How about a list of all the subs the Soviets could try to get back from their client states?

That is a discussion for another thread - since this is recommissioned US Navy ships and not Soviet - but you have to look at who they sold them to - and remember that Iran is on the US side here as is China and Cuba has sat out the war

one big thing the US has going for it in general is how many older US naval vessels exist throughout not just the US in museums but worldwide compared to the Soviets

Don't forget the Turks are on the front line of combat and are virtually surrounded by enemies on land and sea. They won't be giving up a single vessel, even if any survived against the combined Greek, Italian and Soviet naval forces brought to bear against them.
How do we know the Soviets didn't have vessels they could pull back into service? They had T-34's in reserve right up until recently (may even still have some). Why would they not do the same with ships?
To me the Soviets are more likely than the US to have vessels ready and able to be pulled back into service, and probably be able to do it quicker too!

I was thinking more along the lines of US ships and Soviet ships in other country's navies that could be brought back to their respective navies but that is a good point.

And we know that both countries have been doing that - from the way Satellite Down is written it and also A Rock In Troubled Waters it is clear that both navies have been bringing older ships into play

i.e. the Forrest Sherman DD's mentioned in both modules are an example

and you have the Soviet destroyer Maskov mentioned as below in Satellite Down - and by the way I cant find any such named destroyer so it must be standing in for a real destroyer - from the description - i.e. all gun with a forward five inch turret it either had to be a Skoryy or a Kotlin class DD

Then the Soviet ship Maskov arrived in the area, and their attitude toward Brupp and the crew changed.

The Maskov was nothing more than a battered hulk of a
destroyer, brought out of mothballs in the last few months of
1998. Low on fuel and looking for a quick kill, the captain of
the ship learned of an American vessel supposedly operating
in the Gulf. These rumors helped him find the USS Virginia off
San Jose. On 4 May 1999, the Soviet vessel spotted the remains
of the Virginia in the distance. Thinking the ship was functional
and operational, it sped directly toward the scuttled ship,
firing wildly and almost blindly.

Brupp had managed to keep most of his ship's systems functioning.
The five-inch guns of the forward turret bore in on the
approaching Soviet vessel and cut it to shreds. The missiles that
the Maskov fired fell just short of their target, while the guns
of the beached Virginia fired on. Within a matter of minutes,
the aged Soviet destroyer blew apart, going down with all hands

By the way - the CH-47 that is used at the end of Going Home to get the perimeter guards back does argue for a Tarawa size ship for it to land on or at least a helo platform a lot bigger than what is on a John Hancock

John Hancock was designed for helos half the size of a CH-47 - she couldnt land it

Tarawa could

Hmm, missiles with a lesser range than guns...
Anyone else have trouble buying that?

I'd be more inclined to believe the CIWS knocked the old missiles the Maskov carried out of the sky than them "falling short".

now if she had missiles that were part of the ship (and not some kind of jury rigged missiles that had very short range (say a bunch of AT missiles they used as antiship missiles) then a Kildin or later class is possible

but you are right Legbreaker - no purpose designed naval missile had a smaller range than a 5 inch gun

That could work too. A couple of AT-5's on the deck somewhere...

Of course we're totally ignoring the Virgina didn't even have CIWS before 1984, at which time it lost it's helicopter hangar and pad (rendering great swathes of the module incorrect). But who's to say in T2K it didn't keep some parts and gained others.
Could even be that with the lack of missiles, the pad was reinstated (the hangar itself was never removed).

Ditching in the water might be the only option? Actually alternatively landing on the deck of a cargo ship (the Royal Navy converted the Atlantic Conveyer into such a surrogate helicopter carrier for Chinooks in the Falklands - see the detail on Bravo November)

With the Virginia beached maybe it was targetting difficulties?

Alternatively assume detection was short range for both (fairly likely), the Soviets fire but, Virginia fires destroying the Soviets and the missiles then go rogue?

SS Atlantic Conveyor
 

Aircraft Transport is probably a better description.

Think Defense has an interesting write-up on the conversion of Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands War and includes pictures.

Makes sense.

I always thought landing on one of the cargo ships would be the most likely option.

