP-31: P-3C

Shore-based NAS Alameda, CA
HM-15: MH-53E
CVW-15 is shore-based at Alameda when not embarked.

Shore-based at Anderson AFB, Guam
VRC-50: C-2A, US-3A, C-130F
VQ-1: EP-3E
VQ-5: ES-3B, S-3A
HC-5; HH-46A
CVW-2 is shore-based at Anderson when not embarked.


Matt Wiser
02-21-2004, 05:21 PM

LANTFLT: HQ Little Creek Amphibious Base, VA

US Second Fleet: Little Creek

USS George Washington (CVN-73) w/CVW-17 (tailcode AA)
VF-74: F-14B
VF-103: F-14B
VFA-81: F/A-18C
VFA-83: F/A-18C
VA-34: A-6F/KA-6D
VAQ-132: EA-6B
VAW-125: E-2C
VS-30: S-3B
HS-9: SH-60F/HH-60H
VQ-6 det 2: ES-3B
USS Normandy (CG-60)w/ HSL-44 det 1 (SH-60B)
USS South Carolina (CGN-37)
USS Mitscher (DDG-57)
USS Briscoe (DD-977) w/ HSL-46 det 7 (SH-60B
USS Elrod (FFG-55) w/ HSL-42 det 6 (SH-60B)

US Naval Forces Europe: Portsmouth, England
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) w/CVW-8 (tailcode AJ)
VF-41: F-14D
VF-84: F-14D
VFA-15: F/A-18C
VFA-87: F/A-18C
VA-65: A-6E
VA-36: A-6E
VS-24: S-3B
VAQ-141: EA-6B
VAW-124: E-2C
HS-3: SH-60F/HH-60H
VQ-6 det 4: ES-3B
USS Yorktown (CG-48)w/ HSL-42 det 4(SH-60B)
USS Hue City (CG-66)w/HSL-44 det 5 (SH-60B)
USS Arkansas (CGN-41)
USS Cole (DDG-67)
USS Scott (DDG-995)w/HSL-36 det 2 (SH-2F)
USS Hayler (DD-997)w/ HSL-44 det 6 (SH-60B)
USS McIrney (FFG-8)w/ HSL-42 det 7 (SH-60B
USS Simpson (FFG-56)w/ HSL-46 det 1 (SH-60B)

Shore-based at NAS Oceana, VA:
VF-101: F-14A/B/D
VFA-106: F/A-18A/B/C/D
VA-42: A-6E/F, KA-6D
VAW-120: E-2C, C-2A
HSL-40: SH-60B)
VP-30: P-3C
VP-45: P-3C
CVW-17 is shore-based at NAS Oceana when not embarked

CVW-8 is shore-based at RNAS Yevoliton, England when not embarked.


Matt Wiser
02-22-2004, 12:14 AM

The folks who put RDF Sourcebook made a typo-Yorktown's hull Number is CG-48, not CG-45. That number was for an unbuilt Virginia-class CGN.

Here are several amphibs and other warships:

US Third Fleet: Hilo, HI.

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).
A number of interisland civilian ships have been pressed into Navy service to support Hawaiian ops and reconstruction.

US Seventh Fleet: Divided between Guam and Chinhae, ROK.

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. Several interisland ships pressed into Navy service to support Marines.


Matt Wiser
02-24-2004, 01:03 AM

Here's the subs in both PACFLT and LANTFLT:

PACFLT

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

SubBase Bangor, WA:

USS Parche has already been mentioned. 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 availiable at Bangor.

LANTFLT: All boats are based at Little Creek, VA.

USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN-705)
USS Tuscon (SSN-770)

Both boats have a shortage of torpedoes and Harpoon/Tomahawk, and 705 is used as a "special missions" boat. Tuscon conducts patrols in Atlantic waters, from South Africa and Brazil to the Barents Sea. Both avoid combat unless it is unavoidable.

The boomers belong to the relocated Submarine Squadron 20, originally from King's Bay, GA.

USS West Virginia (SSBN-736)
USS Nebraska (SSBN-739)
USS Louisiana (SSBN-743)

All missile boats still carry a full missile loadout, as well as torpedoes. The boats executed SIOP launches, and several post-SIOP launches in 1998-99. Before King's Bay was abandoned, the three boats loaded replacement missiles, submarine spare parts, and maintainance personnel for both the subs and missiles.