There is no reason to believe the CH-47 was to land on the USS John Hancock. In fact, as flagship and one of the few warship escorts (and the only one actually named, or even mentioned), it doesn't make much sense for it to hang about until the last minute instead of providing security and command where needed. Additionally, the rearguard is not going to include anyone needed or even desired to be on the flagship - they are probably composed of an infantry platoon under the command of a junior officer.

With most ships in the fleet requiring work to convert them to troop carriers, it's very probable a civilian cargo vessel was fitted with a suitable landing pad.

Therefore the existence of the CH-47 cannot be used as evidence to say the Tarawa was included. As discussed many times before, the assignment of the John Hancock as flagship is a strong indicator the Tarawa was not available.

IIRC from the example of the Atlantic Conveyor, a locked-down stack of containers can form a suitable landing pad...

Exactly what I was thinking. Weld on a few extra tie down points and you'd have little problem strapping the helicopter into place.

Alternatively, it's possible the helicopter was piloted by Germans and simply returned to land after dropping off the rearguard.

I had forgotten all about the Atlantic Conveyor - and actually in a way opens up a way for their to be "aircraft carriers" that are still operational but non-traditional ones - i.e. ships like that operating either helos or VTOL aircraft like Ospreys and Harriers

and considering the lack of air opposition in much of the world even a couple of MD500 helos armed with unguided missiles would give you a big advantage

Again, I'm no Navy guy, but I do believe that operating helicopters off a ship requires something very different than transporting helicopters on a ship. Some sort of sheltered work space would be required for maintenance. Other activities might well require below-decks space. HMS Ocean is a dedicated helicopter carrier. Her design reflects what the Royal Navy considers to be mandatory for sustained operations. Again, though, I have a very sketchy idea of what it takes to keep a dozen helos in the air on an ongoing basis.

not talking about a sustained carrier - I mean an emergency carrier - i.e. you need make a landing and you need air support but no carrier available - a container ship could give you a way to get a few helos or VTOl aircraft there and be able to use them in the landing - obviously of limited utility for any sustained ops - but it woudlnt be sustained mainly for a limited duration for a specific mission

Scads / ARAPAHO
 

Back in the early 1980s, some British companies came up with SCADS - Shipborne Containerized Air Defense System. Basically it was a kit of 100 cargo containers pre-fitted for different mission support task, with a runway laid over the containers. They claimed a ship could be converted in 48 hours.

You can find an image of the proposal here.

The USN had a similar program called ARAPAHO that they tested in 1982 on the MV Export Leader. The deck was stressed to hold a CH-47. The RN leased the equipment in and installed in on the MV Astronomer for service in the Falklands.

RESOURCES
* ARAPAHO at GlobalSecurity.org

* Merchant Carriers and Sky Hooks, Flight Global 15 January 1983

* Arapaho Lives On, Flight Global, 11 June 1983

The problem with "hey fly planes or helos off a cargo ship" is that your planes have to be navalized in the first place. Salt air does horrific things to unprotected metal surfaces...

and there are lots of navalized helos and airplanes out there - and keep in mind they can be protected - the UK sent RAF Harriers to the Falklands on the Atlantic Conveyor and a RAF CH-47 - and they flew off quite well after the long trip

Don't know if anyone is familar with the old Harpoon computer game, but the North Atlantic convoy scenarios included Arapaho ships with ASW helos.

Oh I know; they were wrapped up and so forth. I just meant that a given aircraft isn't necessarily fit for use on a water-borne platform just because it is physically capable of take-off and landing from a ship.

Although with that said in T2k you probably have more aircraft than you have pilots and fuel so something like an AH-6 or OH58D might well be considered "disposable"...

I'd have thought it would be the other way around.
Aircraft require parts to be repaired. A Pilot can heal given time.
Aircraft require specialised fuel to function. A Pilot can eat rats if they have to.
A damaged aircraft in the air tends to fall out of the sky rather heavily. Pilots tend to have ejection seats and parachutes.

figured it would be fun to resurrect this thread

I would add the USS Oklahoma City to the list of ships that were brought out of mothballs for sure. At the time of her storage she was still operational, fully fitted out with flagship accommodations and communications gear. She was supposed to get extensive upgrades but due to cutbacks to the military she was instead stored in 1979 in the reserve fleet.

Given the need to get the ship into operation as quickly as possible she most likely would have been brought back as a pure gun cruiser - she still had one fully operational Mark 16 turret with three 6 inch guns and one Mark 32 mount with two 5 inch guns.

June 1997

As naval casualties mount the USN begins to reactivate useable ships form the Reserve Fleet. The guided missile cruiser Oklahoma City is pulled out of storage in June of 1997 from Suisun Bay and sent north to the Bremerton shipyards to be brought back to fully operational status. As she is needed back in service as quickly as possible the decision is made to bring her back as a gun cruiser only.

Parts are sent with her that have been removed from other light cruisers that were refitted into missile cruisers, including replacement gun barrels for her six and five inch guns. Parts needed for her engine room are obtained from several sources including the USS Little Rock, which is a museum ship in Buffalo NY.

TDM

The refit of the Oklahoma City, almost 50 percent completed, is halted due to the breakdown of civilian authority after the nuclear strikes in Washington State. A skeleton crew continues to remain aboard her, both to guard her and to keep working as they can to finish the job. As the Soviets begin their drive on Seattle all military resources are dedicated to stopping that drive, putting all work at the shipyard on the back burner.

June 2000

With the Soviet drive stopped and fighting having stopped in the Pacific Northwest, work is started again on the Oklahoma City. She is fitted with several .50 caliber machine guns as part of the refit for use against targets that aren’t worth a 5 or 6 inch shell.

March 2001

The Oklahoma City is re-commissioned into the USN and readied for her first mission, which will be to attack the Soviets who are on dug in on Queen Charlotte Island in order to remove the last threat to the Pacific Northwest from Soviet forces.

Oelfin, thanks for the OKC: you just gave me a ship that can be introduced in the Red Dawn timeline.

Oklahoma City was actually at Bremerton until @ 1992, when she was moved to Suisun Bay.

So for RDverse, no need to move her.

In T2K, if she was still moved south in 1992, I think it more likely she'd be towed the short distance to Mare Island NSY than all the way north to Bremerton.

One thought though. She was stricken in 1979. So just what preservation measures were taken and what condition she's in by 1996/97 is an interesting question. By contrast, Des Moines and Salem were weren't struck until the early 1990s. Having said that, after moving to Suisun Bay,her hull was repaired and she was modified into a test platform and was occasionally towed out to see for tests.

Bremerton would probably have had the better facilities to refit her on the West Coast. She was still in pretty good shape when she was put in mothballs in 1979 as compared to many other ships that went into storage - they were about to do a full ten year extension on her and propulsion upgrades as well as weapon upgrades when they decided to mothball her due to congress cutting back on the military. Bringing her back as a gun cruiser and flagship with no missile systems wouldn't have been that hard.

Asheville Class Motor Gunboat

PGM-84 USS Asheville - Transferred to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy 11 April 1977, Broken up in 1985.

PGM-85 USS Gallup – Decommissioned in 1977 and placed in reserve, transferred to Naval Research Center Carderock, MD as a parts hulk in 1992

PGM-86 USS Antelope - Transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency 17 January 1978, Active as of 2001

PGM-87 USS Ready - Transferred to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy 11 April 1977, Broken up in 1985

PGM-88 USS Crockett - Transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency 17 January 1978, and scrapped in 1994

PGM-89 USS Marathon - Transferred to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy 11 April 1977, Broken up in 1985

PGM-90 Canon - Decommissioned in 1977 and placed in reserve, transferred to Naval Research Center Carderock, MD as a parts hulk in 1992

PGM-92 Tacoma – Sold to Columbia on 4 December 1995, Active

PGM-93 Welch – Sold to Columbia on 12 April 1995, Active

PGM-94 Chehalis - Converted to a Research Vessel and renamed R/V Athena, still active Homeport is Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City FL

PGM-95 Defiance – Sold to Turkey 11 June 1973, destroyed by fire 11 April 1985

PGM-96 Benicia – Sold to South Korea on 2 October 1971, returned to the US in 1991, scrapped 1998

PGM-97 Surprise – Sold to Turkey 11 June 1973, Active

PGM-98 Grand Rapids - Converted to a Research Vessel and renamed R/V Athena II, still active Homeport is Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City FL

PGM-99 Beacon - Transferred to Greece, 22 November 1989, in service till 1995

PGM-100 Douglas Rapids - Converted to a Research Vessel and renamed R/V Lauren, still active Homeport is Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City FL, Sunk as a target in 2008

PGM-101 Green Bay - Transferred to Greece, 22 November 1989, in service till 1995

Source: NavSource Online, Motor Gunboat/Patrol Gunboat Photo Archive

http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/11idx.htm


As you can see there are only six boats left in the US and two of those are been used a part hulks, but five of them are still US Navy and could brought back to active duty. The sixth boat is with the EPA and would like require a fair bit of modication as most of lab and other Science equipment would have to be removed.