Matt Wiser
02-25-2004, 11:08 AM

Here's another West Coast base:

NAS Whidbey Island, WA

VA-128: A-6E/F/KA-6D
VAQ-129: EA-6B


Matt Wiser
03-01-2004, 02:27 AM

Frank Frey in one of his posts on the 173rd Airborne in Kenya mentioned a USN/USCG JTF operating out of Mombasa against the local pirates, smugglers, and other scum in the area.
My guess as to composition:

USS Morton (DD-948) Reactivated Forrest-Sherman class DD. Reactivated Jan 97 and originally assigned Pacific. Deployed to Mombasa Jul 97 and based there since. Ship is very active.
USS Lockwood (FF-1064) Knox-class FF. Retired in 1991 but reactivated Oct 96 and assigned Pacific. Provided local ASW cover with HSL-84 det 6 (SH-2F). Another Knox-class FF, USS Bagley (FF-1069) was assigned, but bow blown off by torpedo from Victor-II SSN 7/7/97. Hulk used as a parts source for Lockwood. Her SH-2 also used as parts source, with crew reassigned to local base duties, or as advisors to Kenyan Navy.
VP-69 (USN Reserve from NAS Whidbey Island, WA) provides local aviation support with 4 flyable P-3C Orions for MP/ASW.
SEAL support is from Naval Reserve elements originally assigned to SEAL Team 2. Their main support vessel is the Cyclone-class gunboat USS Thunderbolt (PC-12), along with a number of PB Mk III and Stinger (improved PBR) patrol craft. Mine countermeasures are handled by USS Patriot (MCM-7)

Coast Guard is represented by the cutter USCG Jarvis (WHEC-725), originally assigned from San Francisco. A USN helo det from HSL-84 (det 10) with SH-2 deployed with the ship. Helo lost in accident in 1998 over land. Four Island-class patrol boats round out the force, and do work with SEALS as necessary. No USCG aviation deployed.

VF-124 det 1: F-14B

[Olefin]

I remember that post RN7 - Matt is the post in the fanzine an updated and modified version of that original post?

i.e. some differences in details

fanzine post

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.

original post

Missouri: Active in Pacific. Supported US forces in Korea. Torpedoed by Victor-III class SSN and made port in Pusan, Korea. Destroyed in port when Pusan nuked 10/24/97.

[Matt Wiser]

Made a change and decided that Missouri should have made it. But they were approaching Pusan for a 24-hour stop to refuel and take on stores when it was struck.

[shrike6]

This is probably a stupid question and I don't remember whether it was asked back in the day or not. I was wondering what if any naval assets were available to Civgov after the split?

[shrike6]

I also remember there was a problem with one of the Forest Shermans because it had been scrapped IRL before the Twilight War for some reason I think it was the USS Morten. I know you had another FS class ship as replacement but I don't remember which one that was but I don't remember what that was.

[RN7]

This is probably a stupid question and I don't remember whether it was asked back in the day or not. I was wondering what if any naval assets were available to Civgov after the split?

I doubt there was much as MilGov controls all the surviving naval base infrastructure, and allied nations overseas also support MilGov. There might have been a few ships whose officers were sympathetic to CivGov, but the reality of survival would sway their decisions on who to support. Maybe in CivGov controlled areas you would have some river or coastal patrol craft, but not much else.

[shrike6]

I doubt there was much as MilGov controls all the surviving naval base infrastructure, and allied nations overseas also support MilGov. There might have been a few ships whose officers were sympathetic to CivGov, but the reality of survival would sway their decisions on who to support. Maybe in CivGov controlled areas you would have some river or coastal patrol craft, but not much else.
I can't argue with the logic of that but at the same time there is the peculiar situation of US IV Corps in the Balkans. How were they convinced to side with Civgov with no hope of resupply. I suppose one could say the remnant governments of Yugoslavia and Romania convinced the IV Corps to side with Civgov that just doesn't seem logical to me. If anything I would think those generals would inform those governments whose side they were siding with and the governments would follow suit.

[Olefin]

If you look at the East African Sourcebook you can see the ship that used in the place of the scrapped Forrest Sherman DD

As for Civgov - always wondered where they got the ships to send those three divisions to Yugoslavia - that is one of the big "what the heck??!!" parts of the whole canon

First off you have to get shipping and get them some kind of escorts for three divisions that included a division that had tanks - personally I am thinking they may have used Coast Guard cutters for escorts - I dont see the USN going over to Civgov but the Coast Guard that I could see

Second off you need to get the fuel to send three divisions over - not the single one Milgov sent - and Milgov controlled almost all the remaining fuel reserves

Third you have to have commanders gullible enough to somehow think they were going to get re-supplied by basically a rebel government when Milgov controlled almost all the remaining oil and military equipment reserves and not only agreed to get on the ships but stayed loyal thru resupply collapsing and didnt say "screw this" and do what it took to try to link up with Milgov forces in Austria

[Raellus]

I think the best way to handle those, "what the heck?" issues with canon is to work out a plausible explanation. I prefer that approach to complete RETCONs. If not all of the U.S. Army sided with MilGov, it stands to reason that not all of the USN did either. There's your escorts right there (although I do like the idea of including some Coast Guard vessels). I don't see it as too far out of the realm of possibilities for CivGov to possess enough refined fuel oil to power a fleet on a one-way trip to Europe (if not a round trip). Perhaps the commanders of the divisions sent to Yugoslavia were true believers- loyal CivGov men and ardent anti-communists who believed in fighting for a free, CivGov-aligned Europe. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Anyway, here's an idea that occurred to me- a way to target enemy forces in harbor without quite as much collateral damage as an airburst or ground strike nuke. Both Soviets and U.S. developed nuclear torpedoes in the 1950s and '60s. I suppose that it's possible to program such a torpedo to run straight and shallow. It seems like it would be a pretty ideal anti-harbor weapon- that one could bag several vessels and damage piers and such without wrecking inland areas (most major ports abut cities). Thoughts?