My only question with recommissioning these ships is, where's the fuel they will burn coming from? I think any surviving Nuclear powered vessel would be worth it's weight in gold. The big aircraft carriers could be pressed into service as transports once their aircraft were expended. They can travel "Across the Pond" at will AND haul huge quantities of material while still being able to defend themselves from most remaining threats. I think the Navy would be concentrating on big container ships that were "upgunned" in order to move as much cargo as possible in a single trip. Patrols would be carried out with the smallest most economical ship that could perform the mission (including sailboats) in order to save any remaining fuel for the big container ships.

There's also the potential for nuclear powered vessels to act as tugs. Hauling a barge gives them increased capacity but they could effectively double/triple the capacity of a barge by towing a cargo ship instead.

Not saying it would be a common practice but if you're in a relatively safe area it's an alternative to trying to find fuel for all the diesel ships, particularly if you need cargo moved now instead of later.


Edit: There's a decent list of nuclear powered surface ships on the following link (it's just a matter of figuring which ships survived!)
http://www.radiationworks.com/nuclearships.htm

Remember a lot of the older ships had engines that could burn very dirty fuel - ie basically unrefined oil. That kind of fuel is still going to be available because you don't have to go thru the effort of refining it - thus the older ships are actually the best ones they would have to use from a fuel standpoint compared to modern ships.

Let alone the older ships have less complex fire control and weapons systems - especially in a post TDM America (as in Last Submarine) where they were lucky to scrape up a half dozen modern torpedoes - whereas I doubt there is any shortage of 5 inch naval gum ammo.

Warning: here be snippage
Apparently PGM-96 USS Benicia was returned to the US Navy and stayed in Korea, where it was scrapped in 1998. In mid-90's, it would take a lot of fuel to return it to CONUS or even further to Europe or the Middle East.

If you'd care to stretch things a bit, the two sales to Colombia (effective Late 1995) might be cancelled with international conflict on the rise, and perhaps the scrapping of PGM-88 USS Crockett, might have been delayed, but only if you take into account the resurgence of the Hardline Communist Soviet Union post 1990 in the V2 timeline. "Scrapping" doesn't mean "Immediately Broken Up" necessarily. That would make up to 8 ships with a possible 2 more if extreme efforts were made to bring back the parts hulks to full function.
Depending what sorts of equipment the EPA boat has aboard, it might behoove them to leave it in place, if it's still working post-EMP.

PGM-97 USS Surprise, the one of the two PGMs sold to Turkey that didn't burn up may be salvageable or just in need of repair/fuel somewhere on the Mediterranian/Black Sea coasts. Mediterranian Cruise sideshow perhaps?

To echo a previously mentioned concern: where will the fuel for the gas turbines come from for the Ashevilles? Or will the turbines be removed and the weight replaced with more functional and necessary items?

Yes I agree you could stretch it game play, but in reality the USN doesn’t really need them for the upcoming conflict so why keep them, yes they are great small boats for game play but of what use could USN have for them? The where built after the Cuban Missile Crisis for use in the Caribbean but then ended up going to war in Vietnam. The US transfers some to South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand at the end of the war. This was done because the USN wanted out of the Brown water business. I am guessing that it saw all Soviet Shipping building of Capital Ships and figure they better catch up.

Yes maybe they could used in Caribbean, but how good a boat designed for small craft interception going to be against a Soviet Sub? Granted that both Turkey and Greece have Ashville’s but in small number and used as auxiliary craft and combat craft and I don’t think they would survived the Turks and Greeks going head to head.

There a few small boats that you could use a CONTUS base campaign

Asheville-Class Gunboat

PGM-85 USS Gallup – Transferred to Naval Research Center Carderock, MD as a parts hulk
PGM-90 Canon - Transferred to Naval Research Center Carderock, MD as a parts hulk
PGM-86 USS Antelope - Transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency
PGM-88 USS Crockett - Transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency awaiting scrapping at a reserve fleet location

PGM-94 Chehalis - Renamed R/V Athena, Homeport NSWC, Panama City FL
PGM-98 Grand Rapids - Renamed R/V Athena II, Homeport NSWC, Panama City FL
PGM-100 Douglas Rapids - Renamed R/V Lauren, Homeport NSWC, Panama City FL

Patrol Craft Fast (PCF)

PCF-1- In Storage at Naval Historical Center Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C
PCF-2 – Renamed R/V Matthew F. Maury operated by Tidewater Community College in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

United States Coast Guard Point-Class Cutters

There would about 48 of these boats still active service most with the coast guard.

Patrol Boat, River or PBR

There are five boats in use at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado to support special warfare training

Did some research and the USS Trout was in a lot better shape than I thought - she was retained at Key West until 2003 and was not only in fully usable shape but could still dive (300 feet or less depth) and was capable of bottoming

http://www.submarinesailor.com/Boats.../helptrout.htm

From the site - the speed numbers are under remote control FYI

The Trout was sold to the Shah of Iran. She was rebuilt in 1979-1980 and restored to near perfect condition. Restoration included $26 million in upgrades, new engines, three sets of batteries, and all systems totally reconditioned. Before the transfer could take place the Iranians seized American hostages and the vessel was seized by the US along with other Iranian assets. The vessel lay at Inactive Ships Facilities in the Philadelphia Shipyard while legal and diplomatic efforts ensued.

The USS Trout was sold at scrap value to the Program Executive Office for Undersea Warfare (PEO USW) in 1994 and moored at Newport, Rhode Island. The vessel was then acquired by the NAWCAD Key West Detachment as an underwater acoustic target for ASW research and development, operational testing and training requirements for the US Navy.

Based on ASW fleet input, NAWCAD felt there existed a need for an underwater acoustic target. The US Navy has had a difficult time obtaining required test and training time on realistic ASW acoustic targets.

It was thought the USS Trout II could provide necessary and timely services as a dedicated asset. It could allow unrestricted active search, with no standoff required. It can operate in less than 300 feet of water and is capable of bottoming. It will operate at one to three knots and will allow torpedo terminal homing algorithm testing.

With a crew she was capable of 16 knots and still had crew quarters and accommodations

From a 2003 appeal to try to save the sub

This boat is a virtual time capsule, with the majority of her systems not only intact, but operational. Even her batteries are brand-new (without electrolyte)

Thus the Navy would have access to a fully operational diesel boat - i.e. she isnt a fast attack but she is capable of diving, has fresh batteries and still had her torpedo tubes and she can fire the Mark 48 - the Trout was actually the primary firing ship for the evaluation of the Mark 48 when it was first introduced into the fleet

One possibility for her may be that she is part of the Sea Lord's forces - i.e. he dispatched a ship with fuel to man her and take her up to Jacksonville

Not Happening
 

I visited the USS Midway museum in San Diego yesterday. If you ever get a chance to go, I recommend it. I asked the docent giving the bridge tour, "So, this is probably kind of a weird question, but if the US got into another world war, how long would it take to recommission the Midway?"

His reply, "Never. Her hull's OK- obviously, she still floats- but too much stuff has been removed and technology's changed a lot since '92...

"Guess how long it took to build the Navy's newest carrier, the Gerald Ford? 9 years!"

Me: "So you'd think it'd make more sense to try to put the Midway back into action than to start building a brand new carrier that probably wouldn't be completed before the war was over."

Docent: "Yeah, I just don't see that [Midway returning to action] happening. They've done too much to her since decommissioning."

The docent wasn't a naval engineer or anything like that, but it makes me wonder how viable returning a museum ship to combat service condition would really be.

-

Not very, in most cases. In many cases the ships haven't had engine maintenance (if they still have engines at all), for instance, and probably would need extensive work.

Absolutely, but doesn't rebuilding an engine seem like it would be a lot more expedient than building an entirely new vessel from the keel up?

-

Having been responsible for sourcing parts on much smaller old vehicles, not necessarily. It's very likely parts will be obsolete, which means sourcing both the right material (which may not be commercially available) and someone who can take old drawings and make a part from them (which may or may not work if modifications to the design never made it into the drawing). Repeat that process a few hundred or thousand times for a large assembly, and pretty soon you're edging towards a case where it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to just make something new.