[Matt Wiser]

I believe that was one of the original strategic missions for Soviet subs: firing nuclear torpedoes into NATO ports. The Type 53-68 nuclear torpedo is a straight-runner, with a 10-20 KT yield. It's getting into range of a port, with the ASW defenses usually present, that would be the problem.

The Mark 45 ASTOR nuclear torpedo for the USN was retired in 1977.

An alternative weapon would be standoff ASW rockets like the SS-N-15/16 or SUBROC/Sea Lance. They're meant to kill ballistic-missile subs at standoff range, especially if they're getting ready to fire. They don't move-and neither do ports. Simply fuze the nuclear depth charge to detonate shallow, and you do wreck the port and the ships in it.

[Olefin]

"Stop the CivGov Hate!"

hey do we have a new catch phrase for the site?

[Raellus]

I believe that was one of the original strategic missions for Soviet subs: firing nuclear torpedoes into NATO ports. The Type 53-68 nuclear torpedo is a straight-runner, with a 10-20 KT yield. It's getting into range of a port, with the ASW defenses usually present, that would be the problem.

Yeah, I was thinking such an attack would take place later in the war, when there were fewer ASW assets about.

An alternative weapon would be standoff ASW rockets like the SS-N-15/16 or SUBROC/Sea Lance. They're meant to kill ballistic-missile subs at standoff range, especially if they're getting ready to fire. They don't move-and neither do ports. Simply fuze the nuclear depth charge to detonate shallow, and you do wreck the port and the ships in it.

I like that idea too. It just seems a lot cleaner if the goal is to kill ships in port without doing a heap of collateral damage.

[Olefin]

thats why the attack on Casablanca was using a decent size nuke - the idea was to kill the port and the ships in it - not just kill the ships themselves - actually be a good way to go after French assets as well if you are just trying to damage for instance an oil terminal but not the city itself - i.e. sink the tankers in the port and damage the terminal and loading facilities but not take out the city and cause a ton of civilian casualties

[lordroel]

thats why the attack on Casablanca was using a decent size nuke - the idea was to kill the port and the ships in it - not just kill the ships themselves - actually be a good way to go after French assets as well if you are just trying to damage for instance an oil terminal but not the city itself - i.e. sink the tankers in the port and damage the terminal and loading facilities but not take out the city and cause a ton of civilian casualties

Wonder, what do you consider to be a decent size nuke.

[unkated]

IIRC, there was mention in the Yugoslav material of some battle in the Med against the Italian and Greek navies, either trying to run supplies to Turkey or to reinforce the IV Corps.

(Sending IV Corps to Yugoslavia is one that doesn't make sense to me either, but if you like high level conspiracy....

The Chief of Staff of someone high in CivGov's military is a MilGov sleeper.
Said sleeper put in all the paperwork to get IV Corps and naval escort sent away from CivGov's northeast enclave, perhaps while his chief was elsewhere.
The true purpose of IV Corps's mission is to weaken CivGov by removing ~30,000 trained troops and their equipment and sending them out of the country - if you like your MilGov evil).



There was a mention I remember reading in this forum of a major north Pacific naval battle, where the Soviets slammed 2-3 US CVBGs with nukes, creating the conditions to allow them to scamper across the Alaska invasion force. (I don't really buy it either, but we way as well dredge that up as a possibility and show the link). Or did I misremember that?

Uncle Ted

[Olefin]

A decent size nuke is 200kt plus - if you look at nuclear torpedoes their yield is much less - thus if you want to sink ships and damage port facilities but not take out the whole port and city with it you would use a nuclear torpedo - but if you want to take out the port as a whole and sink as many ships as possible you use a much larger weapon

for instance the US Mark 45 torpedo only had an 11 kiloton warhead - still decent sized but hardly by itself big enough to take out a major port and the city surrounding it

[mpipes]

What was Soviet doctrine as far as using nukes at sea?

It pretty well known now that they planned to start using nukes almost from the start of a war in Europe. Was the same true for their navy. I've always had the view that they would want to avoid crossing that threshold at sea. They would have lost those exchanges in effect, as their navy was tied pretty tightly to their bases and had little ability to "scatter" like the US had and US doctrine was to take out the bases with nukes if the Soviets started using their nukes against navy ships.

[lordroel]

for instance the US Mark 45 torpedo only had an 11 kiloton warhead - still decent sized but hardly by itself big enough to take out a major port and the city surrounding it

But enough to cause severe damage to the port i guess.

[Olefin]

probably would depend where it went off and how big the harbor is - at very least it would be very bad news for any nearby ships or subs when it went off - and if it went off right next to loading terminal or docks you can pretty much kiss them goodbye